Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] unique -dev package

[Denys Dmytriyenko <denis@denix.org>]

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 04:12:06PM +0200, Gary Thomas wrote:
> On 2016-04-11 15:42, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> >On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 09:35:48AM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> >>On Sun, 2016-04-10 at 21:49 -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> >>>On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 09:19:32AM +0800, Robert Yang wrote:
> >>>>On 04/11/2016 06:51 AM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> >>>>>On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 05:58:13AM -0700, Robert Yang wrote:
> >>>>>>Hello,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I think that one recipe should only have one -dev package, I'm
> >>>>>>not sure
> >>>>>>whether this is right or not, please feel free to give your
> >>>>>>comments, we
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I know it is already 1 year since this change. But I can't seem
> >>>>>to find any
> >>>>>discussion or any explanation to why this change was required and
> >>>>>what
> >>>>>specific problem it was supposed to fix. Please point me to a
> >>>>>clear reasoning
> >>>>>of this change. Thanks.
> >>>>
> >>>>There is only one source package, so there should be only one pack
> >>>>of header
> >>>>files, dev libs, and so on, and they should be placed in a uniq
> >>>>pkg.
> >>>
> >>>Since you are using "should" twice in the same sentence, can you
> >>>please point
> >>>me to a ratified RFC?
> >>
> >>I couldn't seem to see the history of this discussion in my mail folder
> >>but I do remember some patches along these lines.
> >>
> >>The reason for a single -dev package is that the "package chain"
> >>functions we have assumes this. I know there are some specific cases
> >>where we do have multiple -dev packages (qt4, gcc-runtime) but they are
> >>very much in the minority and are special cases.
> >>
> >>I'm definitely on record as saying the depchains code needs revisiting
> >>and redoing, preferably with a structured rethink so that we can better
> >>handle situations like this. Until that is done, multiple -dev packages
> >>can cause issues and we did remove some where there didn't seem to be
> >>any real benefit.
> >>
> >>Which case is causing problems for you?
> >
> >Thanks, Richard.
> >
> >I was updating some of our old recipes to work with the latest code and had to
> >replace dependencies on libblah-dev to blah-dev as well as -staticdev and -dbg
> >in several places. When tried to dig up any relevant discussion on this matter
> >either as a discussion or clear explanation of the problem this causes, I
> >couldn't find any, hence my inquiry.
> >
> 
> You might have been thinking about my problems with -dbg packaging that
> currently breaks a number of dependencies.  Bug #9104

So, why -dbg cannot follow the example of -dev and -staticdev packages? I.e. 
in your ffmpeg example it would mean creating all the necessary libblah-dbg 
packages. Why isn't it the option?

-- 
Denys