From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from vms173021pub.verizon.net (vms173021pub.verizon.net [206.46.173.21]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1F666067D for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 19:10:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vz-proxy-l008.mx.aol.com ([64.236.82.152]) by vms173021.mailsrvcs.net (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7.0.5.32.0 64bit (built Jul 16 2014)) with ESMTPA id <0O5H00I3DH9AXKA0@vms173021.mailsrvcs.net> for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 14:10:23 -0500 (CDT) X-CMAE-Score: 0 X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=EdU1O6SC c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=a3t/a0oOYlYu/nGe1mf8ZA==:117 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=kziv93cY1bsA:10 a=ij1c-rEgsU70pJSVk7gA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 Received: by 100.15.86.14 with SMTP id 1dd22290; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 19:10:22 GMT Received: by gandalf.denix.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 23034161F92; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 15:10:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 15:10:22 -0400 From: Denys Dmytriyenko To: Gary Thomas Message-id: <20160411191022.GS16135@denix.org> References: <20160410225130.GK16135@denix.org> <570AFBA4.40201@windriver.com> <20160411014945.GL16135@denix.org> <1460363748.9308.30.camel@linuxfoundation.org> <20160411134240.GO16135@denix.org> <570BB0B6.4070907@mlbassoc.com> MIME-version: 1.0 In-reply-to: <570BB0B6.4070907@mlbassoc.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] unique -dev package X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 19:10:24 -0000 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-disposition: inline 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