From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QTdKH-0004El-QA for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 06 Jun 2011 19:10:54 +0200 Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 06 Jun 2011 09:50:35 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,327,1304319600"; d="scan'208";a="12560474" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.255.13.99]) ([10.255.13.99]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 06 Jun 2011 09:50:35 -0700 Message-ID: <4DED055A.8010200@linux.intel.com> Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 09:50:34 -0700 From: Saul Wold User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110428 Fedora/3.1.10-1.fc13 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer References: <3eba2df4c6f2371db24ab2420d037b992725cb84.1307342214.git.sgw@linux.intel.com> <1307343323.3131.1.camel@lenovo.internal.reciva.com> <1307357430.7672.7.camel@rex> In-Reply-To: <1307357430.7672.7.camel@rex> Subject: Re: [CONSOLIDATED PULL 01/20] bitbake.conf: Create staticlibs pacakge for static libraries X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer 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, 06 Jun 2011 17:10:54 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 06/06/2011 03:50 AM, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 07:55 +0100, Phil Blundell wrote: >> On Sun, 2011-06-05 at 23:44 -0700, Saul Wold wrote: >>> SECTION_${PN}-dev = "devel" >>> ALLOW_EMPTY_${PN}-dev = "1" >>> RDEPENDS_${PN}-dev = "${PN} (= ${EXTENDPKGV})" >>> >>> +FILES_${PN}-staticlibs = "${libdir}/*.a ${base_libdir}/*.a" >>> +SECTION_${PN}-staticlibs = "devel" >>> +RDEPENDS_${PN}-staticlibs = "${PN}-dev (= ${EXTENDPV})" >> >> This should be ${EXTENDPKGV}, right? > > It should. > > I'm also not 100% convinced I like "-staticlibs" vs "-staticdev" as it > doesn't feel consistent. > > The user gets exposed to these at the package manager level and will > "xxx install xxx-staticX". The end result they'll get will be the > installation of everything they need for static development (i.e. the > -dev packages will get pulled in for the headers). This means they don't > just result in the static libs as there are dependencies there. From the > user perspective they are therefore packages for static development, not > just the static libraries... > Richard, I agree that they are for development and that by their nature they have a dependency on the Development packages, but they contain libs only, not all the development headers or tools, I think its therefore mis-leading to call the package staticdev since they do not contain all the development bits (they might depend on all the bits). It's a subtle but important distinction. As was pointed out earlier Fedora packages static libraries in a "-static" package, but this had other implications for OE due to -static already being in use (for busybox and mplayer), I am not sure that this is not a problem for OE-Core, I would need to investigate. Meego also seems to use the Fedora standard with "-static". I still believe that -staticlibs is a better identifier for these packages. Sau! > Cheers, > > Richard > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core >