From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.windriver.com ([147.11.1.11]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RiU0E-0004u0-SG for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 17:47:51 +0100 Received: from ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (ala-hca [147.11.189.40]) by mail.windriver.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q04GeRPq000372 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 08:40:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from Macintosh-5.local (172.25.36.228) by ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (147.11.189.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.255.0; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 08:40:27 -0800 Message-ID: <4F0480FA.2020809@windriver.com> Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 10:40:26 -0600 From: Mark Hatle Organization: Wind River Systems User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: References: <1325642890.24646.8.camel@lenny> <1325694194.20759.23.camel@ted> In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [poky] -dev RPM packages Require:ing all of their bitbake build dependences 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: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:47:51 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 1/4/12 10:34 AM, Chris Larson wrote: > On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Richard Purdie > wrote: >>> Another approach would be to stop injecting -dev Requires by default. I >>> imagine this was done to handle the case of library A whose headers >>> require library B. However, a saner way to handle this I think is >>> simply to push people to use pkg-config; IIRC a script exists to extract >>> pkg-config dependencies from the .pc files and use that for the RPM >>> auto-dependency phase. That would ensure that e.g. gtk+-dev Requires: >>> glib-dev. This doesn't help non-pkg-config libraries, but those people >>> should be shamed anyways =) >> >> I think these dependencies are wrong and need revisiting. Currently, >> -dev and -dbg packages share the same code and its tilted more in favour >> of -dbg than it is for -dev. >> >> I think the -dev packages make sense if you want to build X but not >> build something that just depends on X. We should therefore move the >> dependencies to a new package (need a good name) and rethink the -dev >> package dependencies. > > > I'm inclined to say let the user install the deps needed to build X > themselves, or build it with bitbake, and let -dev work the way it > does in other distros, the bits needed to build against X. Ya, that seems to be the best solution for a more modern system. This will require a combination of additional automatic dependency detection and also manual intervention when that detection isn't complete. The complications with the automatic detection are around the header files... we'll need to detect when one header includes another, and then translate that to an associated -dev file. But I know there are intentionally broken includes (wrapped in #if's etc..) --Mark