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 1UVk5m-00088x-P2 for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 16:57:43 +0200 Received: from ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (ala-hca.corp.ad.wrs.com [147.11.189.40]) by mail.windriver.com (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r3QEdtVN021299 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 26 Apr 2013 07:39:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Marks-MacBook-Pro.local (172.25.36.231) by ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (147.11.189.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.342.3; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 07:39:54 -0700 Message-ID: <517A91BA.7030200@windriver.com> Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 09:39:54 -0500 From: Mark Hatle Organization: Wind River Systems User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Phil Blundell References: <1349169606.32611.73.camel@phil-desktop> <1349176346.15753.139.camel@ted> <1349176541.32611.80.camel@phil-desktop> <1349177925.15753.140.camel@ted> <1366888374.14512.78.camel@phil-desktop.brightsign> <517933DC.9080809@windriver.com> <1366984657.14512.108.camel@phil-desktop.brightsign> <517A8C41.20202@windriver.com> <1366986469.14512.116.camel@phil-desktop.brightsign> In-Reply-To: <1366986469.14512.116.camel@phil-desktop.brightsign> Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] rootfs_ipk, image: Add debug capture support X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 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: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 14:57:43 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 4/26/13 9:27 AM, Phil Blundell wrote: > On Fri, 2013-04-26 at 09:16 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote: >> The alternative of course is to crease special -dbg packages for the two >> conflicting items. I.e. foo-dbg, foo-sulogin-dbg, bar-dbg and bar-sulogin-dbg... > > Yeah, indeed, that's what I suggested in my original email. At the time > I thought that would be hard to arrange (in the general case), but > having given it some further consideration perhaps it isn't all that bad > after all. I certainly wouldn't be against an enhancement that tries to match up the binaries to their debug and create suitably named -dbg packages. The only tricky part is what to do with the associated sources? Since those are not arranged according to binaries, but generally for the whole recipe. --Mark > p. > >