Re: Revert "package bbclass: strip static libs as well"

[Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl>]

On 23-10-09 09:30, Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote:
> On Friday 23 October 2009 09:23:03 Koen Kooi wrote:
>
>>> I don't think we need to strip .a files as they will not end on the
>>> device
>>
>> They do actually
>>
>>> and people will link their binaries to them and we will strip the
>>> binaries.
>>
>> There was a discussion about that and I didn't see people objection, the
>> only point of contention was where to package the debug symbols. How do
>> you propropose to solve the problem that the .a files are huge?
>> Also, you don't mention any problems, you only say "I [..] think", which
>> usually isn't a good enough reason to revert stuff :)
>
> The above commits cause build problems and break the "toolchain" (native,
> cross-sdk) at runtime. The toolchain is broken as all symbols are stripped out
> of the libc_nonshared.a.

Ah, that's not nice

> Why do you need .a files on the device? Is this normal operation or only when
> installing -dev packages?

When installing -dev packages, yes. For example on the touchbook default 
image we ship a toolchain and -dev packages for clutter to allow people 
to build things on the target. By stripping the .a files we save about 
200MiB.

I can think of a few solutions:

* build toolchain packages with -ggdbN where N < 3
* use a safer stripping option in package.bbclass
* blacklist libc_nonshared.a

Do you have more solutions and which do you prefer? I really like to 
avoid blowing up -dev packages if we can safely strip (most of) them.

regards,

Koen