Patchwork [V2,00/25] Static Library Updated

login
register
mail settings
Submitter Saul Wold
Date July 13, 2011, 7:33 a.m.
Message ID <cover.1310541680.git.sgw@linux.intel.com>
Download mbox
Permalink /patch/7475/
State New, archived
Headers show

Pull-request

git://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core-contrib sgw/static

Comments

Saul Wold - July 13, 2011, 7:33 a.m.
Richard,

This patch includes feedback from the community.


Thanks
	Sau!

The following changes since commit a6e9edb7b4b5b0bdb067a59d691d33fba8948963:

  sato-sdk: add clutter for sato-sdk image (2011-07-12 15:23:35 +0100)

are available in the git repository at:
  git://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core-contrib sgw/static
  http://cgit.openembedded.org/cgit.cgi/openembedded-core-contrib/log/?h=sgw/static

Saul Wold (25):
  bitbake.conf: Add *-config to default ${PN}-dev package
  shlibpackaging.bbclass: create common class
  pciutils: repackage development files in pciutils instead of libpci
  wireless-tools: Updated for staticdevpackaging
  augeas: inherit shlibpackaging class
  gamin: inherit shlibpackaging class
  sqlite3: inherit shlibpackaging class
  curl: inherit shlibpackaging class
  attr: inherit shlibpackaging class
  rpm: Create -staticdev package
  libxft: use default bitbake.conf FILES Packaging to handle staticdev
  js: Use bitbake default FILES for packaging
  tcp-wrappers: Use bitbake default FILES for packaging
  udev: Use bitbake default FILES for packaging
  liba52: Use bitbake default FILES for packaging
  python: Use bitbake default FILES for packaging
  external-csl-toolchain: Use bitbake default FILES for packaging
  opkg: Use bitbake default FILES for packaging
  util-linux: Use bitbake default FILES for packaging
  gettext: Use bitbake default FILES for packaging
  gcc: Use bitbake default FILES for packaging
  glibc: Use bitbake default FILES for packaging
  eglibc: Use bitbake default FILES for packaging
  uclibc: Use bitbake default FILES for packaging
  binutils: Use bitbake default FILES for packaging

 meta/classes/shlibpackaging.bbclass                |    9 +++++++
 meta/conf/bitbake.conf                             |    2 +-
 meta/recipes-bsp/pciutils/pciutils_3.1.7.bb        |   10 +++----
 .../wireless-tools/wireless-tools_29.bb            |   14 ++++++----
 meta/recipes-core/eglibc/eglibc-common.inc         |    2 +-
 meta/recipes-core/eglibc/eglibc-package.inc        |    8 ++++--
 meta/recipes-core/gettext/gettext_0.16.1.bb        |    6 ++--
 meta/recipes-core/gettext/gettext_0.18.1.1.bb      |   24 +++++++++---------
 meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc-package.inc          |   12 ++++++---
 meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.10.1.bb            |    2 +-
 .../meta/external-csl-toolchain_2008q3-72.bb       |   20 ++++++++-------
 meta/recipes-core/uclibc/uclibc.inc                |    7 +++--
 meta/recipes-core/udev/udev-new.inc                |   26 ++++++++++++-------
 meta/recipes-core/udev/udev_164.bb                 |    2 +-
 meta/recipes-core/util-linux/util-linux.inc        |   17 +++++++++----
 meta/recipes-core/util-linux/util-linux_2.19.1.bb  |    2 +-
 .../binutils/binutils-cross-canadian_2.21.1.bb     |    2 +-
 meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-cross.inc  |    2 +
 .../binutils/binutils-cross_csl-arm-2008q1.bb      |    2 +-
 .../binutils/binutils-crosssdk_2.21.1.bb           |    2 +-
 meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils.inc        |    9 +-----
 meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils_2.21.1.bb  |    2 +-
 meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-package-runtime.inc  |   25 +++++++++++++-----
 meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/libgcc_4.6.bb            |    2 +-
 meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.1.8.bb           |   10 ++++---
 meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_svn.bb             |   10 ++++---
 meta/recipes-devtools/python/python_2.6.6.bb       |    4 +--
 meta/recipes-devtools/rpm/rpm_5.4.0.bb             |   18 +++++++------
 meta/recipes-extended/augeas/augeas.inc            |    7 +----
 meta/recipes-extended/augeas/augeas_0.8.1.bb       |    2 +-
 meta/recipes-extended/gamin/gamin_0.1.10.bb        |   13 +--------
 .../tcp-wrappers/tcp-wrappers_7.6.bb               |   17 +++++++-----
 meta/recipes-graphics/xorg-lib/libxft_2.2.0.bb     |    7 +----
 meta/recipes-multimedia/liba52/liba52_0.7.4.bb     |    4 +--
 meta/recipes-support/attr/acl_2.2.51.bb            |    2 +-
 meta/recipes-support/attr/attr_2.4.46.bb           |    2 +-
 meta/recipes-support/attr/ea-acl.inc               |   16 +-----------
 meta/recipes-support/curl/curl_7.21.7.bb           |   17 ++++--------
 meta/recipes-support/js/js_1.7.0+1.8.0rc1.bb       |    3 +-
 meta/recipes-support/sqlite/sqlite3.inc            |   10 +------
 40 files changed, 176 insertions(+), 175 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 meta/classes/shlibpackaging.bbclass
Richard Purdie - July 13, 2011, 10:07 a.m.
Hi Saul,

I know we touched on this when we've talked but I'm not sure you saw
what I was getting and and its probably better to ask this question on
the list anyhow.

Fundamentally, is it useful to have a ton of xxx-staticdev packages?

In a few key cases split -dev packages are useful (qt, eds, gcc spring
to mind). In general however they probably aren't and often no thought
has been given into splitting them out. One good indicator is whether
the headers are split up. If not, then there are likely issues.

If split -dev packages aren't useful, its likely that split staticdev
packages are also less useful. I'm really wondering if there ever is a
use case where you'd need the individual staticdev packages or you'd
have the disk space to manage installing the full thing?

Taking wireless-tools as an example, its going to a lot of effort to
change the default PACKAGES and create a libiw-dev package. It drops the
wireless-tools-dev package in the original, your patch changes this so
we have both a wireless-tools-dev and a libiw-dev package.

Perhaps instead we should just add:

PKG_${PN}-dev = "libiw-dev"
PKG_${PN}-staticdev = "libiw-staticdev"

? 

Do we even care about that renaming?

Likewise, does it need two separate docs packages? or separate -dbg
packages?

We really need to work out the approach to these fundamental questions
before we can then look at the series...

I think I'm in favour of minimising the number of split
-dev/-dbg/-staticdev/-doc packages out there and hence I therefore am
uncomfortable with the direction the series is taking.

Cheers,

Richard