unique -dev package

There should be only one dev package which is libbz2-dev, so remove bzip2-dev.

Signed-off-by Robert Yang <[email protected]>

---
meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2_1.0.6.bb | 3 ++-

1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2_1.0.6.bb +0 -0

index ed12277..d1d1c8d 100644
@@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ SRC_URI[md5sum] = "00b516f4704d4a7cb50a1d97e6e8e15b"

SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "a2848f34fcd5d6cf47def00461fcb528a0484d8edef8208d6d2e2909dc61d9cd"

PACKAGES =+ "libbz2 libbz2-dev libbz2-staticdev"
+PACKAGES_remove = "bzip2-dev bzip2-staticdev”

CFLAGS_append = " -fPIC -fpic -Winline -fno-strength-reduce -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64"

meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2_1.0.6.bb +0 -0

@@ -35,7 +36,7 @@ do_install_ptest () {
 

FILES_libbz2 = "${libdir}/lib*${SOLIBS}"

meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2_1.0.6.bb +1 -1

-FILES_libbz2-dev = "${includedir} ${libdir}/lib*${SOLIBSDEV}"
+FILES_libbz2-dev = "${includedir} ${libdir}/lib*${SOLIBSDEV} ${libdir}/lib*.la"

SECTION_libbz2-dev = "devel"
RDEPENDS_libbz2-dev = "libbz2 (= ${EXTENDPKGV})"

Signature · 7 lines

1.7.9.5

-- 
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

Quoted 18 lines · Robert Yang

There should be only one dev package which is libbz2-dev, so remove bzip2-dev.

Signed-off-by Robert Yang <[email protected]>

---
meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2_1.0.6.bb | 3 ++-

1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2_1.0.6.bb +0 -0

index ed12277..d1d1c8d 100644
@@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ SRC_URI[md5sum] = "00b516f4704d4a7cb50a1d97e6e8e15b"

SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "a2848f34fcd5d6cf47def00461fcb528a0484d8edef8208d6d2e2909dc61d9cd"

Quoted 2 lines

PACKAGES =+ "libbz2 libbz2-dev libbz2-staticdev"
+PACKAGES_remove = "bzip2-dev bzip2-staticdev”

why remove ${PN}-dev ? others should be removed IMO

Quoted 21 lines

CFLAGS_append = " -fPIC -fpic -Winline -fno-strength-reduce -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64"

meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2_1.0.6.bb +0 -0

@@ -35,7 +36,7 @@ do_install_ptest () {
 

FILES_libbz2 = "${libdir}/lib*${SOLIBS}"

meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2_1.0.6.bb +1 -1

-FILES_libbz2-dev = "${includedir} ${libdir}/lib*${SOLIBSDEV}"
+FILES_libbz2-dev = "${includedir} ${libdir}/lib*${SOLIBSDEV} ${libdir}/lib*.la"

SECTION_libbz2-dev = "devel"
RDEPENDS_libbz2-dev = "libbz2 (= ${EXTENDPKGV})"

--
1.7.9.5

--
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

Quoted 18 lines · Khem Raj

Quoted 18 lines · Robert Yang

There should be only one dev package which is libbz2-dev, so remove bzip2-dev.

Signed-off-by Robert Yang <[email protected]>

---
meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2_1.0.6.bb | 3 ++-

1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2_1.0.6.bb +0 -0

index ed12277..d1d1c8d 100644
@@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ SRC_URI[md5sum] = "00b516f4704d4a7cb50a1d97e6e8e15b"

SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "a2848f34fcd5d6cf47def00461fcb528a0484d8edef8208d6d2e2909dc61d9cd"

Quoted 4 lines

Quoted 2 lines

PACKAGES =+ "libbz2 libbz2-dev libbz2-staticdev"
+PACKAGES_remove = "bzip2-dev bzip2-staticdev”

why remove ${PN}-dev ? others should be removed IMO

I think that it had added libbz2-dev was because debian/ubuntu uses libbz2-dev, the similar to xz.

Quoted 30 lines · Robert Yang

Quoted 22 lines · Khem Raj

Quoted 18 lines · Robert Yang

There should be only one dev package which is libbz2-dev, so remove bzip2-dev.

Signed-off-by Robert Yang <[email protected]>

---
meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2_1.0.6.bb | 3 ++-

1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2_1.0.6.bb +0 -0

index ed12277..d1d1c8d 100644
@@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ SRC_URI[md5sum] = "00b516f4704d4a7cb50a1d97e6e8e15b"

SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "a2848f34fcd5d6cf47def00461fcb528a0484d8edef8208d6d2e2909dc61d9cd"

Quoted 2 lines

PACKAGES =+ "libbz2 libbz2-dev libbz2-staticdev"
+PACKAGES_remove = "bzip2-dev bzip2-staticdev”

why remove ${PN}-dev ? others should be removed IMO

Quoted 2 lines

I think that it had added libbz2-dev was because debian/ubuntu uses libbz2-dev, the similar to xz.

we have rpm and opkg hats as well.

Hello,

I think that one recipe should only have one -dev package, I'm not sure whether this is right or not, please feel free to give your comments, we still have about 30 recipes in oe-core which have more than one dev packages, more info:
https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7481

Hello,

I think that one recipe should only have one -dev package, I'm not sure whether this is right or not, please feel free to give your comments, we

still have about 30 recipes in oe-core which have more than one dev packages, more info:
https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7481

// Robert

The following changes since commit fbaddd724855a829698d853a70eee86118d6a5e7:

  package_manager: call createrepo with --dbpath pointing inside WORKDIR (2015-04-02 12:00:55 +0100)

are available in the git repository at:

git://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core-contrib rbt/dev
http://cgit.openembedded.org/cgit.cgi/openembedded-core-contrib/log/?h=rbt/dev

Robert Yang (2):
xz: remove xz-dev from PACKAGES
bzip2: remove bzip2-dev from PACKAGES

 meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2_1.0.6.bb |    3 ++-
 meta/recipes-extended/xz/xz_5.2.0.bb       |    2 +-
 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Signature · 7 lines

1.7.9.5

-- 
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

Quoted 4 lines · Robert Yang

Hello,

I think that one recipe should only have one -dev package, I'm not sure whether this is right or not, please feel free to give your comments, we

I know it is already 1 year since this change. But I can't seem to find any discussion or any explanation to why this change was required and what specific problem it was supposed to fix. Please point me to a clear reasoning of this change. Thanks.

Quoted 6 lines · Denys Dmytriyenko

Quoted 4 lines · Robert Yang

Hello,

I think that one recipe should only have one -dev package, I'm not sure whether this is right or not, please feel free to give your comments, we

Quoted 4 lines

I know it is already 1 year since this change. But I can't seem to find any discussion or any explanation to why this change was required and what specific problem it was supposed to fix. Please point me to a clear reasoning of this change. Thanks.

There is only one source package, so there should be only one pack of header files, dev libs, and so on, and they should be placed in a uniq pkg.

Quoted 17 lines · Robert Yang

Quoted 15 lines · Denys Dmytriyenko

Quoted 6 lines · Robert Yang

Hello,

I think that one recipe should only have one -dev package, I'm not sure
whether this is right or not, please feel free to give your comments, we

I know it is already 1 year since this change. But I can't seem to find any
discussion or any explanation to why this change was required and what
specific problem it was supposed to fix. Please point me to a clear reasoning
of this change. Thanks.

Quoted 4 lines

There is only one source package, so there should be only one pack of header
files, dev libs, and so on, and they should be placed in a uniq pkg.

Since you are using "should" twice in the same sentence, can you please point
me to a ratified RFC?

Quoted 18 lines · Denys Dmytriyenko

Quoted 17 lines · Robert Yang

Quoted 15 lines · Denys Dmytriyenko

Quoted 6 lines · Robert Yang

Hello,

I think that one recipe should only have one -dev package, I'm not sure
whether this is right or not, please feel free to give your comments, we

I know it is already 1 year since this change. But I can't seem to find any
discussion or any explanation to why this change was required and what
specific problem it was supposed to fix. Please point me to a clear reasoning
of this change. Thanks.

Quoted 8 lines

Quoted 4 lines

There is only one source package, so there should be only one pack of header
files, dev libs, and so on, and they should be placed in a uniq pkg.

Since you are using "should" twice in the same sentence, can you please point
me to a ratified RFC?

I couldn't seem to see the history of this discussion in my mail folder but I do remember some patches along these lines.

The reason for a single -dev package is that the "package chain" functions we have assumes this. I know there are some specific cases where we do have multiple -dev packages (qt4, gcc-runtime) but they are very much in the minority and are special cases.

I'm definitely on record as saying the depchains code needs revisiting and redoing, preferably with a structured rethink so that we can better handle situations like this. Until that is done, multiple -dev packages can cause issues and we did remove some where there didn't seem to be any real benefit.

Which case is causing problems for you?

Quoted 36 lines · Richard Purdie

Quoted 18 lines · Denys Dmytriyenko

Quoted 17 lines · Robert Yang

Quoted 15 lines · Denys Dmytriyenko

Quoted 6 lines · Robert Yang

Hello,

I think that one recipe should only have one -dev package, I'm not sure
whether this is right or not, please feel free to give your comments, we

I know it is already 1 year since this change. But I can't seem to find any
discussion or any explanation to why this change was required and what
specific problem it was supposed to fix. Please point me to a clear reasoning
of this change. Thanks.

Quoted 8 lines

Quoted 4 lines

There is only one source package, so there should be only one pack of header
files, dev libs, and so on, and they should be placed in a uniq pkg.

Since you are using "should" twice in the same sentence, can you please point
me to a ratified RFC?

I couldn't seem to see the history of this discussion in my mail folder but I do remember some patches along these lines.

The reason for a single -dev package is that the "package chain" functions we have assumes this. I know there are some specific cases where we do have multiple -dev packages (qt4, gcc-runtime) but they are very much in the minority and are special cases.

Quoted 7 lines

I'm definitely on record as saying the depchains code needs revisiting and redoing, preferably with a structured rethink so that we can better handle situations like this. Until that is done, multiple -dev packages can cause issues and we did remove some where there didn't seem to be any real benefit.

Which case is causing problems for you?

Thanks, Richard.

I was updating some of our old recipes to work with the latest code and had to replace dependencies on libblah-dev to blah-dev as well as -staticdev and -dbg in several places. When tried to dig up any relevant discussion on this matter either as a discussion or clear explanation of the problem this causes, I couldn't find any, hence my inquiry.

Quoted 45 lines · Denys Dmytriyenko

Quoted 36 lines · Richard Purdie

Quoted 18 lines · Denys Dmytriyenko

Quoted 17 lines · Robert Yang

Quoted 15 lines · Denys Dmytriyenko

Quoted 6 lines · Robert Yang

Hello,

I think that one recipe should only have one -dev package, I'm not sure
whether this is right or not, please feel free to give your comments, we

I know it is already 1 year since this change. But I can't seem to find any
discussion or any explanation to why this change was required and what
specific problem it was supposed to fix. Please point me to a clear reasoning
of this change. Thanks.

Quoted 8 lines

Quoted 4 lines

There is only one source package, so there should be only one pack of header
files, dev libs, and so on, and they should be placed in a uniq pkg.

Since you are using "should" twice in the same sentence, can you please point
me to a ratified RFC?

I couldn't seem to see the history of this discussion in my mail folder but I do remember some patches along these lines.

The reason for a single -dev package is that the "package chain" functions we have assumes this. I know there are some specific cases where we do have multiple -dev packages (qt4, gcc-runtime) but they are very much in the minority and are special cases.

Quoted 7 lines

I'm definitely on record as saying the depchains code needs revisiting and redoing, preferably with a structured rethink so that we can better handle situations like this. Until that is done, multiple -dev packages can cause issues and we did remove some where there didn't seem to be any real benefit.

Which case is causing problems for you?

Quoted 8 lines

Thanks, Richard.

I was updating some of our old recipes to work with the latest code and had to replace dependencies on libblah-dev to blah-dev as well as -staticdev and -dbg in several places. When tried to dig up any relevant discussion on this matter either as a discussion or clear explanation of the problem this causes, I couldn't find any, hence my inquiry.

You might have been thinking about my problems with -dbg packaging that currently breaks a number of dependencies. Bug #9104

So, why -dbg cannot follow the example of -dev and -staticdev packages? I.e.
in your ffmpeg example it would mean creating all the necessary libblah-dbg packages. Why isn't it the option?