Koen Kooi wrote: > > Would it make sense to package stripped version of a static lib into -dev > > and > > the full version into corresponding -dbg? > > What about the stripped version in -dev and the corresponding symbols in > -dbg?
Or: 1. Disable static by default. Static libraries are rarely needed. Recipes (or distros) that want static libraries must explicitly enable it. 2. What about -dev, -dbg, -static and -static-dbg? I have tens of .a files installed on my microdrive, because .so* are sufficient. Four sub-packages may sound as a overkill, but I don't think so. Static counterparts of shared libraries are really very rarely needed. It would need to improve the splitting logic a bit, but it is still possible to automatize it: - libfoo.so was installed -> libfoo.a should go to -static and dbg to -static-dbg. - libfoo.a was installed alone -> libfoo.a should go to -static and dbg to -static-dbg. - very few packages need to be handled individually (e. g. glibc, packages that install libfoo_pic.a etc.) -- Stanislav Brabec http://www.penguin.cz/~utx/zaurus _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
