BUMP only a few recipes remaining. First question is, are those -static really needed? If so, then please propose a renaming.
Regards Andrea On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Khem Raj <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi > > I have seen that we have parallel recipes for some applications for static > build > called package-static.bb like below > > ./dialog/dialog-static_1.1-20080819.bb > ./busybox/busybox-static_1.2.1.bb > ./busybox/busybox-static_1.11.3.bb DONE > ./kexec-tools/kexec-tools-klibc-static_1.101.bb DONE> ./kexec-tools/kexec-tools-klibc-static_2.0.1.bb DONE> ./zaurus-utils/nandlogical-klibc-static_1.0.0.bb DONE> ./klibc/klibc-utils-static_1.5.15+1.5.16.bb DONE> ./klibc/klibc-utils-static_1.5.18.bb DONE> ./klibc/klibc-utils-static_1.5.15.bb DONE> ./klibc/klibc-utils-static_1.5.bb DONE> ./klibc/klibc-utils-static_1.5.17.bb > ./skype/skype-static_2.0.0.72.bb > ./udev/udev-static-devices.bb > ./udev/udev-static_124.bb > > Now they conflict with the automatic package that we generate to bundle > static libraries. Since the the packages which bundle static libraries > are essentially development packages may be they should be called > > <package>-dev-static instead of <package>-static > > IMO that will avoid the conflict and also clarify the package content > a bit > > Thoughts? > > -Khem > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel > _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
