2010/10/26 Andrea Adami <[email protected]>: > 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 >>
I'm inclined to go to -dev-static for generated packages, so we can have -static recipes. One of the things still on my to do list is creating a static image (to see if it saves space). Frans _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
