On 02.09.2015 20:53, Otavio Salvador wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Martin Jansa <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 02:07:15PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Samuli Piippo
<[email protected]> wrote:
Some of the Qt modules have multiple libs, which prevents debian auto
renaming to work correctly. Instead of only having some modules renamed,
disable renaming for all Qt module packages, so that all they all are
named as ${PN}.
I don't think this explanation is good enough reason to disable debian
renaming and that's why I didn't take it into master-next yet.
The original idea was to let qt5 package with libraries coexist with qt4
ones, I agree that not many people are using this, but on the other hand
few people asked me to provide more granular packages for qt5, so
instead of disabling debian rename everywhere why don't we split the
packages with multiple libs or define LEAD_SONAME where one library is
significantly more important than the rest and the package should be
named after it?
I have mixed feelings about this. I do see the value of splitting it
more and I also see why people may want it in less fragmented set of
runtime packages.
Putting a second thought on this I think I agree with you. The
benefits of splitting it more are higher than having less runtime
packages.
I think we could take a look at the package split done in Debian for
inspiration and this would help to reduce many iterations to get this
right. What do you think?
I think the package split is something we should do, and has been on my
want-to-do list. This patch was an attempt to get packages in consistent
order until such time that the debian naming works correctly for all
modules. I haven't looked how Debian splits the packages, but that
sounds good place to start.
--
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
