On 11/08/2013 04:18 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
On Fri, 2013-11-08 at 16:10 +0800, wenzong fan wrote:
On 11/07/2013 07:12 PM, Burton, Ross wrote:
On 7 November 2013 11:03, wrote:
From: Wenzong Fan
Just ship these sources to their own dbg packages instead of udev-dbg:
libudev* -> libud
On 11/08/2013 04:18 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
On Fri, 2013-11-08 at 16:10 +0800, wenzong fan wrote:
On 11/07/2013 07:12 PM, Burton, Ross wrote:
On 7 November 2013 11:03, wrote:
From: Wenzong Fan
Just ship these sources to their own dbg packages instead of udev-dbg:
libudev* -> libud
On Fri, 2013-11-08 at 16:10 +0800, wenzong fan wrote:
> On 11/07/2013 07:12 PM, Burton, Ross wrote:
> > On 7 November 2013 11:03, wrote:
> >> From: Wenzong Fan
> >>
> >> Just ship these sources to their own dbg packages instead of udev-dbg:
> >>
> >> libudev* -> libudev-dbg
> >> gudev*
On 11/07/2013 07:12 PM, Burton, Ross wrote:
On 7 November 2013 11:03, wrote:
From: Wenzong Fan
Just ship these sources to their own dbg packages instead of udev-dbg:
libudev* -> libudev-dbg
gudev* -> libgudev-dbg
others -> udev-dbg
Why do this? Multiple -dbg packages c
On 7 November 2013 11:03, wrote:
> From: Wenzong Fan
>
> Just ship these sources to their own dbg packages instead of udev-dbg:
>
> libudev* -> libudev-dbg
> gudev* -> libgudev-dbg
> others -> udev-dbg
Why do this? Multiple -dbg packages could make sense in a recipe
which build
From: Wenzong Fan
Just ship these sources to their own dbg packages instead of udev-dbg:
libudev* -> libudev-dbg
gudev* -> libgudev-dbg
others -> udev-dbg
The following changes since commit d6cc7c8ed76c8b1117cf03c7bd4b0742f98f79b3:
toolchain-scripts/meta-environment: Further
