[oe] [RFC] -dbg for static libraries?
utx at penguin.cz
Thu Sep 17 14:16:08 CEST 2009
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
1. Disable static by default. Static libraries are rarely needed.
Recipes (or distros) that want static libraries must explicitly enable
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
- libfoo.a was installed alone -> libfoo.a should go to -static and dbg
- very few packages need to be handled individually (e. g. glibc,
packages that install libfoo_pic.a etc.)
More information about the Openembedded-devel