1 |
On Thu, 2005-10-27 at 09:40 -0400, Olivier CrĂȘte wrote: |
2 |
> On Thu, 2005-27-10 at 09:36 +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
3 |
> > On Thursday 27 October 2005 02:15, Luca Barbato wrote: |
4 |
> > > Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
5 |
> > > > In the case of embedded it is clear that what in binary distributions |
6 |
> > > > is part of the development package (.la files, static libraries, |
7 |
> > > > header files) is not desired at all. To break dependencies to only |
8 |
> > > > strip away some of the headers seems to me a half solution that |
9 |
> > > > breaks a lot and doesn't solve the problem either. |
10 |
> > > |
11 |
> > > Btw embedded has already different way to archive the same result (ok, |
12 |
> > > removing headers and static libs after isn't really the cleanest |
13 |
> > > solution but works fine) |
14 |
> > |
15 |
> > The hardest part is probably to build all these packages as the finals |
16 |
> > shouldn't have headers while the intermediates (used to build other |
17 |
> > finals against) should. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> Again, why not leave everything in the packages and use INSTALL_MASK on |
20 |
> embedded systems ? |
21 |
|
22 |
|
23 |
This thread can end. ciaranm provided an example yesterday and his case |
24 |
is pretty much for c++ templates and the cases I'm making are for |
25 |
things like (example thats no longer valid) wireless-tools pulling in |
26 |
linux headers and or source into a $ROOT via $RDEPEND due some eclass. |
27 |
|
28 |
INSTALL_MASK was created for embedded systems by iggy to partially deal |
29 |
with this sorta problem. It helps but it's not the end all solution. |
30 |
|
31 |
|
32 |
-- |
33 |
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> |
34 |
|
35 |
-- |
36 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |