[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Do we need -dev packages

On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 09:56:03 -0500
Jim Heck <pinball.rules@gmail.com> wrote:

> My project makes use of -dev packages.  Specifically, we use these in
> conjunction with a target NFS image that supports far more stuff than we
> deploy in our actual flash image.
> As such, we are currently not using Grip, but rather the full Debian mirror
> packages, along with script based stripping of doc/man/locale in a script
> that runs on target following configuration of the root fs packages (root fs
> prepared with multistrap).  I resorted to this so that I wouldn't have
> multistrap errors over mismatched package names when -dev packages call for
> dependencies and find packages with Grip variant names.
> Our approach to a final flash image is a little unique in that we use our
> own "baking" method to choose exactly what ends up on flash.

There are still options here - it is advisable to use emgrip to prepare
the -dev packages so that the strict dependencies will work. apt-grip
can prepare a bunch of packages for use with Grip and it no longer
cares about which architecture is being prepared.

I don't check the -dev components for missing dependencies (doc, debug
and java are not checked either) due to lack of time and lack of
automated support in the edos-debcheck tool. However, if there are
particular packages missing, there are two options:

0: similar to Baked, use apt-grip to prepare a directory of packages
which are included into a local repository.

1: Nag me to add the missing packages to Grip. There is a delay in this

The current set of -dev packages was originally made from the
build-deps of the packages already in Emdebian Grip. From time to time,
those will slip.

I'm glad that people are using the -dev component. I don't want to be
preparing stuff that people do not find useful. It also helps clarify
what is going on to those in Debian who wonder why we do such things.


Neil Williams

Attachment: pgpkdL75AMYH2.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: