Rename chromeos-microbenchmark package to libchromeos-microbenchmark-dev

Rename chromeos-microbenchmark package to libchromeos-microbenchmark-dev

This package only contains a header file and a static library, so
libfoo-dev naming is more conventional, and it lets chromiumos-build
know that it can cross-convert the resulting package and install it to
satisfy future build-dependencies without having to add a special case.

[Will Drewry, 2010-01-25 14:53:17]

LGTM functionally, but I don't know why there's so much code duplication in the
make_pkg.sh now.  Seems like we shouldn't be reintroducing cutting and pasting
to the build process if we an help it.

http://codereview.chromium.org/553066/diff/1/3
File src/platform/microbenchmark/make_pkg.sh (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/553066/diff/1/3#newcode41
src/platform/microbenchmark/make_pkg.sh:41: popd
Why are we moving away from a centralized call source?  I don't see any reason
most of this can't be tucked away in functions which live in common.sh.

If the problem is that the package base doesn't start with 'lib', then we should
just modify the function, add a new one, or just do:

  make_pkg_common "*chromeos-microbenchmark" "$@"

which seems to work fine as well.

[cjwatson, 2010-01-25 14:59:27]

I'm in the process of obsoleting the entire family of make_pkg.sh functions;
once we finally manage to move to chromiumos-build, they can all be removed
entirely.  I felt I was better off putting energy into that move than polishing
this dying interface, which has a number of other problems ...

http://codereview.chromium.org/553066/diff/1/3
File src/platform/microbenchmark/make_pkg.sh (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/553066/diff/1/3#newcode41
src/platform/microbenchmark/make_pkg.sh:41: popd
On 2010/01/25 14:53:17, Will Drewry wrote:
>   make_pkg_common "*chromeos-microbenchmark" "$@"
> 
> which seems to work fine as well.

I'm OK with doing this, although it's a nasty interface.

[cjwatson, 2010-01-25 15:03:03]

Updated; please have another look?

[Will Drewry, 2010-01-25 15:09:43]

LGTM

I wasn't clear which part of the common scripts were surviving or not so this is
definitely good for now (or even the duped code).

thanks!