| Submitter | Xiaofeng Yan |
|---|---|
| Date | June 15, 2012, 9:30 a.m. |
| Message ID | <cf3611bc2fea78d0aa3d042e000edb0e86534297.1339751573.git.xiaofeng.yan@windriver.com> |
| Download | mbox | patch |
| Permalink | /patch/29951/ |
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
Comments
On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 17:30 +0800, xiaofeng.yan@windriver.com wrote: > From: Xiaofeng Yan <xiaofeng.yan@windriver.com> > > The linking will fail when an original functions exist. So remove the > original functions when building an lsb image and make functions linking to > functions.lsbinitscripts successfully. > > [YOCTO #2133] > > Signed-off-by: Xiaofeng Yan <xiaofeng.yan@windriver.com> > --- > meta/recipes-extended/lsb/lsbinitscripts_9.03.bb | 8 +++++++- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/meta/recipes-extended/lsb/lsbinitscripts_9.03.bb b/meta/recipes-extended/lsb/lsbinitscripts_9.03.bb > index dd92a92..73bea2f 100644 > --- a/meta/recipes-extended/lsb/lsbinitscripts_9.03.bb > +++ b/meta/recipes-extended/lsb/lsbinitscripts_9.03.bb > @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ DESCRIPTION = "SysV init scripts which only is used in an LSB image" > SECTION = "base" > LICENSE = "GPLv2" > DEPENDS = "popt" > -PR = "r0" > +PR = "r1" > > LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=ebf4e8b49780ab187d51bd26aaa022c6" > > @@ -25,3 +25,9 @@ do_install(){ > install -d ${D}/etc/init.d/ > install -m 0755 ${S}/rc.d/init.d/functions ${D}/etc/init.d/functions > } > + > +pkg_postinst_${PN} () { > + if [ -f "/etc/init.d/functions" ]; then > + rm -f /etc/init.d/functions > + fi > +} This looks highly suspicious to me. Shouldn't the other provider of this be put under control for update-alternatives too or something? Cheers, Richard
On 2012?06?15? 22:59, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 17:30 +0800, xiaofeng.yan@windriver.com wrote: >> From: Xiaofeng Yan<xiaofeng.yan@windriver.com> >> >> The linking will fail when an original functions exist. So remove the >> original functions when building an lsb image and make functions linking to >> functions.lsbinitscripts successfully. >> >> [YOCTO #2133] >> >> Signed-off-by: Xiaofeng Yan<xiaofeng.yan@windriver.com> >> --- >> meta/recipes-extended/lsb/lsbinitscripts_9.03.bb | 8 +++++++- >> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/meta/recipes-extended/lsb/lsbinitscripts_9.03.bb b/meta/recipes-extended/lsb/lsbinitscripts_9.03.bb >> index dd92a92..73bea2f 100644 >> --- a/meta/recipes-extended/lsb/lsbinitscripts_9.03.bb >> +++ b/meta/recipes-extended/lsb/lsbinitscripts_9.03.bb >> @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ DESCRIPTION = "SysV init scripts which only is used in an LSB image" >> SECTION = "base" >> LICENSE = "GPLv2" >> DEPENDS = "popt" >> -PR = "r0" >> +PR = "r1" >> >> LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=ebf4e8b49780ab187d51bd26aaa022c6" >> >> @@ -25,3 +25,9 @@ do_install(){ >> install -d ${D}/etc/init.d/ >> install -m 0755 ${S}/rc.d/init.d/functions ${D}/etc/init.d/functions >> } >> + >> +pkg_postinst_${PN} () { >> + if [ -f "/etc/init.d/functions" ]; then >> + rm -f /etc/init.d/functions >> + fi >> +} > This looks highly suspicious to me. Shouldn't the other provider of this > be put under control for update-alternatives too or something? Thanks for your comments. the other provider of this is from initscripts_1.0.bb, installing all of init-scripts in the stage of installing without using update-alternatives. So the functions is a file instead of linking mode. An error appear when lsbinicscritps replace initscripts if not removing file functions. So I remove the original functions for making the latter linking successfully. What is the purpose is for avoiding to modify the other non-lsb bb files. The changes of this will be only in lsb image. Thanks Yan > Cheers, > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core >
On 2012?06?18? 10:57, Xiaofeng Yan wrote: > On 2012?06?15? 22:59, Richard Purdie wrote: >> On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 17:30 +0800, xiaofeng.yan@windriver.com wrote: >>> From: Xiaofeng Yan<xiaofeng.yan@windriver.com> >>> >>> The linking will fail when an original functions exist. So remove the >>> original functions when building an lsb image and make functions >>> linking to >>> functions.lsbinitscripts successfully. >>> >>> [YOCTO #2133] >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Xiaofeng Yan<xiaofeng.yan@windriver.com> >>> --- >>> meta/recipes-extended/lsb/lsbinitscripts_9.03.bb | 8 +++++++- >>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-extended/lsb/lsbinitscripts_9.03.bb >>> b/meta/recipes-extended/lsb/lsbinitscripts_9.03.bb >>> index dd92a92..73bea2f 100644 >>> --- a/meta/recipes-extended/lsb/lsbinitscripts_9.03.bb >>> +++ b/meta/recipes-extended/lsb/lsbinitscripts_9.03.bb >>> @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ DESCRIPTION = "SysV init scripts which only is used >>> in an LSB image" >>> SECTION = "base" >>> LICENSE = "GPLv2" >>> DEPENDS = "popt" >>> -PR = "r0" >>> +PR = "r1" >>> >>> LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = >>> "file://COPYING;md5=ebf4e8b49780ab187d51bd26aaa022c6" >>> >>> @@ -25,3 +25,9 @@ do_install(){ >>> install -d ${D}/etc/init.d/ >>> install -m 0755 ${S}/rc.d/init.d/functions >>> ${D}/etc/init.d/functions >>> } >>> + >>> +pkg_postinst_${PN} () { >>> + if [ -f "/etc/init.d/functions" ]; then >>> + rm -f /etc/init.d/functions >>> + fi >>> +} >> This looks highly suspicious to me. Shouldn't the other provider of this >> be put under control for update-alternatives too or something? > Thanks for your comments. > the other provider of this is from initscripts_1.0.bb, installing all > of init-scripts in the stage of installing without using > update-alternatives. So the functions is a file instead of linking > mode. An error appear when lsbinicscritps replace initscripts if not > removing file functions. So I remove the original functions for making > the latter linking successfully. What is the purpose is for avoiding > to modify the other non-lsb bb files. The changes of this will be only > in lsb image. Can we add the removing function if not a linking when using update-alternatives ? > Thanks > Yan >> Cheers, >> >> Richard >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Openembedded-core mailing list >> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org >> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 10:57 +0800, Xiaofeng Yan wrote: > On 2012?06?15? 22:59, Richard Purdie wrote: > > On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 17:30 +0800, xiaofeng.yan@windriver.com wrote: > >> From: Xiaofeng Yan<xiaofeng.yan@windriver.com> > >> > >> The linking will fail when an original functions exist. So remove the > >> original functions when building an lsb image and make functions linking to > >> functions.lsbinitscripts successfully. > >> > >> [YOCTO #2133] > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Xiaofeng Yan<xiaofeng.yan@windriver.com> > >> --- > >> meta/recipes-extended/lsb/lsbinitscripts_9.03.bb | 8 +++++++- > >> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/meta/recipes-extended/lsb/lsbinitscripts_9.03.bb b/meta/recipes-extended/lsb/lsbinitscripts_9.03.bb > >> index dd92a92..73bea2f 100644 > >> --- a/meta/recipes-extended/lsb/lsbinitscripts_9.03.bb > >> +++ b/meta/recipes-extended/lsb/lsbinitscripts_9.03.bb > >> @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ DESCRIPTION = "SysV init scripts which only is used in an LSB image" > >> SECTION = "base" > >> LICENSE = "GPLv2" > >> DEPENDS = "popt" > >> -PR = "r0" > >> +PR = "r1" > >> > >> LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=ebf4e8b49780ab187d51bd26aaa022c6" > >> > >> @@ -25,3 +25,9 @@ do_install(){ > >> install -d ${D}/etc/init.d/ > >> install -m 0755 ${S}/rc.d/init.d/functions ${D}/etc/init.d/functions > >> } > >> + > >> +pkg_postinst_${PN} () { > >> + if [ -f "/etc/init.d/functions" ]; then > >> + rm -f /etc/init.d/functions > >> + fi > >> +} > > This looks highly suspicious to me. Shouldn't the other provider of this > > be put under control for update-alternatives too or something? > Thanks for your comments. > the other provider of this is from initscripts_1.0.bb, installing all of > init-scripts in the stage of installing without using > update-alternatives. So the functions is a file instead of linking mode. > An error appear when lsbinicscritps replace initscripts if not removing > file functions. So I remove the original functions for making the latter > linking successfully. What is the purpose is for avoiding to modify the > other non-lsb bb files. The changes of this will be only in lsb image. Right, I understand there is a conflict here. Could we not add update-alternatives support to the initscripts recipe for this file to, so its a link in both packages and then update-alternatives will take care of linking the correct one into place? Cheers, Richard
Patch
diff --git a/meta/recipes-extended/lsb/lsbinitscripts_9.03.bb b/meta/recipes-extended/lsb/lsbinitscripts_9.03.bb index dd92a92..73bea2f 100644 --- a/meta/recipes-extended/lsb/lsbinitscripts_9.03.bb +++ b/meta/recipes-extended/lsb/lsbinitscripts_9.03.bb @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ DESCRIPTION = "SysV init scripts which only is used in an LSB image" SECTION = "base" LICENSE = "GPLv2" DEPENDS = "popt" -PR = "r0" +PR = "r1" LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=ebf4e8b49780ab187d51bd26aaa022c6" @@ -25,3 +25,9 @@ do_install(){ install -d ${D}/etc/init.d/ install -m 0755 ${S}/rc.d/init.d/functions ${D}/etc/init.d/functions } + +pkg_postinst_${PN} () { + if [ -f "/etc/init.d/functions" ]; then + rm -f /etc/init.d/functions + fi +}