From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 93-97-173-237.zone5.bethere.co.uk ([93.97.173.237] helo=tim.rpsys.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QOsOO-0000LW-KD for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 24 May 2011 16:15:28 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p4OECRRp020370; Tue, 24 May 2011 15:12:27 +0100 Received: from tim.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tim.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 20127-04; Tue, 24 May 2011 15:12:23 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.3.10] ([192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p4OECJJl020364 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 24 May 2011 15:12:19 +0100 From: Richard Purdie To: Phil Blundell In-Reply-To: <1306245557.2525.192.camel@phil-desktop> References: <1305640549.2429.226.camel@phil-desktop> <1305642273.3424.244.camel@rex> <1305643833.2429.264.camel@phil-desktop> <1305649331.3424.259.camel@rex> <1305733061.18415.98.camel@lenovo.internal.reciva.com> <1305800103.3424.464.camel@rex> <1305801068.18415.179.camel@lenovo.internal.reciva.com> <1305804109.3424.475.camel@rex> <1305805268.18415.185.camel@lenovo.internal.reciva.com> <1305807396.3424.510.camel@rex> <1305817446.18415.193.camel@lenovo.internal.reciva.com> <1305817704.3424.531.camel@rex> <1306245557.2525.192.camel@phil-desktop> Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 15:12:16 +0100 Message-ID: <1306246336.3424.929.camel@rex> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.2 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rpsys.net Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Subject: Re: [PATCH] rootfs_ipk: respect ONLINE_PACKAGE_MANAGEMENT X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 14:15:28 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 14:59 +0100, Phil Blundell wrote: > On Thu, 2011-05-19 at 16:08 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > > On Thu, 2011-05-19 at 16:04 +0100, Phil Blundell wrote: > > > On Thu, 2011-05-19 at 13:16 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > > > > So if we: > > > > > > > > a) Only add ROOTFS_PKGMANAGE_BOOTSTRAP if postinstalls were present > > > > b) Add the read-only-rootfs option we discussed which errors if > > > > postinstalls are present > > > > > > > > we end up a lot closer to where you want to be. > > > > > > Yes, sounds reasonable. And I think we could then eliminate > > > remove_packaging_data_files() altogether, in favour of having the right > > > thing happen automatically during rootfs construction, which would > > > probably be a good thing too. > > > > Agreed, I think we have a plan :) > > One other thing that occurred to me is that ONLINE_PACKAGE_MANAGEMENT > (in classic oe) is a DISTRO feature rather than an image one. This is > significant because, for example, update-rc.d.bbclass doesn't include > update-rc.d in RDEPENDS if it knows that the package will never be > installed on a running target. If we're going to make package > management into an IMAGE_FEATURE then obviously this isn't going to work > as it stands. > > I guess we could work around it by letting update-rc.d add its > dependency as normal, and then adding code to the rootfs constructor to > stop it taking effect (and/or substitute a dummy update-rc.d package > with no files in) if an image with no package management is being > generated. That doesn't seem terribly elegant but, short of going back > to a DISTRO-based selection, I can't think of any better way of fixing > it. I think allowing selection of this at image generation time is the more powerful way to handle this. It could be we go through a step of forcibly removing packages we don't want from the rootfs such as update-rc.d, or we can tell the package manager to ignore the dependency which is probably neater. I have to admit the update-rc.d change was concerning and this does feel like a better way to handle it. Cheers, Richard