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. p. _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
