Hi all Do we found some solution? As a workaround could be just add dependency to prelink native into rootfs if the command is really required.
Regards, Andrej On 1/8/19 10:46 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Tue, 2019-01-08 at 14:50 -0600, Mark Hatle wrote: >> On 1/8/19 2:37 PM, Burton, Ross wrote: >>> On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 at 20:15, Mark Hatle <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>>> No idea why the opkg rootfs code is doing prelink operations >>>>> when RPM >>>>> or dpkg don't. CCing Mark who may have an idea here. I >>>>> thought the >>>>> autobuilder exerised multilib-on-opkg, but maybe not. >>>> >>>> They all should be doing prelink operations. The operation >>>> SHOULD be >>>> generically implemented as part of the image-prelink class, which >>>> is where I >>>> would have expected that copy to exist. >>>> >>>> If any of the package types of specifically doing something, that >>>> sounds >>>> broken... but the generic ones (last I looked) said to copy in >>>> the config file >>>> [if it didn't exist], run prelink, remove the file [if it wasn't >>>> there to start >>>> with]. >>> >>> Note that it's part of the incremental code, so needs to be in the >>> rootfs code directly I suspect. Frankly I'd love to see incremental >>> images removed. It makes promises it can't keep (the moment a >>> rootfs >>> postprocess command is used, all bets are off) and massively >>> complicates things. >> >> We assume the post process command is what an 'admin' would do. So >> the various >> package managers should be able to deal with it in most >> cases. (Note, obviously >> it's more freeform, but I wouldn't expect everything to work in you >> removed a >> large part of the filesystem for instance.) >> >> As for prelink, I'm surprised this is in the incremental code. I'm >> not sure why >> it would be necessary unless the incremental work wants to UNPRELINK >> the rootfs >> before performing the upgrade? >> >> Prelink itself should still be run as a postprocess command that >> takes the >> output of the filesystem and reprocesses it. >> >> So something seems out of sync here.. (at a minimum probably should >> be better >> commented on why it's needed..) > > The code is there for incremental opkg multilib image support. Its > trying to compare whether binaries are identical. To make it work, it > has to "unprelink" the files first before comparing. > > I'm not convinced this is a good idea :/. I'm wondering if incremental > image generation makes sense at all in this context to be honest. > > Cheers, > > Richard > -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
