Hello Alexander, On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 9:57 AM Alexander Kanavin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 13:29, Otavio Salvador > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I'd rather not deviate from the upstream, and use what the upstream > > > provides. Especially considering that perl version does have command > > > line options that the shell version does not, and the difference might > > > increase in the future: > > > c_rehash [-old] [-h] [-help] [-v] [dirs...] > > > > > > If you really really can't afford perl runtime on the target, and want > > > the shell version, how about making it a PACKAGECONFIG? > > > > Well, the c_rehash has a specific use case and this version is > > /already/ in use on 1.0 (for both target and native) and on 1.1 for > > native. If c_rehash is not good enough for use, we should remove it > > from native as well. > > 1.0 version is no longer used in either native or target, 1.1 version > is used in both cases, as they have the same file name and would then > clash. > The native use case is specific and controlled - running > update-ca-certificates. There is no guarantee that on target the > utility will not be used from somewhere else, making assumptions that > are true for perl version, but not true for our shell rewrite.
Really? What forbids me to use the c_rehash native side as part of my build scripts and tooling? So or it is good enough or it is. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750 -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
