Hi Khem, On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 10:08:59AM -0800, Khem Raj wrote: > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 1:23 AM Quentin Schulz > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Khem, > > > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 11:26:27AM -0800, Khem Raj wrote: > > > > Just checked, we still override that script in our layer, so definitely > > > > would be happy if this gets merged upstream so I can get rid of our > > > > custom script downstream. > > > > > > > > > > I think this is good to go got OE-core, but I was wondering if default > > > script in busybox also need this and perhaps upstream too > > > > > > > What do you mean by "default script"? > > https://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/tree/meta/recipes-core/busybox/files/default.script > > ? > > yes.
I'm confused then. Bear with me, I'm new to userspace so I'm sure I'm missing something rather obvious. The content of default.script is: exec run-parts -a "$1" /etc/udhcpc.d AFAICT from a quick look at busybox.inc, the only things in that /etc/udhcpc.d directory are simple.script (named 50default actually) and default.script. What do you think should be done for that file wrt the original issue? > > > > Upstream could benefit from it, I'd agree. Though, it is technically > > just provided as an example. > > https://git.busybox.net/busybox/tree/examples/udhcp/simple.script > > > @all: FYI, patch is merged: https://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/commit/meta/recipes-core/busybox/files/simple.script?id=b77541dbb2f442e51842f9d24c8745a6df2d1478 > > The reason why I didn't bother to send a patch to busybox before pinging > > on this patch was that we're already different from the upstream > > simple.script > > so it didn't make sense to me to add the Upstream-Status: pending or > > something on the patch (in some ways, since it's patching the file > > directly and not adding a patch in SRC_URI). Anyway, digressing. Do you > > want a patch to be sent to busybox ML (or PR or whatever they use) > > before taking this patch? > > > > I think the problem this patch fixes is generic and somewhere the > script OE has is also derived from > that example, so while the patch in itself is enough for OE, it would > be better if it was in upstream too > perhaps one less thing to worry about when we cherry pick changes from > upstream script in future. > Agreed, I'll put it on my TODO-list. If I do not send an answer on this mail with the link to the PR or patch in the next week, anyone, please ping me. Thx, Quentin -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
