On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 2:39 PM Alan Perry <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12/7/20 1:49 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > > On Sat, 2020-12-05 at 08:22 +0000, Alan Perry wrote: > >> Many scripts exist that expect the iproute2 tools to be found in > >> the same directories where they are found in Debian or Ubuntu. > >> For the iproute2 tools included in the iproute2 recipe, move > >> them to those directories or create links there.. Also, add > >> bash-completion files as is done by Debian and Ubuntu. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Alan Perry <[email protected]> > >> --- > >> .../iproute2/iproute2.inc | 23 +++++++++++++++++-- > >> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > The direction in the patch is worrying me a little. > > > > There is a bash-completion class which splits completion files into > > their own package, most "embedded" users don't want them in the main > > packages. This patch does something different to what has been done > > elsewhere. > > > > Secondly, I'm also not sure that just because debian does something we > > should therefore do it, I'm not convinced that scripts should be > > hardcoding path assumptions about these tools. IF this is such a > > universal need, why doesn't upstream change the default installation > > locations? Has it been discussed? > > > > I'd expect there to be opinions on this topic but I'm not seeing much > > discussion. I suspect if if does merge there would be push back later > > though. > > > > Also, the duplication between bin and sbin for ip is not particularly > > good practise. > > > Thanks for your comments. I apologize for the delay in responding, but I > needed to do some research first. > > I will look at the bash-completion class and make the appropriate > changes there. > > As far as the installation path changes, I discussed why those aren't > the defaults with the iproute2 upstream maintainer. The idea is that the > upstream puts everything in /sbin and where is appropriate to install > them for a given distro is left as an exercise for that distro. > > The iproute2 recipe is doing that exercise for poky. So, where is the > correct place to install these tools on poky? I'd argue that they should > go in the expected directories for Unix-y OSes. Someone at Debian went > through that analysis and put them where they put them and those mostly > seem like reasonable places to me. It is also where users coming to > poky-based systems will likely expecting to find them. > > As far as duplicating ip in bin and sbin, I agree that it isn't good > practice. Having it in both doesn't seem necessary to me.
But isn't that duplication all part of aligning with Debian (where /sbin/ip is a symlink to /bin/ip)? Presumably something relies on the symlink or Debian wouldn't be doing it. Based on: https://sources.debian.org/src/iproute2/5.9.0-1/debian/iproute2.install/ https://sources.debian.org/src/iproute2/5.9.0-1/debian/iproute2.links/ Debian does seem to do quite a lot or rearranging of the installed files. Open question seems to be whether that rearranging is to align with requirements which are specific to Debian or something which other distros might need too? Based on: https://centos.pkgs.org/8/centos-baseos-x86_64/iproute-5.3.0-5.el8.x86_64.rpm.html It looks like Centos installs all binaries under /usr/sbin
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#145437): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/145437 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/78730158/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
