On 12/9/20 3:40 PM, Andre McCurdy wrote:
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.
I was just saying that I could see an argument for leaving that one out.
As noted here, doing so isn't without risk.
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
I don't know that I would characterize rearranging the installed files
as Debian does is "specific to Debian" or moving them as appropriate to
how /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, and /usr/sbin have been traditionally
distinguished from each other. Where Centos is described to install them
doesn't match that traditional use.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#145439):
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/145439
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]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
