On 12/15/20 8:24 AM, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org <openembedded-
>> c...@lists.openembedded.org> On Behalf Of Mark Hatle
>> Sent: den 15 december 2020 02:02
>> To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
>> Subject: Re: [OE-core] How to create a directory in multiple packages?
>>
>> On 12/14/20 11:43 AM, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote:
>>> Say we have a recipe that creates an empty /etc/foo directory. Now we
>>> want to add a new file in that directory /etc/foo/bar and package it as
>>> ${PN}-bar. This means the creation of the /etc/foo directory is moved
>>> from the ${PN} package to the ${PN}-bar package. Is there any way to
>>> make ${PN} continue to create an empty /etc/foo, or is the only
>>> alternative to introduce an /etc/foo/.dummy and package it in ${PN}?
>>
>> try adjust the order of the PACKAGES variant. Something like:
>>
>> PACKAGES = "${PN}-bar ... ${PN}"
>>
>> FILES_${PN}-bar = "/etc/foo/bar"
>> FILES_${PN} = "/etc/foo"
>>
>> That SHOULD package the file 'bar' in -bar, and the directory in ${PN}.
>
> Unfortunately that does not work (seems bitbake is too smart). What I have
> is basically:
>
> PACKAGE_BEFORE_PN = "${PN}-bar"
> FILES_${PN} += "${sysconfdir}/foo"
> FILES_${PN}-bar = "${sysconfdir}/foo/bar"
>
> which results in the following in the spec file:
>
> %files -n foo-bar
> %defattr(-,-,-,-)
> %dir "/etc"
> %dir "/etc/foo"
> "/etc/foo/bar"
>
> There is nothing else about /etc or /etc/foo in the spec file.
Ya, there definitely should be a way to do this... If not, it will be
problematic as more or more recipes get split into smaller chunks.
> After delving into the code for at bit, I believe this is due to how
> populate_packages() works. When it handles the ${PN}-bar package and
> finds the /etc/foo/bar file, it will also mark /etc and /etc/foo as
> seen, which means they will not be added to any other package, unless
> that package has an entry for some other /etc/foo/something file, even
> if /etc/foo is explicitly listed in, e.g., FILES_${PN}.
>
> So for now, it seems we will have to resort to using a pkg_postinst_${PN}.
Big problem with pkg_postinst, the system won't be able to track
perms/owner/group for the directory and ensure they are synced like the package
manager itself can.
For RPM, I know the %dir directive can (and should be) used to do this kind of
thing, but I don't know what the equivalencies are in opkg and deb. If there is
a similar mechanism there to specify a directory (not not it's contents) then I
suspect may want to extend recipe syntax to match.
--Mark
>> (Some of the people commenting this isn't less then optimal, actually
>> it's not that unusual.. Typical case I see is creating a directory in
>> /var or /usr/share for datafiles and the main package owns the directory,
>> with sub-packages [or other packages] contributing data into that
>> directory.)
>
> Yes, there are reason why the empty directory needs to be installed as
> part of the image. Otherwise I would just have used a file in
> "/usr/lib/tmpfiles.d".
>
>> --Mark
>>
>>> //Peter
>
> //Peter
>
>
>
>
>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#145758):
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/145758
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/78956546/21656
Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
