On 21.05.2012 13:04, Enrico Scholz wrote: > Andreas Oberritter <[email protected]> writes: > >>>>>> What's the use case for removing packages offline >>> >>> yes; I am working on the build machine. The NFS filesystem is mounted >>> read-only on the target. >> >> How do you handle prerm and postrm scripts that fail because $D is >> set? > > Fortunately, there are very few packages where this failure is > critical (--> package is not working). Important tasks like user > creation, alternatives handling or systemctl calls take care about > offline package management already. > > kernel modules are the only package class which might affect me and is > not suited for offline installation/upgrades. But I can live with it > because I develop the kernel at a separate location and call 'make > modules_install INSTALL_MOD_PATH=<nfsroot>' there. > > >> How do you handle the majority of scripts that don't care about $D at >> all? > > Examples?
Every recipe inheriting gconf.bbclass, gtk-icon-cache.bbclass, kernel.bbclass, module.bbclass or libc-package.bbclass, for example. You can use git grep '$D' to find more candidates. > pseudo does a good job for 'systemctl enable/disable' or > update-alternatives operations, 'systemd.bbclass' wraps the 'systemctl > stop/start'. > > Btw... your patch is correct about removal of $D. As written above, it > is not needed for 'systemctl disable'. But I am against removal of > offline capabilities because they are not needed in 80% of use cases. Considering that in the meantime my similar patch [1] to systemd.bbclass got merged into meta-oe by Koen, who initially was against it, I guess this patch can finally get merged now, too. Regards, Andreas [1] http://git.openembedded.org/meta-openembedded/commit/?id=637cb7e3d2cfdc74d239a4257e6f3477aa17da4e _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
