On Wednesday 14 August 2013 15:30:01 Mark Hatle wrote: > Using the new smart exclude mechanism an error will be generated in the > excluded package is required for the image to be generated. > > Signed-off-by: Mark Hatle <[email protected]> > --- > meta/classes/package_rpm.bbclass | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/meta/classes/package_rpm.bbclass > b/meta/classes/package_rpm.bbclass index 324d83f..74ae0ed 100644 > --- a/meta/classes/package_rpm.bbclass > +++ b/meta/classes/package_rpm.bbclass > @@ -356,6 +356,11 @@ EOF > smart --data-dir=${target_rootfs}/var/lib/smart config --set > rpm-extra-macros._var=${localstatedir} smart > --data-dir=${target_rootfs}/var/lib/smart config --set > rpm-extra-macros._tmppath=/install/tmp package_write_smart_config > ${target_rootfs} > + # Do the following configurations here, to avoid them being > saved for > field upgrade > + for i in ${PACKAGE_EXCLUDE}; do > + smart --data-dir=$1/var/lib/smart flag --set > exclude-packages $i > + done
IMO, it would be correct to persist these exclusions into the runtime configuration. Not doing so is inconsistent with the behaviour of BAD_RECOMMENDATIONS, and it means that if you do an upgrade or an install on the target, these excluded packages can sneak back in which I would think would not be desirable unless the user explicitly turns off the exclusion. Clearing the flag if it were persisted is easy to do with smart. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
