On Thursday 05 September 2013 13:07:20 Phil Blundell wrote: > On Thu, 2013-09-05 at 06:59 -0500, Laurentiu Palcu wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 12:40:26PM +0100, Phil Blundell wrote: > > > Actually, that last sentence is slightly incorrect. image.bbclass does > > > have the knowledge, it just seems to be failing to act on it. So > > > perhaps the easiest fix for the time being is simply to move the > > > remove_packaging_data_files call in rootfs_uninstall_unneeded () a few > > > lines higher up so that it's inside the "if [ -z $(delayed_postinsts) ]" > > > block. > > > > What you're suggesting means that we will have the PM metadata present > > if there are delayed postinstalls present. But, since the PM is not > > present, what's the use of that? > > Well, er, that it will make the postinstalls work. Isn't that exactly > the problem here?
I'm clearly missing something here. If we have a generic mechanism to run postinstall scripts now, and "package-management" is not in IMAGE_FEATURES, why do we need or want the package manager to be in control of running the postinstalls? Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
