Sorry for being slow to respond, I've been snowed under and dealing with
hardware failures :-(
I'll be brief...
On 17/10/14 07:55, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
What happens when generating rpm (and since few days deb) packages is
that code gets injected that makes these scripts exit with return code 0
on upgrades. This may be just a workaround to emulate opkg's
limitations, but it may also be by design. I guess this should be
decided upon first. Whatever we'll agree on, the most important thing is
that all three supported package formats should behave identically.
I don't think this is a good idea. Consider the case where a package is
being upgraded and the old package was configured to run in runlevels 3
and 4. The new package is configured to run in runlevels 2 and 3. You
need to run the old prerm script so that you correctly remove the script
from all old runlevels, then you need to run the new postinst script to
add the script to the correct runlevels. If you prevent prerm from
running on upgrade, you will never remove the script from runlevel 4.
But, on the other hand, maybe package_rpm.bbclass is wrong... ;-)
I have not studied RPM packaging. Does it use the same scripts and more
importantly does RPM expect the same install logic? Perhaps it's not
possible to apply the same logic to all packaging and installation systems.
I meant to say that if package_ipk wanted to behave like package_rpm
(and package_deb since a few days), then it would inject '[ "$1" !=
upgrade ] || exit 0' at the beginning of postrm.
See my two points above. Perhaps one size does not fit all in this case.
+updatercd_preinst() {
updatercd_postrm() {
The two functions above don't do anything, so they should be removed.
They are used later by update_rcd_package().
If they are empty, they should be removed from update_rcd_package(),
too. There are many more places in OE-Core where postinst scripts are
used, and the common policy is to implement only those snippets which
are used. Otherwise it's just a waste of space on the target systems.
I guess the logic could be changed so that if the user does not provide
their own implementation, then nothing is generated. I haven't studied
the code in depth to establish whether this may have a cascading effect
down the line. I opted for the option that is less likely to cause
unintended breakage.
The patch I submitted uses the "-s" flag to update-rc.d to start the
service when it is installed, but as far as I can tell, there is no way
to just stop the service using update-rc.d and the restart case will not
work for scripts that don't support the "restart" argument (such as
urandom).
Isn't restart required to be implemented by LSB? Maybe we could just fix
urandom instead. Does urandom even use update-rc.d? I don't know which
recipe actually installs a urandom init script, to be honest.
I'm not sure what the LSB requirements are, but I did take a quick look
through a few (random) existing scripts to determine the state of
affairs and concluded that one can not rely on a "restart"
implementation. The comments in init-ifupdown/init actually say that
"restart" is deprecated and should not be used.
The restart case is also predicated on a number of conditions
that will generally evaluate to false, since the old links would have
been removed in prerm.
I don't understand which conditions you're referring to.
It's a bit confusing to follow, but have a look at the part of the code
that checks the existence of the links in the context of the first point
I made in this email. If you want to support the upgrade logic properly
(at least as far as doing things like changing the runlevels), you
should remove the old links in prerm, which will later cause the code to
incorrectly assume that this was not an upgrade.
Cheers,
Peter
--
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
