On Thu, 2016-10-06 at 11:12 +0100, Phil Blundell wrote: > On Thu, 2016-10-06 at 11:49 +0300, Markus Lehtonen wrote: > > On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 16:51 +0200, Andreas Oberritter wrote: > > > Hello Markus, > > > > > > On 05.10.2016 16:11, Markus Lehtonen wrote: > > > > Check that the init script that is going to be called in the > > > > prerm() > > > > script really exists. There might be a packaging bug or the > > > > script > > > > might've been removed already earlier in prerm(). > > > > > > isn't it called prerm in the first place because it's not supposed > > > to > > > remove any packaged files? > > > > In the case of this bug it does not remove any packaged files. Update > > -alternatives removes a symlink (created by itself) > > That arguably is a bug in u-a, which probably ought to be removing the > symlink in postrm not prerm.
It was moved to prerm earlier to fix some other problems: http://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/commit/meta/classes/update-al ternatives.bbclass?id=2a5484a90513b58c829a916bfe5268a0fde3512a So I think moving it back and forth between prerm and postrm doesn't get us anywhere :) Thanks, Markus > If it removes the symlink too early and > prevents u-rc.d from running "stop" on it then you may end up with > dangling daemon processes still running after the package has been > uninstalled. But... > > > I think that the pre post etc scripts should basically never fail. > > ... this is essentially true, and having u-rc.d's own prerm fail > because of a bug in u-a definitely isn't going to improve the > situation. So I think your patch is a good one. > > p. > > > -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
