On 26 November 2015 at 03:17, Jagadeesh Krishnanjanappa <
jkrishnanjana...@mvista.com> wrote:
> The intention of using os.getuid() is to avoid writing hardcoded value
> "0", since os.getuid() return "0" under fakeroot env; if root user is
> having UID as 0.That's the advantage I can think of.
>
>
>
> The intention of using os.getuid() is to avoid writing hardcoded value
>> "0", since os.getuid() return "0" under fakeroot env; if root user is
>> having UID as 0.That's the advantage I can think of.
>>
>
> root is *always* UID 0, and packaging always runs as root.
>
Can you send a tested
Hi Ross,
>
> Yes, since copy_license_files() function is executed within the pseudo
>> environement (fakeroot), both os.getuid() and os.getgid() return 0,
>> which resembles to uid and gid of root user. Also, os.chown accepts integer
>> values for 2nd and 3rd arguments.
>>
>
> So is there any
On 25 November 2015 at 14:58, Jagadeesh Krishnanjanappa <
jkrishnanjana...@mvista.com> wrote:
> Yes, since copy_license_files() function is executed within the pseudo
> environement (fakeroot), both os.getuid() and os.getgid() return 0, which
> resembles to uid and gid of root user. Also,
>
>
> is os.getuid() and os.getgid() the correct value you want to use? I
> would expect root:root.
>
>
Yes, since copy_license_files() function is executed within the pseudo
environement (fakeroot), both os.getuid() and os.getgid() return 0, which
resembles to uid and gid of root user. Also,
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 04:42:57PM +0800, Robert Yang wrote:
>
> Hi Jagadeesh,
>
> Thanks, usually, patch should go into master branch before go into stable
> branch such as jethro. IMHO, jethro branch may not take this fix even if
> master merges it. The problem is that oe-core doesn't create
Hi Jagadeesh,
Thanks, usually, patch should go into master branch before go into stable
branch such as jethro. IMHO, jethro branch may not take this fix even if
master merges it. The problem is that oe-core doesn't create package for
${PN}-lic atm, this patch is treated as part of the
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 04:25:56PM +0530, Jagadeesh Krishnanjanappa wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> I understand. Though LICENSE_CREATE_PACKAGE is disabled by default in
> OE-core, if some users want to create ${PN}-lic package for each recipe
> via LICENSE_CREATE_PACKAGE = "1", then they are going to
Hi Robert,
I understand. Though LICENSE_CREATE_PACKAGE is disabled by default in
OE-core, if some users want to create ${PN}-lic package for each recipe
via LICENSE_CREATE_PACKAGE = "1", then they are going to have host
contamination warnings for each recipe.
The above commit indicated by
On 11/25/2015 06:55 PM, Jagadeesh Krishnanjanappa wrote:
Hi Robert,
I understand. Though LICENSE_CREATE_PACKAGE is disabled by default in OE-core,
if some users want to create ${PN}-lic package for each recipe
via LICENSE_CREATE_PACKAGE = "1", then they are going to have host contamination
We get below host contamination warnings of license files for
each recipe, when we try to create a separate ${PN}-lic package (which
contains license files), by setting LICENSE_CREATE_PACKAGE equal to "1"
in local.conf.
-- snip --
WARNING: QA Issue: libcgroup:
11 matches
Mail list logo
