From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [59.124.115.149] (helo=aakash.openmoko.org) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LpbLR-0006Tv-K0 for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 06:49:36 +0200 Received: from s0106001c100a3234.cg.shawcable.net ([70.73.132.19] helo=[172.16.14.105]) by aakash.openmoko.org with esmtpsa (SSL 3.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1LpbIn-0006tU-2V; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:46:59 +0800 From: Angus Ainslie To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org In-Reply-To: <6b7bf6e9-f3cb-4460-b1dc-312bc0ced19e@j18g2000prm.googlegroups.com> References: <6b7bf6e9-f3cb-4460-b1dc-312bc0ced19e@j18g2000prm.googlegroups.com> Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 22:46:37 -0600 Message-Id: <1238733997.6527.26.camel@think-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.3 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 59.124.115.149 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: nytowl@openmoko.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on serenity X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.5 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:14:11 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on linuxtogo.org) Cc: opkg-devel Subject: Re: [RFC] opkg conffiles force overwrite X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 04:49:36 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 20:59 -0700, Tick wrote: > Adding another flag e.g. force_overwrite_conffile seems a little bit > superfluous and not orthogonal to force_overwrite. But it will not > change current opkg behavior. There is currently a force-defaults switch so why not have a force-maintainer or something similar. In OE specifically it would be nice to be able to set this per recipe to try and guarantee a certain config. The problem comes when 2 different recipes try to assert them selves by using th force-maintainer flag. Angus