Re: [PATCH 1/1] powertop: inherit update-alternatives and use a higher priority than busybox

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 16:57 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> 
> Op 8 jul. 2011 om 16:00 heeft Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> > On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 08:25 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> >> 
> >> Op 8 jul. 2011 om 02:40 heeft "Cui, Dexuan" <dexuan.cui@intel.com> het volgende geschreven:
> >> 
> >>> Tom Rini wrote:
> >>>> On 07/07/2011 01:39 AM, Dexuan Cui wrote:
> >>>>> busybox-1.18.4 installs /bin/powertop and the powertop recipe
> >>>>> installs /usr/bin/powertop. So, in PATH, if /bin appears before
> >>>>> /usr/bin, we would run the version offered by busybox, which has a
> >>>>> very limited function (e.g., no parameter is accepted) and this
> >>>>> causes trouble to eclipse plugin. 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> We can use update-alternatives for powertop with higher priority to
> >>>>> resolve the issue. 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Fixes [YOCTO #1208]
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Dexuan Cui <dexuan.cui@intel.com>
> >>>> 
> >>>> This fix seems a bit incomplete.  Why is busybox putting powertop into
> >>>> /bin when it almost certainly belongs in /usr/bin like the real recipe
> >>>> was placing it.  busybox needs a fix here too.
> >>> Thanks for the comment! 
> >>> I was hesitant about fixing busybox as I wasn't sure if it's worthy
> >> to make a patch to only fix the path for busybox. I don't know why
> >> busybox puts it into /bin. I think the best place may be /usr/sbin/. 
> >>> A little unluckily this patch to powertop has been already in poky
> >> master... So maybe we could try to fix the recipes in future, e.g.,
> >> when upgrading them.
> >> 
> >> we should do the right thing in oe-core,  the poky people can clean up on their own. 
> > 
> > I don't think anyone is suggesting we shouldn't do the right thing in
> > OE-Core? :)
> > 
> > I merged the original patch on the grounds that its was an improvement
> > to the situation. We've identified a better improvement so can someone
> > please send me the patch and I'll likely merge that too.
> 
> the email makes it seem that the patch was merged into poky, but not
> oe-core.  When reading it like that the proposal involved merging the
> 'incomplete' patch for the sake of keeping poky and oe-core in sync

The OE-Core component of Poky always stays in sync now...

Cheers,

Richard