Re: [PATCH 2/4] rootfs: Do not uninstall update-rc.d

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

On Tue, 2015-09-08 at 12:38 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 12:03 AM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sep 7, 2015, at 2:48 PM, Phil Blundell <pb@pbcl.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 2015-09-07 at 14:15 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> >>>> On Sep 7, 2015, at 12:36 PM, Phil Blundell <pb@pbcl.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sun, 2015-09-06 at 15:25 +0000, Khem Raj wrote:
> >>>>> update-rc.d is now needed by systemd to interact with sysv
> >>>>> scripts, so if we have a mixed system, then we can not uninstall
> >>>>> update-rc.d as it is going to break systemd functionality
> >>>>
> >>>> The description above implies that you will only uninstall update-rc.d
> >>>> if systemd is present, but that doesn't seem to be what the patch does.
> >>>
> >>> I meant to not say its only for systemd. but that systemd now needs it.
> >>> so update-rc.d is no longer forcefully removed from image depchain.
> >>
> >> Well, right.  But wouldn't it be better only to leave it in there if
> >> it's actually necessary, i.e. if you have systemd and you also have sysv
> >> scripts and the rootfs isn't read-only?  As it stands, your patch will
> >> cause update-rc.d to be left around for people who aren't using systemd,
> >> which seems like a retrograde step.
> >>
> >
> > makes sense. I can improvise on it and check for all constraints in a follow up.
> 
> 
> I have updates this patch in pull branch
> https://github.com/kraj/openembedded-core/commit/c4c574dff9ef689c7694a6055907083e7a018d48

Very good, how am I meant to deal with this though? You never published
a pull url in your original pull request and I can't figure out how to
get a patch file out the github web UI. I guess I can fetch the branch
somewhere, then extract it, but if everyone does this its going to be
rather annoying for me :(.

I really wish people would just post the v2 on the list.

Incidentally, the wrong version of this has gotten merged, I'll likely
revert it then apply this.

Cheers,

Richard