From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yann E. MORIN Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2020 14:12:09 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v2] package/systemd: use current tool for generating HWDB In-Reply-To: References: <20200710222656.6885-1-nolange79@gmail.com> <20200711112731.GE2273@scaer> Message-ID: <20200711121209.GF2273@scaer> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Norbert, All, On 2020-07-11 13:57 +0200, Norbert Lange spake thusly: > Yann E. MORIN < [1]yann.morin.1998@free.fr> schrieb am Sa., 11. Juli 2020, 13:27: > On 2020-07-11 00:26 +0200, Norbert Lange spake thusly: [--SNIP--] > > Also remove the config files from both paths > > (rootfs overlay could add stuff) aswell as the service and tool > > from the target fs. [--SNIP--] > However, I'm against removing the service altogether, because in the > past, some people have expressed the need to be able to update the hwdb > on-target. > > That would be challenging, as the source files for the database were already removed before this patch. > If they had to re-add those, then a adding a tool and service from the target directory won't be too much to ask? Those people would indeed be responsible for downloading the source again, and re-run the update. > I mean buildroot pretty much doesn't support some sorta packet manager system by design. > Why the exception here? I don;t remember, but IIRC there was a rather-copnvioning argument in favour of it. > I would be OK with having a drop-in that disables the service by default > when BR2_TARGET_GENERIC_REMOUNT_ROOTFS_RW is not set, though. > > It will only run when /usr is newer than /etc AFAIR (not sure how this is determined), See commit bbe5c6dad4d (Makefile: Update mtime of $(TARGET_DIR)/usr in target-finalize) which goal was to adress this. > so disabling does very little. > BR2_TARGET_GENERIC_REMOUNT_ROOTFS_RW already has too many? > surprising effects for me. I too am not very happy with BR2_TARGET_GENERIC_REMOUNT_ROOTFS_RW, because one can still select a squashfs filesystem at the same time., and that does not make sense to remount R/W a sqsh, as it is R/O by nature. But heck, I don't find it very logical that we can build more than one filesystem at the same time either (we should have a choice there), so... Regards, Yann E. MORIN. -- .-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------. | Yann E. MORIN | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: | | +33 662 376 056 | Software Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN | ___ | | +33 561 099 427 `------------.-------: X AGAINST | \e/ There is no | | http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL | v conspiracy. | '------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'