Re: does it make sense to define INITSCRIPT_* without inheriting update-rc.d?

[Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@windriver.com>]

On 6/30/12 9:57 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012, Andrei Gherzan wrote:
>
>> No. It won't make a difference. Or actually it makes a tiny
>> difference: check package.bbclass, function named gen_packagevar.
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
>>
>>         currently figuring out details of INITSCRIPT_*, and noticed that the
>>        recipe file irda-utils_0.9.18.bb assigned values to both
>>        INITSCRIPT_NAME and INITSCRIPT_PARAMS without inheriting update-rc.d.

Anything using those variables should inherit the class.  Otherwise it may not 
work as expected down the line when things change.

The purpose of the classes for useradd, update-rc.d and alternatives is to help 
automatically generate the pre/post package install scripts in a standard way.

Eventually I would like to see all of the manual pre/post scripts disappear in 
favor of class generated.  This will help us manage transitions to new 
technologies such as systemd...

>>         is that allowed?  does it make sense?  unless the explicit
>>        do_install() routine in that recipe file somehow takes care of things.
>>
>>        rday
>
>    i'm unclear on what i'm supposed to be looking at in that function,
> and how it answers my question.