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

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

[Robert P. J. Day]

  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.

  is that allowed?  does it make sense?  unless the explicit
do_install() routine in that recipe file somehow takes care of things.

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

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

[Andrei Gherzan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1232 bytes --]

No. It won't make a difference. Or actually it makes a tiny difference:
check package.bbclass, function named gen_packagevar.

@g


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.
>
>  is that allowed?  does it make sense?  unless the explicit
> do_install() routine in that recipe file somehow takes care of things.
>
> rday
>
> --
>
> ========================================================================
> Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
>                        http://crashcourse.ca
>
> Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
> LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
> ========================================================================
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1956 bytes --]

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

[Robert P. J. Day]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 1237 bytes --]


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.
>
>        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.

rday

p.s.  please don't top post.

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

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

[Mark Hatle]

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.

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

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012, Mark Hatle wrote:

> 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.

  which is what i suspected.  i'll submit a patch to add the missing
line if it's really supposed to be there.

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================