From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga18.intel.com (mga18.intel.com [134.134.136.126]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0670574E25 for ; Tue, 15 May 2018 16:14:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by orsmga106.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 May 2018 09:14:49 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.49,403,1520924400"; d="scan'208";a="55429888" Received: from kanavin-desktop.fi.intel.com (HELO [10.237.68.161]) ([10.237.68.161]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 15 May 2018 09:14:48 -0700 To: Stefan Agner References: <20180515140451.60660-1-stefan@agner.ch> From: Alexander Kanavin Message-ID: Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 19:07:19 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Cc: muhammad_shakeel@mentor.com, Stefan Agner , openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] postinsts fixes X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 16:14:49 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 05/15/2018 07:07 PM, Stefan Agner wrote: > On 15.05.2018 17:03, Alexander Kanavin wrote: >> On 05/15/2018 05:04 PM, Stefan Agner wrote: >>> This follows up on the discussion a while ago: >>> https://www.mail-archive.com/openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org/msg104996.html >> >> Took me a moment to realize all three patches are specific to >> opkg/dpkg and do not change how rpm (or general 'postinst handling') >> works. Perhaps you could amend the commit messages to emphasize that? > > Patch 1 has opkg in the subject. > > Patch 2/3 mention opkg/dpkg in the commit log. > > Patch 3 also really edits the DpkgOpkgRootfs class, which should make it > rather obvious. > > But I agree for patch 2 it would be good to emphasize it. > > How about adding this after the first paragraph: > The behavior for rpm stays the same. That, and amend the commit summaries: patch 2: run-postinsts: for dpkg/opkg, do not rely on /etc/*-postinsts patch 3: rootfs.py: for dpkg/opkg, don't install postinsts if package management is present Otherwise those one liners can give the wrong impression. Alex