Re: [PATCH 1/1] powertop: inherit update-alternatives and use a higher priority than busybox

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

On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 08:25 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> 
> Op 8 jul. 2011 om 02:40 heeft "Cui, Dexuan" <dexuan.cui@intel.com> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> > Tom Rini wrote:
> >> On 07/07/2011 01:39 AM, Dexuan Cui wrote:
> >>> busybox-1.18.4 installs /bin/powertop and the powertop recipe
> >>> installs /usr/bin/powertop. So, in PATH, if /bin appears before
> >>> /usr/bin, we would run the version offered by busybox, which has a
> >>> very limited function (e.g., no parameter is accepted) and this
> >>> causes trouble to eclipse plugin. 
> >>> 
> >>> We can use update-alternatives for powertop with higher priority to
> >>> resolve the issue. 
> >>> 
> >>> Fixes [YOCTO #1208]
> >>> 
> >>> Signed-off-by: Dexuan Cui <dexuan.cui@intel.com>
> >> 
> >> This fix seems a bit incomplete.  Why is busybox putting powertop into
> >> /bin when it almost certainly belongs in /usr/bin like the real recipe
> >> was placing it.  busybox needs a fix here too.
> > Thanks for the comment! 
> > I was hesitant about fixing busybox as I wasn't sure if it's worthy
> to make a patch to only fix the path for busybox. I don't know why
> busybox puts it into /bin. I think the best place may be /usr/sbin/. 
> > A little unluckily this patch to powertop has been already in poky
> master... So maybe we could try to fix the recipes in future, e.g.,
> when upgrading them.
> 
> we should do the right thing in oe-core,  the poky people can clean up on their own. 

I don't think anyone is suggesting we shouldn't do the right thing in
OE-Core? :)

I merged the original patch on the grounds that its was an improvement
to the situation. We've identified a better improvement so can someone
please send me the patch and I'll likely merge that too.

FWIW, I agree that powertop should really be under /usr/...

Cheers,

Richard