From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from hetzner.pbcl.net (mail.pbcl.net [88.198.119.4]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCD996D39D for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 13:44:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from cpc6-cmbg17-2-0-cust487.5-4.cable.virginm.net ([86.30.57.232] helo=[172.30.1.45]) by hetzner.pbcl.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VgakR-0008Ia-TC; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:44:48 +0100 Message-ID: <1384350284.17320.2.camel@phil-desktop.brightsign> From: Phil Blundell To: Mark Hatle Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 13:44:44 +0000 In-Reply-To: <528380F8.5020705@windriver.com> References: <20f7dafc5f5948e7954203a0d57c25b68a419568.1384305535.git.mark.hatle@windriver.com> <20131113081253.GB3663@jama> <1384341268.12863.6.camel@phil-desktop.brightsign> <528380F8.5020705@windriver.com> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.4-4+b1 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Spam_score: -1.0 X-Spam_score_int: -9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: Spam detection software, running on the system "hetzner.pbcl.net", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 07:39 -0600, Mark Hatle wrote: > On 11/13/13, 5:14 AM, Phil Blundell wrote: > > On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 09:12 +0100, Martin Jansa wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 07:23:22PM -0600, Mark Hatle wrote: > >>> When the -symlinks package was removed and an RPROVIDES was added, nothing > >>> was put in to cause the removal of the older package in an upgrade. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Mark Hatle > >>> --- > >>> meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils.inc | 1 + > >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils.inc b/meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils.inc > >>> index 17c66bc..ea2383e 100644 > >>> --- a/meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils.inc > >>> +++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils.inc > >>> @@ -21, 6 +21, 7 @@ FILES_${PN} = " \ > >>> ${prefix}/${TARGET_SYS}/bin/*" > >>> > >>> RPROVIDES_${PN} += "${PN}-symlinks" > >>> +RREPLACES_${PN} += "${PN}-symlinks" > >> > >> IIRC for opkg backend you need also RCONFLICTS for opkg to really remove > >> old ${PN}-symlinks. > > > > Also for dpkg. If you have Replaces: without Conflicts: then this just > > means that the replacing package is allowed to overwrite files in the > > replaced one, not that the replaced one will actually be uninstalled. > > This seems incredibly strange to me. [...] Content analysis details: (-1.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] binutils: Ensure old -symlinks packages get removed X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 13:44:51 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 07:39 -0600, Mark Hatle wrote: > On 11/13/13, 5:14 AM, Phil Blundell wrote: > > On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 09:12 +0100, Martin Jansa wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 07:23:22PM -0600, Mark Hatle wrote: > >>> When the -symlinks package was removed and an RPROVIDES was added, nothing > >>> was put in to cause the removal of the older package in an upgrade. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Mark Hatle > >>> --- > >>> meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils.inc | 1 + > >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils.inc b/meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils.inc > >>> index 17c66bc..ea2383e 100644 > >>> --- a/meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils.inc > >>> +++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils.inc > >>> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ FILES_${PN} = " \ > >>> ${prefix}/${TARGET_SYS}/bin/*" > >>> > >>> RPROVIDES_${PN} += "${PN}-symlinks" > >>> +RREPLACES_${PN} += "${PN}-symlinks" > >> > >> IIRC for opkg backend you need also RCONFLICTS for opkg to really remove > >> old ${PN}-symlinks. > > > > Also for dpkg. If you have Replaces: without Conflicts: then this just > > means that the replacing package is allowed to overwrite files in the > > replaced one, not that the replaced one will actually be uninstalled. > > This seems incredibly strange to me. Well, perhaps, but it's always been that way. See the documentation for Replaces: http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#s-replaces p.