From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADC127842F for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 14:23:44 +0000 (UTC) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga007.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.58]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Dec 2017 06:23:45 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.45,400,1508828400"; d="scan'208";a="2688845" Received: from kanavin-desktop.fi.intel.com (HELO [10.237.68.161]) ([10.237.68.161]) by orsmga007.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 14 Dec 2017 06:23:44 -0800 To: Stefan Agner References: <20171213180624.30839-1-stefan@agner.ch> <56bd3e44-1478-9095-4fef-3f7453b7ec94@linux.intel.com> <74fb0f2c-574b-56be-1bba-6b859ee07029@linux.intel.com> From: Alexander Kanavin Message-ID: <2e3178d0-c6eb-97f8-c524-bcee54091397@linux.intel.com> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 16:24:30 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Cc: Stefan Agner , openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [RFC] opkg: avoid running postinst scripts twice when using systemd 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: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 14:23:44 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 12/14/2017 03:59 PM, Stefan Agner wrote: > That at least contradicts my testing with opkg/ipk. > > If /etc/ipk-postinsts is not there and /var/lib/opkg/status is there > (package management installed), then run-postinst runs "opkg configure", > which takes care of postinsts just fine. > > Reading the code at least let me to believe that this is true for deb as > well. > > Not sure how it works with rpm though. How do you came to the conclusion > that this only happens when using rpm? I think there was confusion between what happens at image creation time vs what happens at first boot :) So what's the issue again that your RFC patch doesn't resolve? I read your followup and I still don't get it. Alex