From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6731961788 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2013 12:19:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 05 Sep 2013 05:19:31 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,847,1371106800"; d="scan'208";a="373890307" Received: from unknown (HELO helios.localnet) ([10.252.123.106]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 05 Sep 2013 05:19:06 -0700 From: Paul Eggleton To: Phil Blundell , Laurentiu Palcu Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2013 13:19:05 +0100 Message-ID: <3518999.x3yV6XY4Eo@helios> Organization: Intel Corporation User-Agent: KMail/4.10.5 (Linux/3.8.0-29-generic; KDE/4.10.5; i686; ; ) In-Reply-To: <1378382840.6940.78.camel@phil-desktop.brightsign> References: <20130905115913.GC17481@lpalcu-linux> <1378382840.6940.78.camel@phil-desktop.brightsign> MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] image.bbclass: leave metadata in place if a PM is installed in the image 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, 05 Sep 2013 12:19:29 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Thursday 05 September 2013 13:07:20 Phil Blundell wrote: > On Thu, 2013-09-05 at 06:59 -0500, Laurentiu Palcu wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 12:40:26PM +0100, Phil Blundell wrote: > > > Actually, that last sentence is slightly incorrect. image.bbclass does > > > have the knowledge, it just seems to be failing to act on it. So > > > perhaps the easiest fix for the time being is simply to move the > > > remove_packaging_data_files call in rootfs_uninstall_unneeded () a few > > > lines higher up so that it's inside the "if [ -z $(delayed_postinsts) ]" > > > block. > > > > What you're suggesting means that we will have the PM metadata present > > if there are delayed postinstalls present. But, since the PM is not > > present, what's the use of that? > > Well, er, that it will make the postinstalls work. Isn't that exactly > the problem here? I'm clearly missing something here. If we have a generic mechanism to run postinstall scripts now, and "package-management" is not in IMAGE_FEATURES, why do we need or want the package manager to be in control of running the postinstalls? Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre