Re: [PATCH 03/11] package_rpm.bbclass: Add support for PACKAGE_EXCLUDE to RPM installs

[Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>]

On Wednesday 14 August 2013 15:30:01 Mark Hatle wrote:
> Using the new smart exclude mechanism an error will be generated in the
> excluded package is required for the image to be generated.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@windriver.com>
> ---
>  meta/classes/package_rpm.bbclass | 5 +++++
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/meta/classes/package_rpm.bbclass
> b/meta/classes/package_rpm.bbclass index 324d83f..74ae0ed 100644
> --- a/meta/classes/package_rpm.bbclass
> +++ b/meta/classes/package_rpm.bbclass
> @@ -356,6 +356,11 @@ EOF
>  		smart --data-dir=${target_rootfs}/var/lib/smart config --set
> rpm-extra-macros._var=${localstatedir} smart
> --data-dir=${target_rootfs}/var/lib/smart config --set
> rpm-extra-macros._tmppath=/install/tmp package_write_smart_config
> ${target_rootfs}
> +		# Do the following configurations here, to avoid them being saved for
> field upgrade 
> +		for i in ${PACKAGE_EXCLUDE}; do
> +			smart --data-dir=$1/var/lib/smart flag --set exclude-packages $i
> +		done

IMO, it would be correct to persist these exclusions into the runtime 
configuration. Not doing so is inconsistent with the behaviour of 
BAD_RECOMMENDATIONS, and it means that if you do an upgrade or an install on 
the target, these excluded packages can sneak back in which I would think 
would not be desirable unless the user explicitly turns off the exclusion. 
Clearing the flag if it were persisted is easy to do with smart.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre