Re: [OE-core] How to create a directory in multiple packages?

["Peter Kjellerstedt" <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org <openembedded-
> core@lists.openembedded.org> On Behalf Of Mark Hatle
> Sent: den 15 december 2020 02:02
> To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> Subject: Re: [OE-core] How to create a directory in multiple packages?
> 
> On 12/14/20 11:43 AM, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote:
> > Say we have a recipe that creates an empty /etc/foo directory. Now we
> > want to add a new file in that directory /etc/foo/bar and package it as
> > ${PN}-bar. This means the creation of the /etc/foo directory is moved
> > from the ${PN} package to the ${PN}-bar package. Is there any way to
> > make ${PN} continue to create an empty /etc/foo, or is the only
> > alternative to introduce an /etc/foo/.dummy and package it in ${PN}?
> 
> try adjust the order of the PACKAGES variant.  Something like:
> 
> PACKAGES = "${PN}-bar ... ${PN}"
> 
> FILES_${PN}-bar = "/etc/foo/bar"
> FILES_${PN} = "/etc/foo"
> 
> That SHOULD package the file 'bar' in -bar, and the directory in ${PN}.

Unfortunately that does not work (seems bitbake is too smart). What I have 
is basically:

PACKAGE_BEFORE_PN = "${PN}-bar"
FILES_${PN} += "${sysconfdir}/foo"
FILES_${PN}-bar = "${sysconfdir}/foo/bar"

which results in the following in the spec file:

%files -n foo-bar
%defattr(-,-,-,-)
%dir "/etc"
%dir "/etc/foo"
"/etc/foo/bar"

There is nothing else about /etc or /etc/foo in the spec file.

After delving into the code for at bit, I believe this is due to how 
populate_packages() works. When it handles the ${PN}-bar package and 
finds the /etc/foo/bar file, it will also mark /etc and /etc/foo as  
seen, which means they will not be added to any other package, unless 
that package has an entry for some other /etc/foo/something file, even 
if /etc/foo is explicitly listed in, e.g., FILES_${PN}.

So for now, it seems we will have to resort to using a pkg_postinst_${PN}.

> (Some of the people commenting this isn't less then optimal, actually
> it's not that unusual.. Typical case I see is creating a directory in 
> /var or /usr/share for datafiles and the main package owns the directory, 
> with sub-packages [or other packages] contributing data into that 
> directory.)

Yes, there are reason why the empty directory needs to be installed as 
part of the image. Otherwise I would just have used a file in 
"/usr/lib/tmpfiles.d".

> --Mark
> 
> > //Peter

//Peter