Re: [PATCH 1/8] udev: fix dependency and location of udevadm

[ChenQi <Qi.Chen@windriver.com>]

On 11/11/2013 06:53 PM, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 10:18 +0800, ChenQi wrote:
>> On 11/10/2013 06:54 AM, Phil Blundell wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2013-11-09 at 13:28 +0800, Qi.Chen@windriver.com wrote:
>>>> +	install -d ${D}${base_bindir}
>>>> +	mv ${D}${bindir}/udevadm ${D}${base_bindir}/udevadm
>>>> +	rmdir ${D}${bindir}
>>> This will fail if ${bindir} and ${base_bindir} are the same.
>>>
>>> p.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> In udev recipe, they are not defined as the same one.
> Those variables are part of the distro configuration.  Individual
> recipes don't, in general, set them.
>
>> And moving something from bindir to base_bindir doesn't seem uncommon in
>> OE, you can grep the project using the following command.
>>
>> grep -Ri 'mv.*bindir.*base_bindir' meta/*
> A better command to use would be:
>
> grep -C 4 -Ri 'mv.*bindir.*base_bindir' meta/*

Thanks for pointing it out :)

Currently I'm not sure whether we support configuring ${bindir} to equal 
to ${base_bindir}, but maybe we will support this such configuration in 
the future.
So I'll send out V2 of this patch.

Thanks,
Chen Qi

> which reveals that most of these "mv" commands are enclosed in a
> conditional that checks whether the two directories are indeed different
> before trying to move them.
>
> It's true that a few of the things in recipes-extended do appear to be
> broken.  cpio, for example, was broken by
> 6dee3050a4a0c4f3cc9fec23a0bc02155d680863; gzip was broken by
> e0626a0270fb0f4ff128e761c13d44162723434c; mktemp was broken by
> 4807d938023ce06f2924c8a0503c32d083be23b5.  All of these three patches
> seem to be well-intentioned attempts to improve the handling of
> update-alternatives and I guess those recipes are obscure enough that
> nobody has noticed before now that there is anything wrong with them.
>
> p.
>
>
>
>