Re: [oe-commits] Carsten Haitzler (Rasterman : angstrom, exquisite, psplash, opkg, angsrtom-images, sysvinit: abstract splash

[Graeme Gregory <dp@xora.org.uk>]

Graeme Gregory wrote:
> GIT User account wrote:
>   
>> Module: openembedded.git
>> Branch: org.openembedded.dev
>> Commit: 212e36417ae27e1be11147168b6f5cdfd1c5eda9
>> URL:    http://gitweb.openembedded.net/?p=openembedded.git&a=commit;h=212e36417ae27e1be11147168b6f5cdfd1c5eda9
>>
>> Author: Carsten Haitzler (Rasterman <raster@rasterman.com>
>> Date:   Fri Apr 17 15:44:58 2009 +1000
>>
>> angstrom, exquisite, psplash, opkg, angsrtom-images, sysvinit: abstract splash
>>
>> this abstracts psplash to be generic. now as long as something provides a
>> splashfuncs file that sysvinit (and other scripts) can source, and all the
>> approproate init hooks to start the splash etc. you can use psplash,
>> exquisitie, usplash or anything that tickles your fancy. this moves splash
>> toa ${SPLASH} variable to include in your image (or override). the default in
>> angstrom is psplash - unless you override it. opkg also runs a configure
>> script that cna take forever - and so this speically sends off some splash
>> commands (if there) to let you know the systme is alive and working (but just
>> busy).
>>
>> this is one commit as if this breaks things you either want to fix the minor
>> break or totally revert the whole patch. i hope it didn't break anything.
>>
>>  recipes/opkg/files/configure                       |   18 ++++++++++++
>>   
>>     
> Taken me a while to notice, but the backgrounding of opkg configure in
> this file totally breaks booting cleanly on first boot. It causes a race
> condition on whether the necessary packages are configured before X
> manages to launch. Is it really required that opkg be backgrounded at
> this point?
>
> Also Im not convinced about the deleting of S98configure, this breaks
> the situation when a device dies during opkg configure (most commonly
> when dbus shuts down which kills pretty much everything) as packages
> dont get configured on next boot to finish the operation.
>
> This is not worthy of a revert, just some more thought!
>
>   
Ah I see, it is broken in the case there is no /etc/default/splashfuncs

Graeme