[OE-core] [PATCH 1/1] powertop: inherit update-alternatives and use a higher priority than busybox

[Koen Kooi]

Op 8 jul. 2011 om 18:43 heeft Richard Purdie <richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org> het volgende geschreven:

> On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 16:57 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> 
>> Op 8 jul. 2011 om 16:00 heeft Richard Purdie <richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org> het volgende geschreven:
>> 
>>> On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 08:25 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Op 8 jul. 2011 om 02:40 heeft "Cui, Dexuan" <dexuan.cui at intel.com> het volgende geschreven:
>>>> 
>>>>> Tom Rini wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/07/2011 01:39 AM, Dexuan Cui wrote:
>>>>>>> busybox-1.18.4 installs /bin/powertop and the powertop recipe
>>>>>>> installs /usr/bin/powertop. So, in PATH, if /bin appears before
>>>>>>> /usr/bin, we would run the version offered by busybox, which has a
>>>>>>> very limited function (e.g., no parameter is accepted) and this
>>>>>>> causes trouble to eclipse plugin. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We can use update-alternatives for powertop with higher priority to
>>>>>>> resolve the issue. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Fixes [YOCTO #1208]
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dexuan Cui <dexuan.cui at intel.com>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This fix seems a bit incomplete.  Why is busybox putting powertop into
>>>>>> /bin when it almost certainly belongs in /usr/bin like the real recipe
>>>>>> was placing it.  busybox needs a fix here too.
>>>>> Thanks for the comment! 
>>>>> I was hesitant about fixing busybox as I wasn't sure if it's worthy
>>>> to make a patch to only fix the path for busybox. I don't know why
>>>> busybox puts it into /bin. I think the best place may be /usr/sbin/. 
>>>>> A little unluckily this patch to powertop has been already in poky
>>>> master... So maybe we could try to fix the recipes in future, e.g.,
>>>> when upgrading them.
>>>> 
>>>> we should do the right thing in oe-core,  the poky people can clean up on their own. 
>>> 
>>> I don't think anyone is suggesting we shouldn't do the right thing in
>>> OE-Core? :)
>>> 
>>> I merged the original patch on the grounds that its was an improvement
>>> to the situation. We've identified a better improvement so can someone
>>> please send me the patch and I'll likely merge that too.
>> 
>> the email makes it seem that the patch was merged into poky, but not
>> oe-core.  When reading it like that the proposal involved merging the
>> 'incomplete' patch for the sake of keeping poky and oe-core in sync
> 
> The OE-Core component of Poky always stays in sync now...

I realized that later, I'm way too tired to think properly. sorry about the fuss


> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core at lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core