[OE-core] [PATCHv2] {kernel, module}.bbclass: don't run depmod for module packages during do_rootfs

[Darren Hart]

On 04/24/2012 06:46 PM, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
> On 25.04.2012 03:14, Darren Hart wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 04/24/2012 05:42 PM, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
>>> On 25.04.2012 02:29, Darren Hart wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 04/23/2012 02:48 PM, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
>>>>> * depmod already gets executed by pkg_postinst_kernel-image.
>>>>>
>>>>> * If you build a module using module.bbclass,
>>>>>   pkg_postinst returns 1 in do_rootfs, causing
>>>>>   pkg_postinst to run again on first boot. To
>>>>>   improve this situation, I copied pkg_postinst
>>>>>   from kernel.bbclass to module.bbclass. This was
>>>>>   rejected by Koen, because he doesn't like the
>>>>>   code from kernel.bblcass, which uses
>>>>>   ${STAGING_DIR_KERNEL}. Richard then suggested
>>>>>   that calling depmod during do_rootfs wasn't
>>>>>   necessary at all, because it already gets done by
>>>>>   kernel-image.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for adding that in. I'm fine not addressing the reliance on the
>>>> existence of $D for now (no worse than it was).
>>>
>>> Can you explain what could be improved?'
>>
>> I did in the previous thread:
>>
>> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2012-April/021419.html
> 
> Sorry, I must have missed the inline comments when I replied to that mail.
> 
> From the manpage of test(1):
> 
>        -d FILE
>               FILE exists and is a directory
> 
>        -z STRING
>               the length of STRING is zero
> 
> I'm not sure what using -d should accomplish. (Virtually?) all postinst
> scripts in OE test for $D's emptiness to decide whether they are called
> offline (during do_rootfs) or online (on the target), so if a package
> manager sets $D, it should rather stop doing that, instead of relying on
> $D not being a directory by chance.

If it's standard throughout OE then it's really not worth discussing for
this patch. It seems like a fragile method to me, but in the event of a
problem we'd have a much larger issue on our hands.

So, looks good to me. Thanks for patiently addressing the feedback.

Acked-by: Darren Hart <dvhart at linux.intel.com>

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel