[OE-core] [PATCH v2 0/7] run-postinsts refactoring

Thu Jun 6 18:22:23 UTC 2013

On 6/6/13 1:09 PM, Laurentiu Palcu wrote:
>
>
> On 06/06/2013 07:43 PM, Mark Hatle wrote:
>> Comments below....
>>
>> On 6/6/13 2:41 AM, Laurentiu Palcu wrote:
>>> (cover letter only)
>>>
>>> Changes in v2:
>>>    * addressed an RPM issue that happened on AB. Interestingly, it happened only on
>>>      certain distros. Our internal AB (running on Ubuntu server 12.04), didn't show
>>>      any issues. So, what was the problem? We use a scriptlet wrapper to run the
>>>      pre/post install scriptlets. What I missed in the previous patchset was that I
>>>      didn't use the scriptlet wrapper when running the pre/post remove scriptlets
>>>      and the context in which they ran was not correct. Hence, the update-rc.d used
>>>      was the host's...
>>>    * addresses Ross's request to move run-postinsts recipe out of dpkg directory,
>>>      since it's generic now;
>>>
>>> Paul, Mark would you please review the RPM changes please?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Laurentiu
>>>
>>> Changes in v1:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> My work at #4484 revealed that the package managers deb/ipk/rpm handle removal
>>> of PM meta-data (when the PM is not deployed) and the delayed postinstalls
>>> execution in their own way. Currently we have:
>>>    * run-postinsts (for deb/ipk) and rpm-postinsts (for rpm) for running the delayed
>>>      postinstalls on target when the PM is not part of the image;
>>>    * opkg removes the meta-data and some uneeded packages whilst deb/rpm remove
>>>      only the meta-data;
>>>    * both opkg and deb have no way of running the delayed postinstalls on target,
>>>      if package-management is not part of IMAGE_FEATURES, because the meta-data
>>>      was deleted (and it would have been useless anyway since the PM is not installed);
>>>
>>> That being said, this patchset tries to create a more unified solution for all
>>> PM backends.
>>>
>>> rpm-postinsts recipe is replaced by run-postinsts but I'll keep it in oe-core
>>> for a while (a couple of weeks maybe), just in case the current solution does not
>>> satisfy the RPM users (I doubt it though).
>>>
>>> I did tests with core-image-minimal using sysvinit/systemd and with/without delayed
>>> postinstalls. The results are as expected.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Laurentiu
>>>
>>> The following changes since commit a62aed41f2d8f874f7ae24d0e5be5dbc66ea2199:
>>>
>>>     lrzsz: check locale.h in configure (2013-06-04 15:55:46 +0100)
>>>
>>> are available in the git repository at:
>>>
>>>     git://git.yoctoproject.org/poky-contrib lpalcu/run_postinsts_refactor_v2
>>>     http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/log/?h=lpalcu/run_postinsts_refactor_v2
>>>
>>> Laurentiu Palcu (7):
>>>     rootfs_*.bbclass: add some helper functions
>>>     image.bbclass: remove unneeded files from the image
>>>     core-image-minimal: do not remove packaging files in the rootfs
>>>       postprocess
>>>     run-postinsts: make it generic
>>>     rootfs_rpm.bbclass: switch to using run-postinsts
>>>     package_rpm.bbclass: handle pre/post remove scriptlets
>>>     rpm: replace rpm-postinsts dependency with run-postinsts
>>>
>>>    meta/classes/image.bbclass                         |   33 ++++++++++++++
>>>    meta/classes/package_rpm.bbclass                   |   16 ++++---
>>>    meta/classes/rootfs_deb.bbclass                    |   23 +++++++++-
>>>    meta/classes/rootfs_ipk.bbclass                    |   39 ++++++++--------
>>>    meta/classes/rootfs_rpm.bbclass                    |   29 ++++++++++--
>>>    meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal.bb     |    2 -
>>>    .../dpkg/run-postinsts/run-postinsts               |   36 ---------------
>>>    .../dpkg/run-postinsts/run-postinsts.awk           |   30 -------------
>>>    meta/recipes-devtools/rpm/rpm_5.4.9.bb             |    2 +-
>>>    .../run-postinsts/run-postinsts/run-postinsts      |   47 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>>    .../{dpkg => run-postinsts}/run-postinsts_1.0.bb   |    7 ++-
>>>    11 files changed, 159 insertions(+), 105 deletions(-)
>>>    delete mode 100755 meta/recipes-devtools/dpkg/run-postinsts/run-postinsts
>>>    delete mode 100644 meta/recipes-devtools/dpkg/run-postinsts/run-postinsts.awk
>>>    create mode 100755 meta/recipes-devtools/run-postinsts/run-postinsts/run-postinsts
>>>    rename meta/recipes-devtools/{dpkg => run-postinsts}/run-postinsts_1.0.bb (68%)
>>>
>>
>>> +rootfs_remove_unneeded () {
>>> +	if ${@base_contains("IMAGE_FEATURES", "package-management", "false", "true", d)}; then
>>> +		if [ -z "$(delayed_postinsts)" ]; then
>>> +			# All packages were successfully configured.
>>> +			# update-rc.d, base-passwd, run-postinsts are no further use, remove them now
>>> +			remove_run_postinsts=false
>>> +			if [ -e ${IMAGE_ROOTFS}${sysconfdir}/init.d/run-postinsts ]; then
>>> +				remove_run_postinsts=true
>>> +			fi
>>> +			rootfs_remove_packages update-rc.d base-passwd ${ROOTFS_BOOTSTRAP_INSTALL}
>>> +
>>> +			# Need to remove rc.d files for run-postinsts by hand since opkg won't
>>> +			# call postrm scripts in offline root mode.
>>> +			if $remove_run_postinsts; then
>>> +				update-rc.d -f -r ${IMAGE_ROOTFS} run-postinsts remove
>>> +			fi
>>
>> The above runs unconditionally for all package types.  Will this cause an issue
>> w/ RPM or deb?  (I don't think it will, but I'm slightly worried about RPM and
>> it's removal scripts.)
> I believe I missed to remove the opkg from the comment since I pasted
> this piece of code from rootfs_ipk.bbclass. However, during my tests, I
> saw no issues with rpm/deb. Is there anything in particular you think I
> should check for RPM to rule out your concerns?

Simply that the update-rc.d will be run by the RPM rule, and rerun in the above.

As long as that doesn't cause a problem, I'm fine with the change.

--Mark

> Thanks,
> Laurentiu
>>
>>> +		else
>>> +			# Some packages were not successfully configured, save them only
>>> +			# if we have run-postinsts script present. Otherwise, they're
>>> +			# useless
>>> +			if [ -e ${IMAGE_ROOTFS}${sysconfdir}/init.d/run-postinsts ]; then
>>> +				save_postinsts
>>> +			fi
>>> +		fi
>>> +
>>> +		# Since no package manager is present in the image the metadata is not needed
>>> +		remove_packaging_data_files
>>> +	fi
>>> +}
>>> +
>>
>> Everything else looks fine.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Mark Hatle <mark.hatle at windriver.com>
>>