[OE-core] [PATCH 1/8] udev: fix dependency and location of udevadm

[Phil Blundell]

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 at 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/*

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.