[oe] [PATCH 3/3] base-files-3.0.14 configuration files

[Peter Gsellmann]

Hi Martin!

Am Freitag, 18. März 2011, 16:30:48 schrieb Martin Jansa:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 02:08:15PM +0100, Peter Gsellmann wrote:
> > Am Freitag, 18. März 2011, 09:59:17 schrieb Hauser, Wolfgang (external):
> > > >> > Mark some files in ${sysconfdir} as configuration files so they are
> > > >> not blindly overwritten when upgrading
> > > >> 
> > > >> I would suggest a pre-/post processing in the packages, like debian
> > > >> does.
> > > >> If a config file exists or is changed, the current File will be
> > > rotated
> > > >> or, if possible, left as it is and the new 
> > > >> file is installed beside the changed one.
> > > 
> > > >The opkg does not touch a present config file, but installs the new
> > > file with the name *-opkg
> > > >So if you do a find /etc -name \*-opkg you see the conflicts.
> > > 
> > > >Any sensible conversion from old to new config file should be made by
> > > the package itself.
> > > 
> > > As I experienced, opkg exits with an error code if a config file already
> > > exists, so if you want to create an image, the process will break at
> > > that error.
> > > It wasn't possible to create an image automatically then.
> > If you create a fresh new image, the config files should not exist.
> > opkg should not complain.
> 
> Looks like you two are talking about 2 different things.
> 
> W) If 2 different packages are installing same config file, opkg won't
> overwrite it and image creation would also fail
This should considered as bug in opkg;
why 2 packages may not use the same Conffile?
For example one would split 'ntp' into 'ntpd' and 'ntpdate':
  both should use the servers in /etc/ntp.conf .
In present configuration you have to syncronize 2 files /etc/ntp.conf
  and /etc/ntp/step-tickers .

> P) If same package is trying to install newer version of config file it
> overwrites it silently when md5 sums are the same or file is not in
> CONFFILES or creates config.file-opkg otherwise.
This should considered as user error to 'install' a package instead of 'upgrade'.

> So the patch idea looks sane to me, only please check why there is
> unused conffiles variable and maybe use it as default CONFFILES or
> remove it completely.
I think you talk about CONFFILES_${PN}_micro, CONFFILES_${PN}_nylon, CONFFILES_${PN}_slugos ?
For 'nylon' and 'slugos' it generates an additional empty file /etc/resolv.conf .
Otherwise this file is not owned by any package even so it exists!
  (anybody knows who creates it?)
Could this be written as:
CONFFILES_${PN}_nylon = ${CONFFILES_${PN}} + "${sysconfdir}/resolv.conf"
  or is there a smarter syntax?

OTOH, declaring 'base-files' as owner of /etc/resolv.conf for _all_ images
  would be the better solution (in my opinion). Votings?


For 'micro' the list is empty! What is the advantage of an empty list for this image?
I dont know and for this i am a bit reluctant to remove it.



Peter