[oe] [PATCH][meta-oe] systemd: add postrm u-a calls

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Op 21-11-11 09:46, Martin Jansa schreef:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 03:15:17PM +0100, Martin Jansa wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 09:22:12AM +0100, Anders Darander wrote:
>>> * Martin Jansa <martin.jansa at gmail.com> [111110 08:57]:
>>>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 08:44:49AM +0100, Anders Darander wrote:
>>>>> * Martin Jansa <martin.jansa at gmail.com> [111109 20:25]:
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Martin Jansa <Martin.Jansa at gmail.com> --- 
>>>>>> meta-oe/recipes-core/systemd/systemd_git.bb |   11 +++++++++-- 
>>>>>> 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>> 
>>>>>> diff --git a/meta-oe/recipes-core/systemd/systemd_git.bb
>>>>>> b/meta-oe/recipes-core/systemd/systemd_git.bb index
>>>>>> 90862a3..d1d4306 100644 ---
>>>>>> a/meta-oe/recipes-core/systemd/systemd_git.bb +++
>>>>>> b/meta-oe/recipes-core/systemd/systemd_git.bb @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@
>>>>>> inherit gitpkgv # TODO: # u-a for runlevel and telinit -# u-a
>>>>>> prerm
>>> 
>>>>> Here on your todo list, it stated u-a for prerm, but you applied
>>>>> it to the postrm. In this case, it probably doesn't really
>>>>> matter, but I'd still guess that it would make more sense to
>>>>> remove the u-a before removing the binaries. Although, I don't
>>>>> think it'll actually cause any problems in this case.
>>> 
>>>> I did what u-a.bbclass usually do.. if you think it should be in
>>>> prerm then it would be best to first fix in u-a.bbclass and then we
>>>> can update the rest of metadata.
>>> 
>>> Yeah, like I said, is't likely not a real problem. There'll probably 
>>> just be a tiny window during which, in this case, e.g. reboot isn't 
>>> available, before u-a has been told to change the reboot link.
>>> 
>>> I'm currently just a little bit catious as I've recently stumbled
>>> upon post-/prerm issues using rpm... (Although the ones I know of
>>> (busybox updates, rsyslog removal) are either fixed or there has been
>>> patches submitted).
>> 
>> So should I change postrm to prerm in this patch or is there other 
>> reason why it wasn't applied yet?

I was waiting for Anders to comment on it :) Changing to prerm would be better.

regards,

Koen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iEYEARECAAYFAk7KGs8ACgkQMkyGM64RGpFddACghK4Srey32MmPC9KSCl5uLP4T
KDwAoKc4IGiGwRrOVXzgRtHTjmhxYzra
=QnvQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----