On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 17:30 +0800, xiaofeng....@windriver.com wrote:
> From: Xiaofeng Yan <xiaofeng....@windriver.com>
>
> The linking will fail when an original functions exist. So remove the
> original functions when building an lsb image and make functions linking to
> functions.lsbinitscripts successfully.
>
> [YOCTO #2133]
>
> Signed-off-by: Xiaofeng Yan <xiaofeng....@windriver.com>
> ---
> meta/recipes-extended/lsb/lsbinitscripts_9.03.bb | 8 +++++++-
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-extended/lsb/lsbinitscripts_9.03.bb
> b/meta/recipes-extended/lsb/lsbinitscripts_9.03.bb
> index dd92a92..73bea2f 100644
> --- a/meta/recipes-extended/lsb/lsbinitscripts_9.03.bb
> +++ b/meta/recipes-extended/lsb/lsbinitscripts_9.03.bb
> @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ DESCRIPTION = "SysV init scripts which only is used in an LSB
> image"
> SECTION = "base"
> LICENSE = "GPLv2"
> DEPENDS = "popt"
> -PR = "r0"
> +PR = "r1"
>
> LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=ebf4e8b49780ab187d51bd26aaa022c6"
>
> @@ -25,3 +25,9 @@ do_install(){
> install -d ${D}/etc/init.d/
> install -m 0755 ${S}/rc.d/init.d/functions ${D}/etc/init.d/functions
> }
> +
> +pkg_postinst_${PN} () {
> + if [ -f "/etc/init.d/functions" ]; then
> + rm -f /etc/init.d/functions
> + fi
> +}
This looks highly suspicious to me. Shouldn't the other provider of this
be put under control for update-alternatives too or something?
Cheers,
Richard
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
