On 15 October 2014 12:49, Peter Urbanec <openembedded-de...@urbanec.net> wrote:
> opkg upgrade will now call prerm and postrm scripts from the old package
> with the "upgrade new-version" arguments, similar to what dpkg does.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Urbanec <openembedded-de...@urbanec.net>
> Upstream-Status: Submitted [opkg-de...@googlegroups.com]
> ---
> .../opkg/opkg/prerm-and-postrm-scripts.patch | 79
> ++++++++++++++++++++++
> meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_0.2.2.bb | 1 +
> 2 files changed, 80 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644
> meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg/prerm-and-postrm-scripts.patch
>
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg/prerm-and-postrm-scripts.patch
> b/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg/prerm-and-postrm-scripts.patch
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..c393807
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg/prerm-and-postrm-scripts.patch
> @@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
> +From 476965fdb2d6eec559242e6205cbb07d539b80e1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> +From: Peter Urbanec <openembedded-de...@urbanec.net>
> +Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 14:32:22 +1100
> +Subject: [PATCH] opkg_install: Call prerm and postrm scripts on package
> + upgrade.
> +To: opkg-de...@googlegroups.com
> +Cc: p...@paulbarker.me.uk
> +
> +When upgrading a package from v1 to v2, run "v1-prerm upgrade v2" and
> +"v1-postrm upgrade v2", similarly to what dpkg does.
> +
> +This patch fixes issue 104.
> +
> +Signed-off-by: Peter Urbanec <openembedded-de...@urbanec.net>
This is still missing "Upstream-status:"
> +---
> + libopkg/opkg_install.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> + 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> +
> +diff --git a/libopkg/opkg_install.c b/libopkg/opkg_install.c
> +index 4f6fe65..ec0f34a 100644
> +--- a/libopkg/opkg_install.c
> ++++ b/libopkg/opkg_install.c
> +@@ -601,7 +601,25 @@ prerm_upgrade_old_pkg(pkg_t *pkg, pkg_t *old_pkg)
> + Error unwind, for both the above cases:
> + old-postinst abort-upgrade new-version
> + */
> +- return 0;
> ++ int err;
> ++ char *script_args;
> ++ char *new_version;
> ++
> ++ if (!old_pkg || !pkg)
> ++ return 0;
> ++
> ++ new_version = pkg_version_str_alloc(pkg);
> ++
> ++ sprintf_alloc(&script_args, "upgrade %s", new_version);
> ++ free(new_version);
> ++ err = pkg_run_script(old_pkg, "prerm", script_args);
> ++ free(script_args);
> ++ if (err != 0) {
> ++ opkg_msg(ERROR, "prerm script for package \"%s\" failed\n",
> ++ old_pkg->name);
> ++ return -1;
> ++ }
> ++ return 0;
> + }
> + + static int
I don't think the patch has been generated properly here. There
shouldn't be a change to this line.
> +@@ -1001,7 +1019,25 @@ postrm_upgrade_old_pkg(pkg_t *pkg, pkg_t *old_pkg)
> + new-postrm failed-upgrade old-version
> + Error unwind, for both cases:
> + old-preinst abort-upgrade new-version */
> +- return 0;
> ++ int err;
> ++ char *script_args;
> ++ char *new_version;
> ++
> ++ if (!old_pkg || !pkg)
> ++ return 0;
> ++
> ++ new_version = pkg_version_str_alloc(pkg);
> ++
> ++ sprintf_alloc(&script_args, "upgrade %s", new_version);
> ++ free(new_version);
> ++ err = pkg_run_script(old_pkg, "postrm", script_args);
> ++ free(script_args);
> ++ if (err != 0) {
> ++ opkg_msg(ERROR, "postrm script for package \"%s\" failed\n",
> ++ old_pkg->name);
> ++ return -1;
> ++ }
> ++ return 0;
> + }
> + + static int
Again, I'm not sure why this line is listed with a '+'.
Cheers,
--
Paul Barker
Email: p...@paulbarker.me.uk
http://www.paulbarker.me.uk
--
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
