musl: prevent errors if do_install is run more than once
PATCH 1/1 musl: prevent errors if do_install is run more than once
--- meta/recipes-core/musl/musl_git.bb | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
meta/recipes-core/musl/musl_git.bb +2 -1
@@ -57,10 +57,11 @@ do_install() { oe_runmake install DESTDIR='${D}' install -d ${D}${bindir} + rm -f ${D}${bindir}/ldd lnr ${D}${libdir}/libc.so ${D}${bindir}/ldd for l in crypt dl m pthread resolv rt util xnet do - ln -s libc.so ${D}${libdir}/lib$l.so + ln -sf libc.so ${D}${libdir}/lib$l.so done }
Signature · 1 line
1.9.1
Quoted 10 lines · Andre McCurdy
Signed-off-by Andre McCurdy <[email protected]>--- meta/recipes-core/musl/musl_git.bb | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)meta/recipes-core/musl/musl_git.bb +0
-0
meta/recipes-core/musl/musl_git.bb do_install() { · line 60
Quoted 4 lines
meta/recipes-core/musl/musl_git.bb +1
-0@@ -57,10 +57,11 @@ do_install() { oe_runmake install DESTDIR='${D}' install -d ${D}${bindir} + rm -f ${D}${bindir}/ldd
Doesn't lnr take care of removing old file ?
meta/recipes-core/musl/musl_git.bb do_install() { · line 64
Quoted 5 lines
meta/recipes-core/musl/musl_git.bb +1
-1lnr ${D}${libdir}/libc.so ${D}${bindir}/ldd for l in crypt dl m pthread resolv rt util xnet do - ln -s libc.so ${D}${libdir}/lib$l.so + ln -sf libc.so ${D}${libdir}/lib$l.so
this is ok
Quoted 11 lines
meta/recipes-core/musl/musl_git.bb +0
-1done } --1.9.1
--
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Quoted 13 lines · Khem Raj
Quoted 12 lines · Andre McCurdy
Signed-off-by Andre McCurdy <[email protected]>--- meta/recipes-core/musl/musl_git.bb | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)meta/recipes-core/musl/musl_git.bb +0
-0@@ -57,10 +57,11 @@ do_install() { oe_runmake install DESTDIR='${D}'
Quoted 4 lines
meta/recipes-core/musl/musl_git.bb do_install() { · line 60
Quoted 2 lines
meta/recipes-core/musl/musl_git.bb +1
-0install -d ${D}${bindir} + rm -f ${D}${bindir}/lddDoesn't lnr take care of removing old file ?
Apparently not:
$ touch foo
$ lnr xxx foo
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/.../openembedded-core/scripts/lnr", line 21, in <module>
os.symlink(target, linkname)
FileExistsError: [Errno 17] File exists: 'xxx' -> 'foo'Extend lnr to have a --force option?
Ross
Quoted 35 lines · Andre McCurdy
Quoted 1 line · Khem Raj
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Andre McCurdy <[email protected]>
Quoted 6 lines · wrote:
Review
Quoted 6 lines
Signed-off-by Andre McCurdy <[email protected]>--- meta/recipes-core/musl/musl_git.bb | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)(quoted diff) +0
-0b/meta/recipes-core/musl/musl_git.bb
Quoted 10 lines
meta/recipes-core/musl/musl_git.bb do_install() { · line 60
Quoted 8 lines
index 932c9a2..db26b4f 100644
meta/recipes-core/musl/musl_git.bb +1
-0@@ -57,10 +57,11 @@ do_install() { oe_runmake install DESTDIR='${D}' install -d ${D}${bindir} + rm -f ${D}${bindir}/lddDoesn't lnr take care of removing old file ?
Apparently not:
$ touch foo $ lnr xxx foo Traceback (most recent call last): File "/.../openembedded-core/scripts/lnr", line 21, in <module> os.symlink(target, linkname) FileExistsError: [Errno 17] File exists: 'xxx' -> 'foo' -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Quoted 1 line · Ross
Extend lnr to have a --force option?
Is there ever a case where we want lnr to fail if the target already exists?
There are plenty of existing examples in oe-core where rm is run before lnr (and in the cases where it's not, it's perhaps just a bug or an oversight).
So I think either leave the v1 patch as-is and run rm before lnr in musl do_install as we already do elsewhere, or update lnr so that it unconditionally removes any pre-existing target?
Quoted 5 lines · Andre McCurdy
Quoted 1 line · Ross
Extend lnr to have a --force option?
Is there ever a case where we want lnr to fail if the target already exists?
Quoted 7 lines
There are plenty of existing examples in oe-core where rm is run before lnr (and in the cases where it's not, it's perhaps just a bug or an oversight).
So I think either leave the v1 patch as-is and run rm before lnr in musl
do_installas we already do elsewhere, or update lnr so that it unconditionally removes any pre-existing target?
I like Ross'es suggestion to modify lnr implementation as an independent patch and
rebase your patch on top. Maybe a cleanup later to remove all rm cmds that are used
before lnr
Quoted 14 lines · Khem Raj
Quoted 5 lines · Andre McCurdy
Quoted 1 line · Ross
Extend lnr to have a --force option?
Is there ever a case where we want lnr to fail if the target already exists?
Quoted 7 lines
There are plenty of existing examples in oe-core where rm is run before lnr (and in the cases where it's not, it's perhaps just a bug or an oversight).
So I think either leave the v1 patch as-is and run rm before lnr in musl
do_installas we already do elsewhere, or update lnr so that it unconditionally removes any pre-existing target?
Quoted 5 lines
I like Ross'es suggestion to modify lnr implementation as an independent patch and
rebase your patch on top. Maybe a cleanup later to remove all rm cmds that are used
before lnr
Do we keep the lnr filename? Change to ln-python and add -r and -f?
The above question wasn't answered. Should we just always force it and emit a WARNING if it's being replaced?
-M
Quoted 24 lines · Matthew McClintock
Quoted 1 line · Khem Raj
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Andre McCurdy <[email protected]>
Quoted 1 line · wrote:
Quoted 1 line
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 3:07 AM, Burton, Ross <[email protected]>
Quoted 3 lines · wrote:
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line
Extend lnr to have a --force option?
Is there ever a case where we want lnr to fail if the target already
exists?
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 8 lines
There are plenty of existing examples in oe-core where rm is run before lnr (and in the cases where it's not, it's perhaps just a bug or an oversight).
So I think either leave the v1 patch as-is and run rm before lnr in musl
do_installas we already do elsewhere, or update lnr so that it unconditionally removes any pre-existing target?Quoted 5 lines
I like Ross'es suggestion to modify lnr implementation as an independent patch and
rebase your patch on top. Maybe a cleanup later to remove all rm cmds that are used
before lnr
Quoted 4 lines
Do we keep the lnr filename? Change to ln-python and add -r and -f?
The above question wasn't answered. Should we just always force it and emit a WARNING if it's being replaced?
It’s should force replace it yes a note about replacing an existing file if any is fine
Quoted 4 lines
-M