[poky] busybox & update-alternatives

[Mark Hatle]

On 2/11/11 12:30 PM, Mark Hatle wrote:
> On 2/11/11 12:24 PM, Gary Thomas wrote:
>> On 02/11/2011 10:41 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>> On 02/11/2011 09:53 AM, Gary Thomas wrote:
>>>> A build for my platform with today's master
>>>> 49a18f1748d2417958b8e19cdd58c0c79f4fc728
>>>> shows a new behaviour - many messages like this:
>>>> update-alternatives: Linking //usr/bin/wc to ../../bin/busybox
>>>>
>>>> Questions:
>>>> * Is this truly new or was it just quiet before?
>>>> * Can't this be done at image build time? On my little
>>>> embedded OMAP-L138, it takes nearly 2 minutes to run
>>>> through this. My root is a ramdisk, so this is a cost
>>>> I see on _every_ boot.
>>>> * If it can't be done at build time, can I disable it?
>>>
>>> It can be done at build time _except_ for when there's a conflict. I suspect what's going on is that a recent change has introduced a conflict (which is to say, busybox provides
>>> foo as an alternative and something else also provides it, but isn't registering it as an alternative). If you check the whole boot log (or log.do_rootfs) you can find where the
>>> conflict is and then do something like http://cgit.openembedded.org/cgit.cgi/openembedded/commit/?id=902b98f32ffd35661e43382f47226f65528ff1b1 (it's a little more complicated if the
>>> recipe also does BBCLASSEXTEND, since you don't want to do the move for virtclass-foo).
>>
>> Running the postinst script manually, I get this error:
>>
>> + update-rc.d -s syslog busybox-udhcpc defaults
>> usage: update-rc.d [-n] [-f] [-r <root>] <basename> remove
>>         update-rc.d [-n] [-r <root>] [-s] <basename> defaults [NN | sNN kNN]
>>         update-rc.d [-n] [-r <root>] [-s] <basename> start|stop NN runlvl [runlvl] [...] .
>>                  -n: not really
>>                  -f: force
>>                  -v: verbose
>>                  -r: alternate root path (default is /)
>>                  -s: invoke start methods if appropriate to current runlevel
>>
>> Looks like update-rc.d is not being called properly.  This
>> was introduced by
>>    commit 427472e980cd6254a5e4ef37209b327e15af259b
>>    Author: Mark Hatle <mark.hatle at windriver.com>
>>    Date:   Thu Feb 3 19:29:50 2011 -0600
>>
>> Mark, any comments?
>>
> 
> The error is coming from the INITSCRIPT_NAME_${PN} change.  However, I don't
> know how to resolve it.  Where there was previously only one init script, there
> are now two.  So how do we inform bitbake that there are two initscripts to be
> processed?

I asked and it appears there is a limitation of one initscript per split
package.  So as a workaround, I suggest removing the busybox-udhcpc from the
INITSCRIPTS_NAME_${PN} line..

--Mark

> (If specifying more then one initscript is correct in the recipe, then the bug
> is in a class wherever update-rc.d is called.)
> 
> --Mark
> _______________________________________________
> poky mailing list
> poky at yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/poky