Wind River Support Network


LIN5-6021 : Problems with WIND00420371 changes in pre-release of WRL

Created: Aug 1, 2013    Updated: Dec 19, 2017
Resolved Date: Aug 26, 2013
Found In Version: 5.0.1
Fix Version:
Severity: Standard
Applicable for: Wind River Linux 5
Component/s: Userspace
Host OS: Linux Ubuntu


This is about the change done as part of WIND00420371.
( The resulting change can be seen in )

I get into problems with this change when trying the (pre-) rcpl6 release.

As an example of an image bbscript that gets into problems:
$ cat
DESCRIPTION = "An appliance initramfs image to be used by libguestfs"
PR = "r0"

inherit image

IMAGE_INSTALL = "busybox initscripts libguestfs-daemon parted util-linux e2fsprogs"
IMAGE_FSTYPES = "cpio.gz"

# Reduce image size...
ROOTFS_POSTPROCESS_COMMAND += "remove_packaging_data_files ; "

But also other normal image bb-scripts that uses "remove_packaging_data_files" have problems.

Reason is that the fix in WIND00420371, removes (or moves away) some files in the rootfs related to the rpm database.
But "remove_packaging_data_files" tries to remove the same things, and the build stops with "cannot find file/directory".

The "remove_packaging_data_files" function is found in one of
depending on image type.

Removing the call to "remove_packaging_data_files" in the image bb-file(s), will make the build go through ok. But I'm wondering if the change done in WIND00420371 is the "correct way".

1) A quick check through our Ericsson projects, find more than a few image bb-scripts using this -> projects at Ericsson will get failures when rcpl6 is deployed. We can fix this for them, but ...
    As I see it, it is a regression if we / Ericsson need to change bb-scripts that used to work, but maybe there is a good reason in this case to do it.

2) Is the fix actually ok, as  "remove_packaging_data_files" are "routed" to different function depending on the image type, and the WIND00420371 is for rpm type only.
    Will removing the call to remove_packaging_data_files, cause the deb and ipk cases to maybe misbehave?


Comment out the ROOTFS_POSTPROCESS_COMMAND += "remove_packaging_data_files ; " line.

Steps to Reproduce

Add ROOTFS_POSTPROCESS_COMMAND += "remove_packaging_data_files ; "
to an existing "" (that does not have rpm included on target).
It should trigger a build error.

Other Downloads

Live chat