[Buildroot] [PATCH 13/51] samba: use <pkg>_INSTALL_INIT_SYSV mechanism
Peter Korsgaard
peter at korsgaard.com
Mon Nov 24 20:47:45 UTC 2014
>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni at free-electrons.com> writes:
> Dear Baruch Siach,
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 06:49:22 +0200, Baruch Siach wrote:
>> Hi Thomas,
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 09:38:45PM +0100, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
>> > +define SAMBA_INSTALL_INIT_SYSV
>> > + # install start/stop script
>> > + @if [ ! -f $(TARGET_DIR)/etc/init.d/S91smb ]; then \
>> > + $(INSTALL) -m 0755 -D package/samba/S91smb $(TARGET_DIR)/etc/init.d/S91smb; \
>> > + fi
>> > +endef
>>
>> Why not install the init script unconditionally like you did in vsftpd?
> Well, when I saw how many packages were still installing init script
> (and other files) conditionally, I kind of changed my mind mid-way
> through the patch series, and therefore for the remaining patches
> decided to keep things as they were: keep the condition when it was
> there, and keep the direct installation with no condition when it was
> done this way.
> We certainly need a decision about whether we want those conditions
> everywhere. Their role is to potentially allow the users to provide a
> custom version of those scripts (or configuration files) in the
> filesystem skeleton. I personally believe it's not a good idea, for two
> reasons:
> * People should use a filesystem overlay and/or post-build script
> instead of a custom skeleton.
> * Why would we install our own stuff conditionally, while the
> build system of all packages install things unconditionally, making
> it anyway impossible for a target skeleton to customize all files.
> Peter, your call?
Yes, I agree - Lets get rid of these legacy checks. Using a custom
rootfs overlay / post-build script is a lot more flexible and robust.
--
Venlig hilsen,
Peter Korsgaard
More information about the buildroot
mailing list