opkg | 24 Oct 12:42 2014

Re: Issue 104 in opkg: Support prerm scripts for the old package

Updates:
	Status: Fixed

Comment #3 on issue 104 by paul.betafive: Support prerm scripts for the old  
package
https://code.google.com/p/opkg/issues/detail?id=104

This is now fixed in master thanks to a patch from Peter Urbanec.

--

-- 
You received this message because this project is configured to send all  
issue notifications to this address.
You may adjust your notification preferences at:
https://code.google.com/hosting/settings

Peter Urbanec | 22 Oct 15:55 2014
Picon

[PATCH - resend] opkg_install: Call prerm and postrm scripts on package upgrade.

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-devel@...>
---
  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
 <at>  <at>  -601,7 +601,25  <at>  <at>  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);
(Continue reading)

opkg | 16 Oct 14:15 2014

Re: Issue 116 in opkg: Install package(s) only after download of all needed packages.


Comment #4 on issue 116 by evensonb...@...: Install package(s)
only  
after download of all needed packages.
https://code.google.com/p/opkg/issues/detail?id=116

This is the behavior I want for my system; if all upgrades don't download  
successfully, then don't do an upgrade.  The workaround for me at this  
point has been to do "opkg upgrade --download-only" and verify that  
everything downloaded without error.  Could the fix be as simple as adding  
a command line options such as "--download-all" that essentially  
performs "opkg upgrade --download-only" first, verifies all downloads  
completed successfully and the performing "opkg upgrade" if all files  
downloaded successfully?

--

-- 
You received this message because this project is configured to send all  
issue notifications to this address.
You may adjust your notification preferences at:
https://code.google.com/hosting/settings

opkg | 16 Oct 01:30 2014

Re: Issue 116 in opkg: Install package(s) only after download of all needed packages.


Comment #3 on issue 116 by paul.betafive: Install package(s) only after  
download of all needed packages.
https://code.google.com/p/opkg/issues/detail?id=116

My comment was from a few months back and doesn't quite reflect my recent  
thinking: after considering this more, it needs to be an option for opkg as  
different embedded systems may want to do things differently. We need to  
have an option to download each package as it is required and an option to  
download all required packages upfront before installation begins. The  
exact way this works can be decided after v0.3.0 is released.

--

-- 
You received this message because this project is configured to send all  
issue notifications to this address.
You may adjust your notification preferences at:
https://code.google.com/hosting/settings

opkg | 16 Oct 01:27 2014

Re: Issue 116 in opkg: Install package(s) only after download of all needed packages.


Comment #2 on issue 116 by peteru...@...: Install package(s)
only  
after download of all needed packages.
https://code.google.com/p/opkg/issues/detail?id=116

Is that the best idea for memory constrained embedded systems? With a large  
upgrade set, you could potentially need to download more packages than you  
can store temporarily.

In the case of networking interfering with the upgrade process, I have a  
solution. It comes in two parts. The first part is a patch to opkg to  
address issue 104. This patch will cause opkg to call prerm and postrm  
scripts with the "upgrade" argument. The second part is a change to  
OpenEmbedded update-rc.d.bbclass, which provides the prerm/postrm and  
preinst/postinst scripts. These scripts will take heed of the "upgrade"  
argument and restart the service only at the postinst stage when you are  
doing an upgrade. See  
http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2014-October/097983.html

The second part is specific to the distribution and the init system in use.

--

-- 
You received this message because this project is configured to send all  
issue notifications to this address.
You may adjust your notification preferences at:
https://code.google.com/hosting/settings

Peter Urbanec | 15 Oct 13:34 2014
Picon

[PATCH] opkg_install: Call prerm and postrm scripts on package upgrade.

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-devel@...>
---
  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
 <at>  <at>  -601,7 +601,25  <at>  <at>  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);
(Continue reading)

opkg | 11 Oct 15:59 2014

Re: Issue 76 in opkg: Allow installation of a specified version of a package

Updates:
	Summary: Allow installation of a specified version of a package
	Owner: paul.betafive

Comment #3 on issue 76 by paul.betafive: Allow installation of a specified  
version of a package
https://code.google.com/p/opkg/issues/detail?id=76

opkg doesn't currently allow a desired version to be given on the command  
line when installing a package. This would be a very useful feature though,  
especially for package downgrades. This feature will be added after the  
v0.3.0 release.

--

-- 
You received this message because this project is configured to send all  
issue notifications to this address.
You may adjust your notification preferences at:
https://code.google.com/hosting/settings

opkg | 11 Oct 15:56 2014

Re: Issue 76 in opkg: Trouble downgrading packages.


Comment #2 on issue 76 by paul.betafive: Trouble downgrading packages.
https://code.google.com/p/opkg/issues/detail?id=76

Issue 146 has been merged into this issue.

--

-- 
You received this message because this project is configured to send all  
issue notifications to this address.
You may adjust your notification preferences at:
https://code.google.com/hosting/settings

Peter Urbanec | 9 Oct 13:20 2014
Picon

[Patch] Use "upgrade" argument in prerm and postrm scripts

Current implementation of opkg makes it difficult to distinguish between
package removal or upgrade in prerm and postrm scripts. The following patch
will make it easier and is close(r) to what dpkg does.

diff --git a/libopkg/opkg_remove.c b/libopkg/opkg_remove.c
index 07401b2..52454f8 100644
--- a/libopkg/opkg_remove.c
+++ b/libopkg/opkg_remove.c
 <at>  <at>  -293,7 +293,7  <at>  <at>  opkg_remove_pkg(pkg_t *pkg, int from_upgrade)
      pkg->state_want = SW_DEINSTALL;
      opkg_state_changed++;

-     if (pkg_run_script(pkg, "prerm", "remove") != 0) {
+     if (pkg_run_script(pkg, "prerm", from_upgrade ? "upgrade" : "remove") != 0) {
          if (!opkg_config->force_remove) {
              opkg_msg(ERROR, "not removing package \"%s\", "
                              "prerm script failed\n", pkg->name);
 <at>  <at>  -311,7 +311,7  <at>  <at>  opkg_remove_pkg(pkg_t *pkg, int from_upgrade)
        feel free to fix this. */
      remove_data_files_and_list(pkg);

-     err = pkg_run_script(pkg, "postrm", "remove");
+     err = pkg_run_script(pkg, "postrm", from_upgrade ? "upgrade" : "remove");

      remove_maintainer_scripts(pkg);
      pkg->state_status = SS_NOT_INSTALLED;

opkg | 17 Sep 23:39 2014

Issue 146 in opkg: "--force-downgrade" does not allow installing an older version of a package

Status: New
Owner: ----
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium

New issue 146 by mikedann...@...: "--force-downgrade" does
not allow  
installing an older version of a package
https://code.google.com/p/opkg/issues/detail?id=146

The usage page says:
"--force-downgrade       Allow opkg to downgrade packages"

 From this description, I would expect that using "--force-downgrade" as an  
option on the install command would let me install an older version of a  
package when a newer version of the same package is already installed.  I  
cannot get this to work.

Steps to reproduce:

These (2) packages were obtained to experiment with:

http://feeds.angstrom-distribution.org/feeds/v2013.06/ipk/eglibc/armv7ahf-vfp-neon/base/opkg-doc_0.1.8+svnr649-r13.0.2_armv7ahf-vfp-neon.ipk

and

http://feeds.angstrom-distribution.org/feeds/v2013.12/ipk/eglibc/armv7ahf-vfp-neon/base/opkg-doc_0.1.8+svnr653-r13.0.4_armv7ahf-vfp-neon.ipk

1) Build a local opkg repository containing ONLY the r13.0.2 package.   
Success

(Continue reading)

jpdjong | 11 Sep 09:13 2014
Picon

package install sequence

Hi All,

(I'm new to this list, so please be gentle...)

I have this system with opkg v0.2.2 and openssl 1.0.0b
When I wanted to upgrade to openssl 1.0.0n I observed the following issue.
The packages are located on a secure server (https://)
So what happened was that opkg downloaded libssl first and then tried to download libcrypto which failed
because in libssl is a reference to CRYPTO_memcmp which is in the new libcrypto but not in the old one,
causing wget to crash.

I've been looking into the dependencies and in the libssl package is a reference to libcrypto. So that seems ok.

My question is: why is libssl upgraded before libcrypto?
I also tried opkg v0.2.3 with the same results.

Thanks!
Jaap


Gmane