Mathias Kunert | 17 Apr 19:39 2014
Picon

[PATCH] opkg_download: add https proxy support

The environment variable 'https_proxy' is required by libcurl to use a 
proxy for https targets.
The patch also uses CURLOPT_PROXYUSERNAME and CURLOPT_PROXYPASSWORD 
instead of CURLOPT_PROXYUSERPWD to set the user credentials for the 
proxy.

Signed-off-by: Mathias Kunert <mathias.kunert@...>
---
 libopkg/opkg_conf.c     |  1 +
 libopkg/opkg_conf.h     |  1 +
 libopkg/opkg_download.c | 15 +++++++++------
 3 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/libopkg/opkg_conf.c b/libopkg/opkg_conf.c
index 843f509..779906e 100644
--- a/libopkg/opkg_conf.c
+++ b/libopkg/opkg_conf.c
 <at>  <at>  -60,6 +60,7  <at>  <at>  static opkg_option_t options[] = {
           { "check_signature", OPKG_OPT_TYPE_BOOL, &_conf.check_signature },
 	  { "ftp_proxy", OPKG_OPT_TYPE_STRING, &_conf.ftp_proxy },
 	  { "http_proxy", OPKG_OPT_TYPE_STRING, &_conf.http_proxy },
+	  { "https_proxy", OPKG_OPT_TYPE_STRING, &_conf.https_proxy },
 	  { "no_proxy", OPKG_OPT_TYPE_STRING, &_conf.no_proxy },
 	  { "test", OPKG_OPT_TYPE_BOOL, &_conf.noaction },
 	  { "noaction", OPKG_OPT_TYPE_BOOL, &_conf.noaction },
diff --git a/libopkg/opkg_conf.h b/libopkg/opkg_conf.h
index 87a4d84..5b40d2c 100644
--- a/libopkg/opkg_conf.h
+++ b/libopkg/opkg_conf.h
 <at>  <at>  -122,6 +122,7  <at>  <at>  typedef struct opkg_conf {
(Continue reading)

Stefano Cordibella | 2 Apr 12:28 2014
Picon

dist-upgrade feature plan?

Hi all, I would like to know if there are any plan to integrate a feature like dist-upgrade in the roadmap. I
mean an implicit method to change feed files.
Looking into the roadmap I haven't see anything like this, it could be a very useful feature our target ...

opkg | 2 Apr 13:22 2014

Issue 126 in opkg: dist-upgrade feature

Status: New
Owner: ----

New issue 126 by stefano....@...: dist-upgrade feature
http://code.google.com/p/opkg/issues/detail?id=126

Inrtoduce a dist-upgrade command that update only feed files in order to  
perform a distribution upgrade.

--

-- 
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

Paul Barker | 1 Apr 23:36 2014
Picon

Fixing the libopkg API

So I know this has been discussed in passing while looking at other
issues, I've been trying to think of a sensible path forward which
doesn't surprise people too much.

I recommend that we deprecate the libopkg API in the v0.3 release.
That is, we don't build the API or install headers by default. An
option would be added to configure, '--enable-libopkg-api', which
would print a warning about the deprecation and then build what was
requested. This should be highlighted in the release notes.

Then during the development cycle for v0.4 we're free to design and
implement a new API, preferably re-implementing the opkg command on
top of the new libopkg API.

I'm happy to start discussing the possible API now but I don't want
any code changes to implement a new API until after the v0.3 release.

How does that sound?

--

-- 
Paul Barker

Email: paul@...
http://www.paulbarker.me.uk

Paul Barker | 1 Apr 23:08 2014
Picon

opkg-0.2.2 release

Hi all,

I'd like to announce the release of opkg-0.2.2 as of 2014-04-01.

This release will soon be available from the new download location with hosting
provided by The Yocto Project:

    http://downloads.yoctoproject.org/releases/opkg/opkg-0.2.2.tar.gz

It is also mirrored at:

    http://www.paulbarker.me.uk/dist/opkg/opkg-0.2.2.tar.gz

The gpg signature of the release archive is attached to this email if
you wish the verify you've got an unmodified file.

Many thanks to everyone who's contributed!

Release Notes for opkg-0.2.2
============================

This is a straightforward bugfix release which solves the following issues:

- Fix '--force-reinstall' flag so that it acts as an upgrade rather than
  removing possibly critical packages before reinstall (issue 71)

- Symlinks are now correctly removed during package uninstall (issue 91)

- Fixed help and manual pages to reflect that shell globs not true regexps are
  accepted by opkg (issue 107)
(Continue reading)

opkg | 22 Mar 18:49 2014

Re: Issue 124 in opkg: Upgrade of a package do not upgrade the depends


Comment #6 on issue 124 by paul.betafive: Upgrade of a package do not  
upgrade the depends
http://code.google.com/p/opkg/issues/detail?id=124

I've added a test for this issue in the latest git commit to the master  
branch. The test currently fails as expected.

--

-- 
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 | 20 Mar 19:25 2014

Re: Issue 88 in opkg: Package is listed as installed even though permission error occured while extracting its contents


Comment #23 on issue 88 by paul.betafive: Package is listed as installed  
even though permission error occured while extracting its contents
http://code.google.com/p/opkg/issues/detail?id=88

Though looking at the current code it may be easier to print the  
line "Status: want=%s flags=%s status=%s\n" with the appropriate  
substitutions. That would probably be clear enough.

--

-- 
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 | 20 Mar 15:30 2014

Re: Issue 88 in opkg: Package is listed as installed even though permission error occured while extracting its contents


Comment #22 on issue 88 by paul.betafive: Package is listed as installed  
even though permission error occured while extracting its contents
http://code.google.com/p/opkg/issues/detail?id=88

I think we should keep the terms that dpkg uses and just make our output  
clearer. Something like

"Selected for:" with pkg->state_want
"Flags:" with pkg->state_flag
"Installation status:" with pkg->state_status

I'd like to avoid changing the actual terms unless we have our own  
explanation of these terms in a manual page. I have no experience writing  
manual pages myself and I'm lacking the time to learn so that would have to  
be handled by someone else.

--

-- 
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 | 20 Mar 07:24 2014

Re: Issue 88 in opkg: Package is listed as installed even though permission error occured while extracting its contents


Comment #21 on issue 88 by paintitg...@...: Package is listed as  
installed even though permission error occured while extracting its contents
http://code.google.com/p/opkg/issues/detail?id=88

Maybe change "install" to "selected"? The "install" word itself doesn't  
explain that the package is actually selected for installation.

Other than that, I think it sounds fine.

--

-- 
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 | 18 Mar 23:58 2014

Issue 125 in opkg: Extract info from a *.ipk file

Status: New
Owner: ----

New issue 125 by ccos...@...: Extract info from a *.ipk file
http://code.google.com/p/opkg/issues/detail?id=125

I would like to be able to extract info from a given .ipk file.
For example:
  opkg-cl info mypackage_1.2.3_arm.ipk

This feature exists in dpkg and has been useful.
I will submit a patch to the mailing list with a potential fix that is  
working for me.

--

-- 
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 | 18 Mar 16:45 2014

Re: Issue 89 in opkg: Replace providers of virtual packages that are conflict/provide/replace by another package


Comment #5 on issue 89 by paul.betafive: Replace providers of virtual  
packages that are conflict/provide/replace by another package
http://code.google.com/p/opkg/issues/detail?id=89

Sorry, that doesn't seem to fix the problem, I'm still left with the  
replaced package and the replacement both installed during tests.

Your check of replacee->state_status seems incomplete, at the very least we  
also want to replace packages with a status of SS_UNPACKED (as they are  
during testing as I'm using an offline root) and probably some of the other  
statuses as well.

The patch is also missing a "Signed-off-by" line and could do with a short  
summary line "opkg_install: Replace virtual packages correctly" and a  
longer description of why this change is needed in the message body. That  
way we still have the information if this bug tracker ever disappears.

Patches are better sent to the mailing list but I'm happy to accept them on  
here if you can't send them to the mailing list for some reason.

Full guidelines for submitting patches is in the file CONTRIBUTING  
(http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/opkg/tree/CONTRIBUTING).

Thanks for the contribution though, it'll be good to tidy this up and get  
this bug fixed!

--

-- 
You received this message because this project is configured to send all  
issue notifications to this address.
(Continue reading)


Gmane