Re: [OE-core] [PATCHv2 1/1] Revert "useradd.bbclass: remove user/group created by the package in clean* task"
On Thu, 2016-04-14 at 11:46 +, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote: > Ok, this looks like a good start for me to continue working on. > > What is the easiest way to execute the useradd selftest? oe-selftest --run-tests useradd.Useradd.test_useradd Cheers, Richard -- ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] [PATCHv2 1/1] Revert "useradd.bbclass: remove user/group created by the package in clean* task"
> -Original Message- > From: Richard Purdie [mailto:richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org] > Sent: den 14 april 2016 12:41 > To: Peter Kjellerstedt; Otavio Salvador > Cc: OE Core (openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org) > Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCHv2 1/1] Revert "useradd.bbclass: remove > user/group created by the package in clean* task" > > On Wed, 2016-04-13 at 17:29 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > > There is a comparatively neat way we could use pkgdata to track the > > provider of a given user, specifically: > > > > http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=rpurdie/wip=5cd646ea185eaafaa341f26310f2eddc75766175 > > > > The above is a quick patch I've just put together which illustrates > > what could be done so that the user gets better warnings about > > conflicting users. It needs cleaning up but thought it worth sharing > > now as if might give some ideas. > > > > This is in keeping with how bitbake detects multiple providers of the > > same thing. > > http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=rpurdie/wip=a362e6da0eec1f7a7d4db19d47f16b1c729562ba > > is an improved version. > > > > Here I must show my lack of knowledge. How and where should I go > > > about > > > adding a regression test that verifies the support for that > > > multiple > > > recipes can add the same user/group? Since this does not test a > > > specific recipe, but rather a part of the build framework, I do not > > > know if, e.g., ptest is applicable (of which I have no experience > > > either). > > > > oe-selftest would be the place to add something like this, see the > > /meta/lib/oeqa/selftest directory. We could add some test useradd > > recipes to meta-selftest. > > http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=rpurdie/wip=23134a7d837bc7985ba8e7069d405913c2055a04 > > is a really simplistic new selftest for useradd. It does however test > the bug the original patch fixes. There are clearly a much wider range > of things it could test, I just wanted to show this isn't hard. > > Cheers, > > Richard Ok, this looks like a good start for me to continue working on. What is the easiest way to execute the useradd selftest? //Peter -- ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] [PATCHv2 1/1] Revert "useradd.bbclass: remove user/group created by the package in clean* task"
On Wed, 2016-04-13 at 17:29 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > There is a comparatively neat way we could use pkgdata to track the > provider of a given user, specifically: > > http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=rpurdie/w > ip > =5cd646ea185eaafaa341f26310f2eddc75766175 > > The above is a quick patch I've just put together which illustrates > what could be done so that the user gets better warnings about > conflicting users. It needs cleaning up but thought it worth sharing > now as if might give some ideas. > > This is in keeping with how bitbake detects multiple providers of the > same thing. http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=rpurdie/wip =a362e6da0eec1f7a7d4db19d47f16b1c729562ba is an improved version. > > Here I must show my lack of knowledge. How and where should I go > > about > > adding a regression test that verifies the support for that > > multiple > > recipes can add the same user/group? Since this does not test a > > specific recipe, but rather a part of the build framework, I do not > > know if, e.g., ptest is applicable (of which I have no experience > > either). > > oe-selftest would be the place to add something like this, see the > /meta/lib/oeqa/selftest directory. We could add some test useradd > recipes to meta-selftest. http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=rpurdie/wip =23134a7d837bc7985ba8e7069d405913c2055a04 is a really simplistic new selftest for useradd. It does however test the bug the original patch fixes. There are clearly a much wider range of things it could test, I just wanted to show this isn't hard. Cheers, Richard -- ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] [PATCHv2 1/1] Revert "useradd.bbclass: remove user/group created by the package in clean* task"
On Wed, 2016-04-13 at 15:14 +, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: Richard Purdie [mailto:richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org] > > Sent: den 13 april 2016 13:05 > > To: Peter Kjellerstedt; Otavio Salvador > > Cc: OE Core (openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org) > > Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCHv2 1/1] Revert "useradd.bbclass: > > remove > > user/group created by the package in clean* task" > > > > I am pretty frustrated with this thread. The reasons are perhaps > > not > > immediately obvious though. > > > > The issue is that there are only a limited number of people who > > actually dive in and try and fix some of the underlying "core > > architecture" bugs. There is what I believe to be a pretty good > > patch > > here which does fix real world issues which have been reported into > > the > > bugzilla (its related to at least two bug reports). As such it has > > been > > seen as a bugfix. Its now clear it does have some side effects > > which > > weren't envisaged, some causing issues for a small number of meta > > -oe > > recipes, the others breaking a companies internal code. > > > > Otavio wants it deferred to 2.2, Peter wants it abandoned entirely. > > > > If I revert this, Peter is then happy and has zero incentive to do > > anything further. The pressure is still on the reopened bugs to try > > and > > fix this somehow and falls back to the usual suspects. There is a > > real > > world usability problem there. > > Hold your horses. I definitely see the problem the change tried to > address as one that needs to be fixed, and I am already looking at > how to solve this properly (currently based on my second suggested > solution). However, I do not know if I can fix it in time for > Krogoth. > Which is why I agree with Otavio that the change was introduced too > late in the process, especially as it causes breakage for existing > users. There is a comparatively neat way we could use pkgdata to track the provider of a given user, specifically: http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=rpurdie/wip =5cd646ea185eaafaa341f26310f2eddc75766175 The above is a quick patch I've just put together which illustrates what could be done so that the user gets better warnings about conflicting users. It needs cleaning up but thought it worth sharing now as if might give some ideas. This is in keeping with how bitbake detects multiple providers of the same thing. > Here I must show my lack of knowledge. How and where should I go > about > adding a regression test that verifies the support for that multiple > recipes can add the same user/group? Since this does not test a > specific recipe, but rather a part of the build framework, I do not > know if, e.g., ptest is applicable (of which I have no experience > either). oe-selftest would be the place to add something like this, see the /meta/lib/oeqa/selftest directory. We could add some test useradd recipes to meta-selftest. Cheers, Richard -- ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] [PATCHv2 1/1] Revert "useradd.bbclass: remove user/group created by the package in clean* task"
Hi Peter, On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 03:14:09PM +, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: Richard Purdie [mailto:richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org] > > Sent: den 13 april 2016 13:05 > > To: Peter Kjellerstedt; Otavio Salvador > > Cc: OE Core (openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org) > > Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCHv2 1/1] Revert "useradd.bbclass: remove > > user/group created by the package in clean* task" > > > > I am pretty frustrated with this thread. The reasons are perhaps not > > immediately obvious though. > > > > The issue is that there are only a limited number of people who > > actually dive in and try and fix some of the underlying "core > > architecture" bugs. There is what I believe to be a pretty good patch > > here which does fix real world issues which have been reported into the > > bugzilla (its related to at least two bug reports). As such it has been > > seen as a bugfix. Its now clear it does have some side effects which > > weren't envisaged, some causing issues for a small number of meta-oe > > recipes, the others breaking a companies internal code. > > > > Otavio wants it deferred to 2.2, Peter wants it abandoned entirely. > > > > If I revert this, Peter is then happy and has zero incentive to do > > anything further. The pressure is still on the reopened bugs to try and > > fix this somehow and falls back to the usual suspects. There is a real > > world usability problem there. > > Hold your horses. I definitely see the problem the change tried to > address as one that needs to be fixed, and I am already looking at > how to solve this properly (currently based on my second suggested > solution). However, I do not know if I can fix it in time for Krogoth. > Which is why I agree with Otavio that the change was introduced too > late in the process, especially as it causes breakage for existing > users. As the author of that patch, I am responsible for that regression and would like to assist in fixing that particular problem. As you can see, I had no option to test your particular scenario as that recipe was not part of my oe-core "world" build test. RP has already sent a patch to fix the "cyrus-sasl" recipe which had some troubles with this change. > > In a single isolated case, fine, we'd figure a way through this. I > > think I'm so frustrated as we see this all the time. Making a change to > > the core architecture is hard and gets ever harder, then we wonder why > > we don't have contributors. Part of this is having so many different > > workflows and corner cases. > > > > I have pushed very hard to have more test cases, then its easier to > > determine if a patch causes regressions. Again though, few people are > > contributing to them outside the usual suspects. > > Here I must show my lack of knowledge. How and where should I go about > adding a regression test that verifies the support for that multiple > recipes can add the same user/group? Since this does not test a > specific recipe, but rather a part of the build framework, I do not > know if, e.g., ptest is applicable (of which I have no experience > either). Just want to let you know that I am interested in working together to fix this one. As per my understanding, you have a library and an application, which depends on that library. Both these packages creates the same user. At this point, a package manager (eg: smart) doesn't remove the users when we remove the package. However, I am not sure about the situation where a package manager removes the users added by a package when we remove it from the target device. In that case,wouldn't the removal of application, remove the user which the library depends on ? Best Regards, Maxin -- ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] [PATCHv2 1/1] Revert "useradd.bbclass: remove user/group created by the package in clean* task"
> -Original Message- > From: Richard Purdie [mailto:richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org] > Sent: den 13 april 2016 13:05 > To: Peter Kjellerstedt; Otavio Salvador > Cc: OE Core (openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org) > Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCHv2 1/1] Revert "useradd.bbclass: remove > user/group created by the package in clean* task" > > I am pretty frustrated with this thread. The reasons are perhaps not > immediately obvious though. > > The issue is that there are only a limited number of people who > actually dive in and try and fix some of the underlying "core > architecture" bugs. There is what I believe to be a pretty good patch > here which does fix real world issues which have been reported into the > bugzilla (its related to at least two bug reports). As such it has been > seen as a bugfix. Its now clear it does have some side effects which > weren't envisaged, some causing issues for a small number of meta-oe > recipes, the others breaking a companies internal code. > > Otavio wants it deferred to 2.2, Peter wants it abandoned entirely. > > If I revert this, Peter is then happy and has zero incentive to do > anything further. The pressure is still on the reopened bugs to try and > fix this somehow and falls back to the usual suspects. There is a real > world usability problem there. Hold your horses. I definitely see the problem the change tried to address as one that needs to be fixed, and I am already looking at how to solve this properly (currently based on my second suggested solution). However, I do not know if I can fix it in time for Krogoth. Which is why I agree with Otavio that the change was introduced too late in the process, especially as it causes breakage for existing users. > In a single isolated case, fine, we'd figure a way through this. I > think I'm so frustrated as we see this all the time. Making a change to > the core architecture is hard and gets ever harder, then we wonder why > we don't have contributors. Part of this is having so many different > workflows and corner cases. > > I have pushed very hard to have more test cases, then its easier to > determine if a patch causes regressions. Again though, few people are > contributing to them outside the usual suspects. Here I must show my lack of knowledge. How and where should I go about adding a regression test that verifies the support for that multiple recipes can add the same user/group? Since this does not test a specific recipe, but rather a part of the build framework, I do not know if, e.g., ptest is applicable (of which I have no experience either). > I'm therefore starting to think the correct answer to this thread is > simply this: > > The patch doesn't break any of the current regression tests. If you > have use cases like this you care about, you really should make sure we > have test coverage for them, else you run the risk of exactly the > problem we have here. > > I haven't honestly decided what to do but this latter conclusion is > very tempting from where I'm sitting... > > Cheers, > > Richard //Peter -- ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] [PATCHv2 1/1] Revert "useradd.bbclass: remove user/group created by the package in clean* task"
I am pretty frustrated with this thread. The reasons are perhaps not immediately obvious though. The issue is that there are only a limited number of people who actually dive in and try and fix some of the underlying "core architecture" bugs. There is what I believe to be a pretty good patch here which does fix real world issues which have been reported into the bugzilla (its related to at least two bug reports). As such it has been seen as a bugfix. Its now clear it does have some side effects which weren't envisaged, some causing issues for a small number of meta-oe recipes, the others breaking a companies internal code. Otavio wants it deferred to 2.2, Peter wants it abandoned entirely. If I revert this, Peter is then happy and has zero incentive to do anything further. The pressure is still on the reopened bugs to try and fix this somehow and falls back to the usual suspects. There is a real world usability problem there. In a single isolated case, fine, we'd figure a way through this. I think I'm so frustrated as we see this all the time. Making a change to the core architecture is hard and gets ever harder, then we wonder why we don't have contributors. Part of this is having so many different workflows and corner cases. I have pushed very hard to have more test cases, then its easier to determine if a patch causes regressions. Again though, few people are contributing to them outside the usual suspects. I'm therefore starting to think the correct answer to this thread is simply this: The patch doesn't break any of the current regression tests. If you have use cases like this you care about, you really should make sure we have test coverage for them, else you run the risk of exactly the problem we have here. I haven't honestly decided what to do but this latter conclusion is very tempting from where I'm sitting... Cheers, Richard -- ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] [PATCHv2 1/1] Revert "useradd.bbclass: remove user/group created by the package in clean* task"
> -Original Message- > From: Otavio Salvador [mailto:otavio.salva...@ossystems.com.br] > Sent: den 12 april 2016 18:36 > To: Richard Purdie > Cc: Peter Kjellerstedt; Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer > Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCHv2 1/1] Revert "useradd.bbclass: remove > user/group created by the package in clean* task" > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Richard Purdie > <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Tue, 2016-04-12 at 15:18 +0200, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote: > >> Removal of users/group when cleansstating a recipe as implemented here > >> totally breaks when multiple recipes install the same user/groups. > >> > >> This reverts commit b5304ce438666a7418746f4ddd32703ae3188089. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Peter Kjellerstedt <peter.kjellerst...@axis.com> > >> --- > >> meta/classes/sstate.bbclass | 5 - > >> meta/classes/useradd.bbclass | 29 - > >> 2 files changed, 34 deletions(-) > > > > This is one of these situations where we can't win. > > > > Without this code, there is no way to clean up these users out the > > sysroot. Having to tell people to "wipe TMPDIR" when the parameters > > used to create a user change for example is rather bad. It also has bad > > implications for build determinism and the expectation that a "clean" > > undoes the changes a recipe makes. Well, build determinism is also broken when it comes to creating users and groups if two recipes tries to create the same user (or group) with different definitions, since the first recipe that happens to be installed wins... In our case we have solved this by using the useradd-staticids.bbclass, which allows us to have common definitions for the users, in addition to only use GROUPMEMS_PARAM to add users to groups. But there should really be some QA warning/error to catch this from happening... > > Have we ever documented we support the same user being created by > > multiple recipes? I am pretty sure you have not documented that it is NOT supported... Because if it was not supported, then I would have expected errors if two recipes tried to install the same user/group. And I cannot see the logic behind not allowing it (except because it makes it hard to uninstall users and groups), because if a package needs a user/group, then of course it should be allowed to make sure the user/group exists... > > I'm open to proposals about how to fix this but an outright revert > > doesn't seem like the right thing to do. Making it optional so you can > > disable it for your multiple recipes case would perhaps be a better > > option for example. Making it a configuration option does not sound like a good idea because having multiple recipes install the same user/group can lead to build errors and that is not something you should need to configure around. One way to solve the problem of both creating users/groups and being able to remove them in deterministic ways would be to only allow them to be created from special user/group recipes. Then the normal dependency handling would make sure they are installed and removed as needed. The drawback of course would be all the extra packages needed to create users and groups (which in our case would be a considerable number of packages). An alternative solution would be to create package specific files somewhere in the sysroot which keep track of what users and groups a particular package has created, i.e., something like "users/systemd-timesync/systemd" which would be created by the systemd package when it creates the systemd-timesync user. That way it would be easy to only remove the systemd-timesync user when "users/systemd-timesync" is empty. A benefit of this solution is that it would only require changes to useradd.bbclass so it can be implemented without having to change any recipes. A minor drawback is that it would not solve the problem of different recipes creating the same user differently. > I am not against the change by the timing; it should be merged in > master as soon it is open for 2.2 work. I have to agree with this. Above are two solutions on how to make this work, but doing it at this stage of the release schedule is probably asking a bit much (especially the first solution)... //Peter -- ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] [PATCHv2 1/1] Revert "useradd.bbclass: remove user/group created by the package in clean* task"
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Richard Purdiewrote: > On Tue, 2016-04-12 at 15:18 +0200, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote: >> Removal of users/group when cleansstating a recipe as implemented >> here >> totally breaks when multiple recipes install the same user/groups. >> >> This reverts commit b5304ce438666a7418746f4ddd32703ae3188089. >> >> Signed-off-by: Peter Kjellerstedt >> --- >> meta/classes/sstate.bbclass | 5 - >> meta/classes/useradd.bbclass | 29 - >> 2 files changed, 34 deletions(-) > > This is one of these situations where we can't win. > > Without this code, there is no way to clean up these users out the > sysroot. Having to tell people to "wipe TMPDIR" when the parameters > used to create a user change for example is rather bad. It also has bad > implications for build determinism and the expectation that a "clean" > undoes the changes a recipe makes. > > Have we ever documented we support the same user being created by > multiple recipes? > > I'm open to proposals about how to fix this but an outright revert > doesn't seem like the right thing to do. Making it optional so you can > disable it for your multiple recipes case would perhaps be a better > option for example. I am not against the change by the timing; it should be merged in master as soon it is open for 2.2 work. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.brhttp://code.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750 -- ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] [PATCHv2 1/1] Revert "useradd.bbclass: remove user/group created by the package in clean* task"
On Tue, 2016-04-12 at 15:18 +0200, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote: > Removal of users/group when cleansstating a recipe as implemented > here > totally breaks when multiple recipes install the same user/groups. > > This reverts commit b5304ce438666a7418746f4ddd32703ae3188089. > > Signed-off-by: Peter Kjellerstedt> --- > meta/classes/sstate.bbclass | 5 - > meta/classes/useradd.bbclass | 29 - > 2 files changed, 34 deletions(-) This is one of these situations where we can't win. Without this code, there is no way to clean up these users out the sysroot. Having to tell people to "wipe TMPDIR" when the parameters used to create a user change for example is rather bad. It also has bad implications for build determinism and the expectation that a "clean" undoes the changes a recipe makes. Have we ever documented we support the same user being created by multiple recipes? I'm open to proposals about how to fix this but an outright revert doesn't seem like the right thing to do. Making it optional so you can disable it for your multiple recipes case would perhaps be a better option for example. Cheers, Richard -- ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] [PATCHv2 1/1] Revert "useradd.bbclass: remove user/group created by the package in clean* task"
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Peter Kjellerstedtwrote: > Removal of users/group when cleansstating a recipe as implemented here > totally breaks when multiple recipes install the same user/groups. > > This reverts commit b5304ce438666a7418746f4ddd32703ae3188089. > > Signed-off-by: Peter Kjellerstedt Acked-by: Otavio Salvador -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.brhttp://code.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750 -- ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
[OE-core] [PATCHv2 1/1] Revert "useradd.bbclass: remove user/group created by the package in clean* task"
Removal of users/group when cleansstating a recipe as implemented here totally breaks when multiple recipes install the same user/groups. This reverts commit b5304ce438666a7418746f4ddd32703ae3188089. Signed-off-by: Peter Kjellerstedt--- meta/classes/sstate.bbclass | 5 - meta/classes/useradd.bbclass | 29 - 2 files changed, 34 deletions(-) diff --git a/meta/classes/sstate.bbclass b/meta/classes/sstate.bbclass index 8c62327..4a4269c 100644 --- a/meta/classes/sstate.bbclass +++ b/meta/classes/sstate.bbclass @@ -51,7 +51,6 @@ SSTATEPREINSTFUNCS = "" SSTATEPOSTUNPACKFUNCS = "sstate_hardcode_path_unpack" SSTATEPOSTINSTFUNCS = "" EXTRA_STAGING_FIXMES ?= "" -SSTATECLEANFUNCS = "" # Check whether sstate exists for tasks that support sstate and are in the # locked signatures file. @@ -451,10 +450,6 @@ def sstate_clean(ss, d): stfile.endswith(rm_nohash): oe.path.remove(stfile) -# Removes the users/groups created by the package -for cleanfunc in (d.getVar('SSTATECLEANFUNCS', True) or '').split(): -bb.build.exec_func(cleanfunc, d) - sstate_clean[vardepsexclude] = "SSTATE_MANFILEPREFIX" CLEANFUNCS += "sstate_cleanall" diff --git a/meta/classes/useradd.bbclass b/meta/classes/useradd.bbclass index ee402ac..0a6f2be 100644 --- a/meta/classes/useradd.bbclass +++ b/meta/classes/useradd.bbclass @@ -127,35 +127,6 @@ useradd_sysroot_sstate () { fi } -userdel_sysroot_sstate () { -if test "x${STAGING_DIR_TARGET}" != "x"; then -if [ "${BB_CURRENTTASK}" = "configure" -o "${BB_CURRENTTASK}" = "clean" ]; then -export PSEUDO="${FAKEROOTENV} PSEUDO_LOCALSTATEDIR=${STAGING_DIR_TARGET}${localstatedir}/pseudo ${STAGING_DIR_NATIVE}${bindir}/pseudo" -OPT="--root ${STAGING_DIR_TARGET}" - -# Remove groups and users defined for package -GROUPADD_PARAM="${@get_all_cmd_params(d, 'groupadd')}" -USERADD_PARAM="${@get_all_cmd_params(d, 'useradd')}" - -if test "x`echo $USERADD_PARAM | tr -d '[:space:]'`" != "x"; then -user=`echo "$USERADD_PARAM" | cut -d ';' -f 1 | awk '{ print $NF }'` -perform_userdel "${STAGING_DIR_TARGET}" "$OPT $user" -fi - -if test "x`echo $GROUPADD_PARAM | tr -d '[:space:]'`" != "x"; then -group=`echo "$GROUPADD_PARAM" | cut -d ';' -f 1 | awk '{ print $NF }'` -perform_groupdel "${STAGING_DIR_TARGET}" "$OPT $group" -fi - -fi -fi -} - -SSTATECLEANFUNCS = "userdel_sysroot_sstate" -SSTATECLEANFUNCS_class-cross = "" -SSTATECLEANFUNCS_class-native = "" -SSTATECLEANFUNCS_class-nativesdk = "" - do_install[prefuncs] += "${SYSROOTFUNC}" SYSROOTFUNC = "useradd_sysroot" SYSROOTFUNC_class-cross = "" -- 2.1.0 -- ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core