Some revision like: commit eb048308 [ util-linux 2.19.1: split blkid out into its own subpackage ] It split /sbin/blkid to one of its subpackage, so when the end user build a project after this revision, he might encounter a situation that '/sbin/blkid' missed from the final image while it did exist in it originally, this may totally confuse him. So my suggestion is that we involve in some kinda release note clarifying these significant changes that let the users konw they are not bugs but just the normal behaviours. I am not sure if it's necessary or not, but if that's not what we suppose to have, then somebody please close this defect.
This is likely part of the migration document or release notes.
Hi, This was found in version 1.5? So it is a difference between 1.4 and 1.5? If so, the section that talks about migrating from YP 1.4 to YP 1.5 does not address it. The release notes for 1.5 also do not address this issue. So this was missed. I suggest adding information into the migration section in the reference manual for going from 1.4 to 1.5 YP releases. I can make sure this change is present in the master branch and other branches post 1.4. I need to be sure of the technical information to add. Here is a suggested new bullet item for the "Other Changes" section in the 1.5 migration section at http://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/1.7/ref-manual/ref-manual.html#migration-1.5-other-changes: ----------------------------- * util-linux: blkid has been split out into its own sub-package. Splitting out blkid into its own sub-package could cause a situation where /sbin/blkid is not included in the final image as it would have been prior to this release of the Yocto Project. ----------------------------- Please let me know if the wording is okay for this issue. Thanks, Scott
Looking back at the git history, believe it or not this change actually happened in the denzil (1.2) release; so documenting it against 1.5 wouldn't be correct.
Actually, it might even have been edison (1.1). That was a very long time ago.
wow... okay. Given that it is so far back we probably would "obsolete" this one? I don't believe we had a migration section until releasing for 1.3, which post-dates this change if it happened for 1.2. Scott
I would say so yes. Generally for changes like this we would include them in a migration section for the corresponding release if the change was in a current release, but this specific change is quite old and therefore there's not going to be much point documenting it IMO.
Hi, Setting status to RESOLVED/OBSOLETE. This change happened prior to us creating a "Migration" chapter in the YP Reference Manual. It is unfortunate that the change did not get captured in the YP 1.2 Release Notes where it should have been. I cannot reasonably document this in the current YP manual set. Thanks for pointing out the issue though Ming. In the future, we will try and catch these types of migration issues. Scott
Set milestone to M3 to get it off the lists.