Bug 9290 - [meta-swupd] bundle removal only partially works
Summary: [meta-swupd] bundle removal only partially works
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Other YP Layers
Classification: Build System, Metadata & Runtime
Component: meta-swupd (show other bugs)
Version: 2.1
Hardware: x86 Multiple
: Medium normal
Target Milestone: 2.1 M4
Assignee: Joshua Lock
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2016-03-17 15:48 UTC by Joshua Lock
Modified: 2016-04-18 12:45 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
OS type for building Yocto: ---
Type of Regression: ---
Verified:
Documentation change: No (bug/feature does not impact docs)


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Joshua Lock 2016-03-17 15:48:05 UTC
From #9039 comment 14[1]:

"Update: we confirmed today that handling of bundles works only partially.
Not because of the finding listed so far, which seem to be "normal", but because the removal of bundles is not working correctly (0 files removed)."

It's not yet clear whether this is a bug in the version of swupd-client, an issue with the manifests generated by swupd-server (which may or may not be attributed to the patches we're applying) or a bug in the swupd-image.bbclass

1. https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9039#c14
Comment 1 Joshua Lock 2016-04-17 21:21:05 UTC
Dmitry submitted a backport for 2.87 which resolves this issue. We should either update to 3.5.0 to get the same fix for the 3.x series.
Comment 2 Dmitry Rozhkov 2016-04-18 07:20:17 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> Dmitry submitted a backport for 2.87 which resolves this issue. We should
> either update to 3.5.0 to get the same fix for the 3.x series.

My bad, I put a misleading label to the Update-Status. I've double-checked and the fix is present in v3.0.0.

So the 3.x branch is not affected by this bug.
Comment 3 Joshua Lock 2016-04-18 12:45:48 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > Dmitry submitted a backport for 2.87 which resolves this issue. We should
> > either update to 3.5.0 to get the same fix for the 3.x series.
> 
> My bad, I put a misleading label to the Update-Status. I've double-checked
> and the fix is present in v3.0.0.
> 
> So the 3.x branch is not affected by this bug.

Excellent, marking this issue as resolved. Thanks for the patch!