Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
This means that the installer failed to install unzip from opkg or that
torrentexpander was run a few builds ago. Now I'm prioritizing the
/usr/local/bin/ directory.
Maybe this part of the installer should be changed accordingly :
if [[ "$(opkg status unzip)" != "" || -f "/usr/bin/unzip" ]] && [ "$(opkg
status unrar)" != "" ] && [[ "$(opkg status wget)" != "" || -f "/bin/wget" ]]
&& [ "$(opkg status busybox)" != "" ] && [ -d /share/Apps/Transmission ]; then
to
if [[ "$(opkg status unzip)" != "" || -f "/usr/local/bin/unzip" ]] && [ "$(opkg
status unrar)" != "" ] && [[ "$(opkg status wget)" != "" || -f "/bin/wget" ]]
&& [ "$(opkg status busybox)" != "" ] && [ -d /share/Apps/Transmission ]; then
Original comment by addicted...@gmail.com
on 15 Jan 2012 at 7:46
Yes, it's only a bug of priority.
If you change the line, A100 device will not able to install torrentexpander.
What's the worst? Block installation of script or leave script block itself
while working with unzip? ;-)
Original comment by login...@gmail.com
on 15 Jan 2012 at 7:55
I'm sorry, I don't understand :
- Torrentexpander will first try to find unzip in /usr/local/bin/
- Installer will try to install unzip from opkk
I admit, there is an issue if unzip is not available from opkg. Is it what you
are talking about ?
Thanks
Original comment by addicted...@gmail.com
on 15 Jan 2012 at 8:10
I have to rewrite bug report (comment 1):
In r155 you have write 'Prioritizing the /usr/local/bin/ for PCH devices'.
But, now i'm using r160 and this change has no effect.
About comment 3: Yes
Original comment by login...@gmail.com
on 15 Jan 2012 at 11:32
Confirmed: /usr/local/bin/unzip is avaiable but script automatically set
/usr/bin/unzip
Original comment by login...@gmail.com
on 15 Jan 2012 at 11:42
[deleted comment]
Ahhh, I see
Unzip was found in the default user variable path (/usr/bin/unzip).
This circumvented the search
Solved in the latest SVN
Original comment by addicted...@gmail.com
on 16 Jan 2012 at 6:05
Original comment by login...@gmail.com
on 16 Jan 2012 at 5:08
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
login...@gmail.com
on 15 Jan 2012 at 6:21