From: Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@intel.com>
To: Leonardo Sandoval <leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez@linux.intel.com>
Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] selftest/buildoptions: use a thinner image to test 'read-only-rootfs' feature
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2017 17:13:39 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1485965619.14889.2.camel@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c3a990d7-237d-e433-ae02-8bfe7214c162@linux.intel.com>
On Wed, 2017-02-01 at 09:02 -0600, Leonardo Sandoval wrote:
>
> On 01/31/2017 05:16 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-01-31 at 16:50 -0600,
> > leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez@linux.intel.com wrote:
> >> From: Leonardo Sandoval <leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez@linux.intel.com>
> >> - bitbake("core-image-sato")
> >> + bitbake("core-image-minimal")
> >> # do_image will fail if there are any pending postinsts
> > Whilst this is certainly going to be a touch faster, I believe we do
> > want to test read only rootfs with a larger image like sato to make
> > sure the postinsts really do work with a read only system?
>
> I don't get it. What would make the test different using a larger image?
The postinst of each component installed into the image must work
properly in a read-only rootfs configuration. So the test is partly for
image creation, partly for the components, and thus more comprehensive
when using a larger image.
--
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly
The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-01 16:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-31 22:50 [PATCH 0/4] Some optimizations on top time selftest checks leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez
2017-01-31 22:50 ` [PATCH 1/4] selftest/buildoptions: use a thinner image to test 'read-only-rootfs' feature leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez
2017-01-31 23:16 ` Richard Purdie
2017-02-01 15:02 ` Leonardo Sandoval
2017-02-01 16:00 ` Richard Purdie
2017-02-01 16:13 ` Patrick Ohly [this message]
2017-02-02 12:40 ` Burton, Ross
2017-01-31 22:50 ` [PATCH 2/4] selftest/buildoptions: force compile task instead of cleaning sstates leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez
2017-01-31 23:16 ` Richard Purdie
2017-01-31 22:50 ` [PATCH 3/4] selftest/bbtests: use write_config instead of local.conf file leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez
2017-01-31 22:50 ` [PATCH 4/4] selftest/archiver: invalidate stamps instead of removing TMPDIR leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1485965619.14889.2.camel@intel.com \
--to=patrick.ohly@intel.com \
--cc=leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez@linux.intel.com \
--cc=openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.