From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E41171A82 for ; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 13:23:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fmsmga006.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.20]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 24 Nov 2016 05:23:49 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,543,1473145200"; d="scan'208";a="35211320" Received: from linux.intel.com ([10.54.29.200]) by fmsmga006.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 24 Nov 2016 05:23:49 -0800 Received: from linux.intel.com (vmed.fi.intel.com [10.237.72.38]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by linux.intel.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9C916A4080; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 05:23:06 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 15:23:15 +0200 From: Ed Bartosh To: Kristian Amlie Message-ID: <20161124132315.GA14497@linux.intel.com> Reply-To: ed.bartosh@linux.intel.com References: <1479813004.3239.19.camel@intel.com> <6913e4bf-96dc-eefa-d214-9df5cde181b8@mender.io> <20161123120816.GC12545@linux.intel.com> <5064cacc-e724-c7b8-9631-3d961c5a29f6@mender.io> <20161123132229.GA13863@linux.intel.com> <1479916616.31880.48.camel@intel.com> <20161124061543.e2xpgh7zjir3oynk@pengutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: Contents of non-rootfs partitions X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 13:23:48 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 08:38:46AM +0100, Kristian Amlie wrote: > On 24/11/16 07:15, Ulrich Ölmann wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 04:56:56PM +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote: > >> On Wed, 2016-11-23 at 15:22 +0200, Ed Bartosh wrote: > >>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 02:08:28PM +0100, Kristian Amlie wrote: > >>>> On 23/11/16 13:08, Ed Bartosh wrote: > >>>>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:54:52PM +0100, Kristian Amlie wrote: > >>>>> [...] > >>>>> This can be done by extending existing rootfs plugin. It should be able > >>>>> to do 2 things: > >>>>> > >>>>> - populate content of one rootfs directory to the partition. We can > >>>>> extend syntax of --rootfs-dir parameter to specify optional directory path to use > >>>>> > >>>>> - exclude rootfs directories when populating partitions. I'd propose to > >>>>> introduce --exclude-dirs wks parser option to handle this. > >>>>> > >>>>> Example of wks file with proposed new options: > >>>>> part / --source rootfs --rootfs-dir=core-image-minimal --ondisk sda --fstype=ext4 --label root --align 1024 --exclude-dirs data --exclude-dirs home > >>>>> part /data --source rootfs --rootfs-dir=core-image-minimal:/home --ondisk sda --fstype=ext4 --label data --align 1024 > >>>>> part /home --source rootfs --rootfs-dir=core-image-minimal:/data --ondisk sda --fstype=ext4 --label data --align 1024 > >>>>> > >>>>> Does this make sense? > >>>> > >>>> Looks good. The only thing I would question is that, in the interest of > >>>> reducing redundancy, maybe we should omit --exclude-dirs and have wic > >>>> figure this out by combining all the entries, since "--exclude-dirs > >>>> " and the corresponding "part " will almost always come in > >>>> pairs. Possibly we could mark the "/" partition with one single > >>>> --no-overlapping-dirs to force wic to make this consideration. Or do you > >>>> think that's too magical? > >>>> > >>> Tt's quite implicit from my point of view. However, if people like it we > >>> can implement it this way. > >> > >> I prefer the explicit --exclude-dirs. It's less surprising and perhaps > >> there are usages for having the same content in different partitions > >> (redundancy, factory reset, etc.). > >> > >> Excluding only the directory content but not the actual directory is > >> indeed a good point. I'm a bit undecided. When excluding only the > >> directory content, there's no way of building a rootfs without that > >> mount point, if that's desired. OTOH, when excluding also the directory, > >> the data would have to be staged under a different path in the rootfs > >> and the mount point would have to be a separate, empty directory. > >> > >> I'm leaning towards excluding the directory content and keeping the > >> directory. > > > > what about having both possibilities by leaning against the syntax that rsync > > uses to specify if a whole source directory or only it's contents shall be > > synced to some destination site (see [1])? > > > > In analogy to this to exclude only the contents of the directory named 'data' > > you would use > > > > --exclude-dirs data/ > > > > but to additionally exclude the dir itself as well it would read > > > > --exclude-dirs data > > This is creative, but ultimately too unintuitive IMHO. Rsync is the only > tool which uses this syntax AFAIK, and it's a constant source of > confusion, especially when mixed with cp or similar commands. > Would this way be less intuitive? --exclude-path data/* --exclude-path data We can go even further with it allowing any level of directories: --exclude-path data/tmp/* --exclude-path data/db/tmp ... -- Regards, Ed