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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox