From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io0-f178.google.com (mail-io0-f178.google.com [209.85.223.178]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E326E78247 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2017 09:02:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f178.google.com with SMTP id r36so20709083ioi.1 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2017 02:02:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=21/EvSWug7i0L2sOK9gcByd6XKMAS2ZxR7aqB/PjKUE=; b=0RO3KYhglyHzA9T2WivMsefWiv3cMMNyWcWQ3FZQ8mwJ1EhcTOkBPHdWqqSgEI0CBe suY8LHgAdmPI2QauPt+NT4WcANfK3/wQ7Nz9XCg7JWjalwmf+FECW1IAQLRl9RtGNhG1 tSnyyM8ae15jk7Om8T2SdGLb+4B69qBGB9t9Hd3G8n2KuRtuFuv8L0nQGEV9DylPNLTZ TuCVj6GVUCBEnYklRpmtB0aS9blIyZLdWZJNfnewLUV875ojyr2bCb2jEBdImD0nagFr 4C7HK1yj+t0tzdieAiPF2UsLvbi5m9pFuj1mMZsqExDIIc6nEwjPhjJBBL6fstbl7FcJ d7/Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=21/EvSWug7i0L2sOK9gcByd6XKMAS2ZxR7aqB/PjKUE=; b=NspmIWfGWF6vJJetHbNVmDKl1jo8I621BVFv0PPndqtOGajngZ8EmlhNkuLDEvn3Ag F0PAhC/kI5Jjh7OkDMXuDAmfT4U5hcXywXFaPyNpPMG88LZUNa+JsW4OkrHcdVPpT908 WdFnNKHKyc3wR4sUUPEEi+x9ZfB2+nEDPYCxnenMzihzxRQ99Nf8KF5MFm1iToD+pT9m oStSjrOIX8wZe2xBYuSVnq6MCEG1FjZyST3qTD9I8da30a1MMpc4W+xtVdeNrzZU5I/2 G4G9eI+ZXTBkf20NtNzLFhTqc0M40km+f+6Y7zffkFFS5s/gYC7//bL/hrf+UrSDmTO1 x1bg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOzXM92PAWsT1SfldCwbpQg93c01yMIjI2K2ivn75PtbuViOySru NBHRzmN+aBhUoPv3 X-Received: by 10.107.4.213 with SMTP id 204mr20251383ioe.118.1498813336964; Fri, 30 Jun 2017 02:02:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pohly-mobl1 (p5DE8FA66.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [93.232.250.102]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j21sm1870208itb.15.2017.06.30.02.02.15 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 30 Jun 2017 02:02:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1498813333.5259.4.camel@intel.com> From: Patrick Ohly To: ed.bartosh@linux.intel.com Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 11:02:13 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20170630083717.GA788@linux.intel.com> References: <823180ba-066d-747d-8112-a110633a03a8@ossystems.com.br> <20170628073121.GA11425@linux.intel.com> <20170629083942.GA14649@linux.intel.com> <20170630083717.GA788@linux.intel.com> Organization: Intel GmbH, Dornacher Strasse 1, D-85622 Feldkirchen/Munich X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9-1+b1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: Otavio Salvador , Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] #11662 - wic should mount /boot 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: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 09:02:17 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 2017-06-30 at 11:37 +0300, Ed Bartosh wrote: > > I'm not sure I understand this. If you don't want fstab to be > changed > > you should not specify mount points in .wks > > There is only one reason to have mount points in .wks: to make wic > to > > change /etc/fstab, which you apparently don't want. So, don't > specify > > mount points and you'll have what you want. > > > > Having additional option for this looks redundand to me. > > After thinking a bit more about it I'd propose to have global wic > option > to avoid rootfs content changes. Not just fstab updates, but any > changes. For now this option (--no-rootfs-update ?) should prevent > creating > images if either mount points are specified or --exclude-path is used > in .wks Why does --exclude-path conflict with --no-rootfs-update? Is that a conceptual problem or an implementation problem? If I'm not mistaken, --exclude-path merely means "take this rootfs, but exclude certain parts". That's in line with --no-rootfs-update == "do not modify the content of the rootfs", as it just helps with choosing where content goes (the "single rootfs" -> "different partitions" approach). -- 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.