From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81BB0719D0 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2017 12:25:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fmsmga006.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.20]) by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 30 Jun 2017 05:25:44 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.40,286,1496127600"; d="scan'208";a="121284772" Received: from linux.intel.com ([10.54.29.200]) by fmsmga006.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 30 Jun 2017 05:25:44 -0700 Received: from linux.intel.com (vmed.fi.intel.com [10.237.72.38]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by linux.intel.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63CE65801BC; Fri, 30 Jun 2017 05:25:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 15:23:30 +0300 From: Ed Bartosh To: Patrick Ohly Message-ID: <20170630122330.GA17125@linux.intel.com> Reply-To: ed.bartosh@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> <1498813333.5259.4.camel@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1498813333.5259.4.camel@intel.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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 12:25:44 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 11:02:13AM +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: > 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? > I thought that removing directories from original rootfs is a modification. > 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). That's questionable statement, but I agree it makes sense in some cases. If nobody objects I'm ok with this. Let's assume that removing part of the content is not a modifiation :) -- Regards, Ed