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 33F96606CB for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2017 07:43:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Jul 2017 00:43:05 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.40,301,1496127600"; d="scan'208";a="988087546" Received: from linux.intel.com ([10.54.29.200]) by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Jul 2017 00:43:05 -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 A35E758056B; Mon, 3 Jul 2017 00:43:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 10:31:15 +0300 From: Ed Bartosh To: Patrick Ohly Message-ID: <20170703073115.GA5380@linux.intel.com> Reply-To: ed.bartosh@linux.intel.com References: <20170628073121.GA11425@linux.intel.com> <20170629083942.GA14649@linux.intel.com> <20170630083717.GA788@linux.intel.com> <1498813333.5259.4.camel@intel.com> <20170630122330.GA17125@linux.intel.com> <1498828593.5259.7.camel@intel.com> <20170630154456.GB28177@linux.intel.com> <1498847670.5259.9.camel@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1498847670.5259.9.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: Mon, 03 Jul 2017 07:43:06 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 08:34:30PM +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: > On Fri, 2017-06-30 at 14:33 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > > Other possible rootfs changes also should be possible to be disabled > > but IMO it should be per-feature (one for fstab, one for exclude, > > ...). > > I also think it should be per-feature, it necessary at all. > > I still do not fully understand under which circumstances wic modifies > the rootfs. If that happens only when explicitly requested in the wks > file as Ed said, then I don't see a need for any additional flags. Yes, that happens only if it explicitly requested, i.e. if there are valid mount points in .wks file > then I don't see a need for any additional flags. Just > don't use the features which result in a rootfs modification. I also didn't see it till last message from Otavio. Now I do - they don't want to change .wks files. They're using standard wks from scripts/lib/wic/canned-wks or from standard layers and they don't want to duplicate them when they don't want rootfs modifications. It could be a valid reason to have --no-fstab-update option I think. However, I'm still not 100% convinced I'm ok with this if nobody else objects. -- Regards, Ed