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 825D970101 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2017 09:11:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 03 Jul 2017 02:11:37 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.40,302,1496127600"; d="scan'208";a="1147258168" Received: from linux.intel.com ([10.54.29.200]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Jul 2017 02:11:37 -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 58EE858056B; Mon, 3 Jul 2017 02:11:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 11:59:47 +0300 From: Ed Bartosh To: Patrick Ohly Message-ID: <20170703085947.GA5571@linux.intel.com> Reply-To: ed.bartosh@linux.intel.com References: <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> <20170703073115.GA5380@linux.intel.com> <1499068412.5259.71.camel@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1499068412.5259.71.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 09:11:38 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 09:53:32AM +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: > On Mon, 2017-07-03 at 10:31 +0300, Ed Bartosh wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 08:34:30PM +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > > 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. > > Okay, now I see what the purpose is. > > I prefer a --no-fstab-update over a general --no-rootfs-update because > for each case where wic would normally modify the rootfs, some other > mechanism must be in place which makes that modification redundant (like > using PARTUUID). Having separate parameters forces the developers to > think about it. Just my 2 cents... > Tha makes sense to me. >From other point of view if the goal is to have rootfs unmodified --no-rootfs-update would make it easier to achive. Moreover it will guarantee that rootfs is unmodified even if wic introduces new functionality that modifies rootfs. -- Regards, Ed