Re: RFC: meta-ro-rootfs approach and volatiles vs tmpfiles.d

[ChenQi <Qi.Chen@windriver.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1352 bytes --]

On 07/31/2013 02:53 AM, Chris Larson wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:51 PM, ChenQi <Qi.Chen@windriver.com 
> <mailto:Qi.Chen@windriver.com>> wrote:
>
>     You can get more information from the bug link below. The related
>     bugs are listed in the blocks list of this bug.
>     https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4103
>     You can also review the patchset for these bugs on
>
>     http://git.pokylinux.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/log/?h=ChenQi/read-only-rootfs-in-live-images
>
>
> I'll start playing around with this locally, to see how well it'd work 
> (with adjustments to support systemd) for our use cases, and will go 
> from there on our end. Up next for me:
>

Thank you very much for your review :)

Best Regards,
Chen Qi

> - see if your r/o bits will be suitable for us with systemd rather 
> than using our tmpfiles override mechanism. we need to support this on 
> much more than just live images, and we need systemd :)
> - pursue systemd support for services missing that support in oe-core
> - pursue improved sysvinit / systemd feature parity, and potential 
> volatiles -> tmpfiles migration / consolidation
> -- 
> Christopher Larson
> clarson at kergoth dot com
> Founder - BitBake, OpenEmbedded, OpenZaurus
> Maintainer - Tslib
> Senior Software Engineer, Mentor Graphics


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3157 bytes --]