Re: [OE-core] [RFC][PATCH v2 0/9] standalone wic

[Trevor Woerner <twoerner@gmail.com>]

Hi Mathieu,

Thanks for giving them a run on the AB.

On Tue 2026-02-03 @ 02:56:25 PM, Mathieu Dubois-Briand wrote:
> On Mon Feb 2, 2026 at 6:07 PM CET, Trevor Woerner via lists.openembedded.org wrote:
> > This series of patches explores the possibility of splitting wic out
> > from oe-core into its own standalone utility. The wic utility will
> > continue to fall under The Yocto Project umbrella, but will no longer
> > be integrated into the project as part of oe-core. The ultimate goal is
> > to make wic a completely independent tool, hosted on PyPI, with its own
> > tests, development roadmap, and releases.
> >
> > Some benefits include:
> > - relieving the oe-core maintainers from having to review, understand,
> >    merge, or reject wic patches
> > - allow the tool to be used outside of The Yocto Project for generating
> >   Linux images
> > - provide more flexibility to explore other features, libraries,
> >   mechanisms, etc
> >
> > The initial task of splitting wic out into its own repository was
> > performed with the help of AI. It was checked, and subsequent work was
> > done without AI.
> >
> > These changes have been tested with oe-selftest as follows:
> > 	$ sudo .../layers/openembedded-core/scripts/runqemu-gen-tapdevs <my numeric group id> 4
> > 	$ oe-selftest -v -r wic
> >
> > On my machine my oe-selftest results for an unmodified oe-core give:
> > 	successes=93, skipped=1, failures=0, errors=1
> > with these patches I get:
> > 	successes=91, skipped=1, failures=2, errors=0
> >
> > There are 2 tests that need to be fixed, but it would be great to get
> > some feedback on this work, and to see what the AB thinks of it so far.
> > I have also done some adhoc testing with meta-rockchip and
> > meta-raspberrypi.
> >
> > Should this work eventually make its way to oe-core, it would need to
> > be squashed into a single commit otherwise builds will break when only
> > partially applied. They have been submitted here in this RFC series
> > separately to make review easier.
> >
> 
> Hi Trevor,
> 
> Thanks for this series. I ran it on the autobuilder, a few issues (maybe
> just a single one actually), but most tests succeed.
> 
> 
> So first, we have the wic tests, which try to invoke the wic tools
> directly. These one entirely failed because wic was not found in the
> path at all:
> 
> Running '. ./init-build-env; wic create directdisk -e core-image-sato -o ${BUILDDIR}/tmp/deploy/wic_images/qemux86/directdisk/core-image-sato/' with output to /srv/pokybuild/yocto-worker/wic/build/build/command-1-cmds.log in /srv/pokybuild/yocto-worker/wic/build/build
> /bin/bash: line 1: wic: command not found
> 
> https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/15/builds/3076
> 
> So I still have to look in depth at your patches, but I suspect, as the
> tool is now in a separate git, it can no longer be used just by sourcing
> the environment file.
> 
> In the context of the test, this is probably not really an issue, we can
> just fix it to have wic tools. But thinking about users, this might be a
> bigger issue as it does change a bit the flow if they want to use wic
> directly.
> 
> 
> The second issue is similar: one of the selftests fails as the wic
> command was not found:
> 
> 2026-02-03 09:54:38,418 - oe-selftest - INFO - systemd_boot.Systemdboot.test_efi_systemdboot_images_can_be_built (subunit.RemotedTestCase)
> 2026-02-03 09:54:38,419 - oe-selftest - INFO -  ... FAIL
> ...
> AssertionError: Command 'wic cp /srv/pokybuild/yocto-worker/oe-selftest-armhost/build/build-st-1720620/tmp/deploy/images/genericx86-64/core-image-minimal-genericx86-64.rootfs.wic:1/EFI/BOOT/bootx64.efi /srv/pokybuild/yocto-worker/oe-selftest-armhost/build/build-st-1720620/tmp/deploy/images/genericx86-64/bootx64.efi -n /srv/pokybuild/yocto-worker/oe-selftest-armhost/build/build-st-1720620/tmp/work/core2-64-poky-linux/wic-tools/1.0/recipe-sysroot-native' returned non-zero exit status 127:
> /bin/sh: 1: wic: not found
> 
> https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/23/builds/3260
> https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/35/builds/3136
> https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/48/builds/3034
> 
> 
> And so far, that's all. So we might have other issues masked behind
> this, but overall it looks pretty good in term of tests.

Wow, this is excellent results!
	successes=619, skipped=43, failures=1, errors=0
	successes=642, skipped=20, failures=1, errors=0
	successes=644, skipped=18, failures=1, errors=0


In my testing, locally, I had 2 tests that were failing, but the AB only
has one :-) The one that is failing on the AB:
	systemd_boot.Systemdboot.test_efi_systemdboot_images_can_be_built

is not one I had tested.

Thanks!