From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io0-f173.google.com (mail-io0-f173.google.com [209.85.223.173]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB42378271 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2017 13:16:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f173.google.com with SMTP id z62so23730503ioi.3 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2017 06:16:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=KxvI396EPfNtmo2pvrbG7TUCfgPpuH2T4EHiMIdCu4U=; b=TFSORZcBabag4rnNpKkWUqGw8X1oUnW/ONjR8/+/KB3I1eBvVGJNyoMgcEjlmCwPg0 Tgr2t4MDkNUuiNGsTpYJA7sO8NiDphZOiim1oQTrwFNk6eTFaCFM1nG2S+wBYP/5OfJu a6XNSo2/oZLkUvcfJhwSXK83wi9/r+ENI9MJASX2HDA9MovX8Yzhb/KVA9X2WaGqaGun F+SOR3WZWpZ3rOvp4nD6IfmUyAq+rkYSkpJJvsKrVuNPkvTk4HfRflO/IeKxnycq+hL6 zsCH+5k8uBRsEuJlO3zgayrpnwv69vjfsbisOAB5CcQEYaKb6IgFIHeqeuIk0HpoMlXR dQZg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=KxvI396EPfNtmo2pvrbG7TUCfgPpuH2T4EHiMIdCu4U=; b=s9cvqjjCCvXAl4X5fcpqHcgUPl/cAIdbFbw/dkZsBLNPzMep4dnhOuoEujyvBHRKc3 3X0MKpncbAFdV0Cq8U0NwZFhn5LyCv6C9/RFYE1o1gXH2uYlj4LKUJVLhppC0UJ1epUt 8ngiYppo3ly5OTOcK29VQ0H1Bfz64j5Rscchcw6WBuWNDQZA6UPdqnR0eAq3GyQDP+2H mZsQxtQ8M90E+Z3zYhuvjnYeriRf9yTwM16cCdan++8Zg3G0S4+GpiIK3NVW+97utVVp iDLaZORt2Kk1gzMs6DBLS8J9y4G2G3jQFyKf+Z/KVIt0HA9toEsboOPKbWhnJiivBROe e1dQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOwS+9fN6Ki5OUJCiD5oDnl0u6KcO1vQ0badmKTo6s9ClMjqZgiD PmG7Q2dldyfFZMjh X-Received: by 10.107.11.37 with SMTP id v37mr12851212ioi.39.1498828596735; Fri, 30 Jun 2017 06:16:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pohly-mobl1 (p5DE8FA66.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [93.232.250.102]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u15sm4155511iou.2.2017.06.30.06.16.34 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 30 Jun 2017 06:16:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1498828593.5259.7.camel@intel.com> From: Patrick Ohly To: ed.bartosh@linux.intel.com Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 15:16:33 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20170630122330.GA17125@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> <20170630122330.GA17125@linux.intel.com> Organization: Intel GmbH, Dornacher Strasse 1, D-85622 Feldkirchen/Munich X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9-1+b1 Mime-Version: 1.0 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 13:16:37 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 2017-06-30 at 15:23 +0300, Ed Bartosh wrote: > 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. But it's not actually removed from the original roofs directory, right? For me, "not modified" refers to that and the files in it. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter.