On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 12:08:29PM +0200, Ed Bartosh wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 08:51:50AM -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 09:15:05AM -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 05:01:49PM -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 01:46:16PM -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > > > When we have been told to use the UUID we should also update the fstab
> > > > > to make use of PARTUUID instead of hard-coding the device in question.
> > > > > This will make the resulting image much more portable.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  scripts/lib/wic/plugins/imager/direct.py | 9 ++++++---
> > > > >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > Where we did we end up with this?  Ed pointed out that you can tell wic
> > > > to use a specific UUID, so reproducible images are not a problem.  And
> > > > making images that are readily portable is why other distros use
> > > > UUID/LABEL and not device names as much as possible.  I personally enjoy
> > > > being able to put an image on uSD for minnow and have it work :)
> > > > Thanks!
> > > 
> > > ping?
> > 
> > I was just reminded about the real problems this solves (swap isn't
> > /dev/sda3, boot is being excessively slow), so, ping?
> > 
> 
> I'm generally ok with the patchset. The only thing I'm thinking of is if busybox mount
> supports PARTUUID syntax in fstab. Can you check this, please?
> 
> I'd like to see Otavio's confirmation that --uuid option solves
> his reproducible builds concern.
> 
> Can you rebase your patchset on top of current master?

Yes, OK.

> It would be also nice to get this functionality covered by tests.

OK, but what part of oe-selftest, and how exactly?  Can one easily check
the resulting fstab?

-- 
Tom