On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 8:08 AM, Ed Bartosh <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >> > > > --- >> > > > 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?
It does. > I'd like to see Otavio's confirmation that --uuid option solves > his reproducible builds concern. I am not against it if the no-fstab-update consider this too. Using uuid when making a fstab makes more sense but the possibility to not touch the fstab must be kept. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750 -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
