On Wed, 2023-03-22 at 16:54 +0100, [email protected] wrote: > From: Dit Kozmaj <[email protected]> > > So far part.label has been used to define GPT partition label even if > part.part_name was defined. > Fix the code to use part.part_name whenever available, as it makes sense > to have a GPT partition label which is different from the contained > filesystem label. > > Signed-off-by: Dit Kozmaj <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Diego Rondini <[email protected]> > --- > scripts/lib/wic/plugins/imager/direct.py | 14 ++++---------- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/scripts/lib/wic/plugins/imager/direct.py > b/scripts/lib/wic/plugins/imager/direct.py > index dfaa901567..1f06b89f8e 100644 > --- a/scripts/lib/wic/plugins/imager/direct.py > +++ b/scripts/lib/wic/plugins/imager/direct.py > @@ -571,11 +571,12 @@ class PartitionedImage(): > self._create_partition(self.path, part.type, > parted_fs_type, part.start, part.size_sec) > > - if part.part_name: > + if part.part_name or part.label: > + partition_label = part.part_name if part.part_name else > part.label > logger.debug("partition %d: set name to %s", > - part.num, part.part_name) > + part.num, partition_label) > exec_native_cmd("sgdisk --change-name=%d:%s %s" % \ > - (part.num, part.part_name, > + (part.num, partition_label, > self.path), self.native_sysroot) > > if part.part_type: > @@ -592,13 +593,6 @@ class PartitionedImage(): > (part.num, part.uuid, self.path), > self.native_sysroot) > > - if part.label and self.ptable_format == "gpt": > - logger.debug("partition %d: set name to %s", > - part.num, part.label) > - exec_native_cmd("parted -s %s name %d %s" % \ > - (self.path, part.num, part.label), > - self.native_sysroot) > - > if part.active: > flag_name = "legacy_boot" if self.ptable_format == 'gpt' > else "boot" > logger.debug("Set '%s' flag for partition '%s' on disk '%s'",
This was flagged on irc as not having a response. We're struggling with a lack of a maintainer for wic at the moment so review is slow and I'm not really a wic expert but I'm all we have :/. As mentioned, changes to code like this are much more likely if there is a test case included. The existing tests can be run with "oe- selftest -r wic". Can you confirm this patch doesn't regress the current tests? Would you be able to add a test so this change doesn't regress in future? Cheers, Richard
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#179291): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/179291 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/97781388/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
