On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 08:38:46AM +0100, Kristian Amlie wrote: > On 24/11/16 07:15, Ulrich Ölmann wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 04:56:56PM +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote: > >> On Wed, 2016-11-23 at 15:22 +0200, Ed Bartosh wrote: > >>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 02:08:28PM +0100, Kristian Amlie wrote: > >>>> On 23/11/16 13:08, Ed Bartosh wrote: > >>>>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:54:52PM +0100, Kristian Amlie wrote: > >>>>> [...] > >>>>> This can be done by extending existing rootfs plugin. It should be able > >>>>> to do 2 things: > >>>>> > >>>>> - populate content of one rootfs directory to the partition. We can > >>>>> extend syntax of --rootfs-dir parameter to specify optional directory > >>>>> path to use > >>>>> > >>>>> - exclude rootfs directories when populating partitions. I'd propose to > >>>>> introduce --exclude-dirs wks parser option to handle this. > >>>>> > >>>>> Example of wks file with proposed new options: > >>>>> part / --source rootfs --rootfs-dir=core-image-minimal > >>>>> --ondisk sda --fstype=ext4 --label root --align 1024 --exclude-dirs > >>>>> data --exclude-dirs home > >>>>> part /data --source rootfs --rootfs-dir=core-image-minimal:/home > >>>>> --ondisk sda --fstype=ext4 --label data --align 1024 > >>>>> part /home --source rootfs --rootfs-dir=core-image-minimal:/data > >>>>> --ondisk sda --fstype=ext4 --label data --align 1024 > >>>>> > >>>>> Does this make sense? > >>>> > >>>> Looks good. The only thing I would question is that, in the interest of > >>>> reducing redundancy, maybe we should omit --exclude-dirs and have wic > >>>> figure this out by combining all the entries, since "--exclude-dirs > >>>> <dir>" and the corresponding "part <dir>" will almost always come in > >>>> pairs. Possibly we could mark the "/" partition with one single > >>>> --no-overlapping-dirs to force wic to make this consideration. Or do you > >>>> think that's too magical? > >>>> > >>> Tt's quite implicit from my point of view. However, if people like it we > >>> can implement it this way. > >> > >> I prefer the explicit --exclude-dirs. It's less surprising and perhaps > >> there are usages for having the same content in different partitions > >> (redundancy, factory reset, etc.). > >> > >> Excluding only the directory content but not the actual directory is > >> indeed a good point. I'm a bit undecided. When excluding only the > >> directory content, there's no way of building a rootfs without that > >> mount point, if that's desired. OTOH, when excluding also the directory, > >> the data would have to be staged under a different path in the rootfs > >> and the mount point would have to be a separate, empty directory. > >> > >> I'm leaning towards excluding the directory content and keeping the > >> directory. > > > > what about having both possibilities by leaning against the syntax that > > rsync > > uses to specify if a whole source directory or only it's contents shall be > > synced to some destination site (see [1])? > > > > In analogy to this to exclude only the contents of the directory named > > 'data' > > you would use > > > > --exclude-dirs data/ > > > > but to additionally exclude the dir itself as well it would read > > > > --exclude-dirs data > > This is creative, but ultimately too unintuitive IMHO. Rsync is the only > tool which uses this syntax AFAIK, and it's a constant source of > confusion, especially when mixed with cp or similar commands. >
Would this way be less intuitive? --exclude-path data/* --exclude-path data We can go even further with it allowing any level of directories: --exclude-path data/tmp/* --exclude-path data/db/tmp ... -- Regards, Ed -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
