On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 03:43:18PM +0100, Kristian Amlie wrote: > On 24/11/16 14:23, Ed Bartosh wrote: > > 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 > > ... > > I agree, this is pretty unambiguous and easy to understand. > > But this raises the question: Should we go all the way and support > wildcards? Which might make it a bit complicated. Maybe support only > pure '*' for now?
As it shouldn't be hard to implement I'd go for it. -- Regards, Ed -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
