On Mon, 2017-07-03 at 10:31 +0300, Ed Bartosh wrote: > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 08:34:30PM +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > then I don't see a need for any additional flags. Just > > don't use the features which result in a rootfs modification. > > I also didn't see it till last message from Otavio. Now I do - they > don't want to change .wks files. They're using standard wks from > scripts/lib/wic/canned-wks or from standard layers and they don't want > to duplicate them when they don't want rootfs modifications. > > It could be a valid reason to have --no-fstab-update option I think. > However, I'm still not 100% convinced I'm ok with this if nobody else > objects.
Okay, now I see what the purpose is. I prefer a --no-fstab-update over a general --no-rootfs-update because for each case where wic would normally modify the rootfs, some other mechanism must be in place which makes that modification redundant (like using PARTUUID). Having separate parameters forces the developers to think about it. Just my 2 cents... -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core