Re: [PATCH 0/9] first wic integration

[Henning Schild <henning.schild@siemens.com>]

Am Wed, 31 Jan 2018 13:02:46 +0100
schrieb Baurzhan Ismagulov <ibr@radix50.net>:

> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 12:47:08PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > >> If the manual non-root call did work before, i will look into
> > >> that.  
> > > 
> > > Yes. Yes, please do.
> > > 
> > > In Yocto, manual non-root call works. The same is our vision for
> > > Isar. For now, it has been workarounded with sudo. We have a
> > > working PoC based on PRoot in the pipeline. So I don't support
> > > the idea of changing the user experience because of this issue.  
> > 
> > While I agree we should try to get whole Isar unprivileged, let's
> > not invest too much into this when it's complex. We are currently
> > far away from that goal (as you know, proot has several open issues
> > as well), and this here solves the problem of having to run wic
> > manually at all.  
> 
> No effort whatsoever. This is already workarounded in master in the
> following commit:
> 
> bf873d3 wic: Use sudo instead of pseudo

This patch did not just replace pseudo with sudo, it also introduced
"sudo"s  i.e. for the "du"s that now fail.

I could overlay "du" and "mkfs" with symlinks to wic_fakeroot and use
sudo in there, but i do not really see the point. If you are counting
sudos i replaces a whole lot of them with just one, an almighty one ;).

Henning

> My suggestion is not to revert that. I agree with Henning that we
> should cover that in CI. I'll provide an initial testing framework,
> then we should sync who does what. The other mcopy and fsck issues
> are not covered, either.
> 
> Regarding the PRoot PoC, I don't agree we are far away. Everything
> works except mounting. We've just postponed the work due to
> higher-prio issues.
>
> 
> > > b1511ec wic: Work around mcopy error
> > > 17f9196 wic: Introduce the `WicExecError` exception class
> > > 
> > > All of them are not related to the bitbake core and fix concrete
> > > issues with image generation that were not addressed in the
> > > baseline bitbake. Did you address those issues in your new
> > > changes?  
> > 
> > Good points, should be clarified. Maybe an update of the upstream
> > wic import is the answer if we are about to lose something. Better
> > than patching locally in Isar, as so far.  
> 
> Do you mean we should initiate upstreaming that to OE? If yes, I
> agree with you. The only question is point of time. My idea was to
> wait till Henning completes the lifecycle with his OE contribution
> and learn from his experience. If you think we should do that now,
> please let me know.
> 
> 
> With kind regards,
> Baurzhan.
>