Re: [PATCH 0/9] first wic integration

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

Am Wed, 31 Jan 2018 14:35:11 +0100
schrieb Baurzhan Ismagulov <ibr@radix50.net>:

> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 01:15:28PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > > bf873d3 wic: Use sudo instead of pseudo  
> > 
> > This hacks in wic, and that has to go in order to keep
> > maintainability. We need to solve that differently, for sure.  
> 
> That is a trade-off between breaking the user experience (which is
> strategic) and temporary workaround that will go away anyway.
> 
> Till we get our changes accepted upstream, we have to workaround them
> locally. This series should remove the biggest hack, sysroot removal.
> Other changes are one-liners that are easy to port to a new bitbake
> version.
> 
> That said, updating wic happens from time to time, but wic is used
> every day. That is why I'd like to keep the workaround in master till
> we see what happens with the upstream merge.
> 
> I'd welcome any suggestions other than "sudo wic".

sudo bash -c wic?

Henning

> 
> > > Regarding the PRoot PoC...  
> > 
> > I'm happy to discuss the effort you see in resolving that last
> > issue and will re-prioritize.  
> 
> Ok, will come up with that after the current libhello work hits
> master.
> 
> 
> > >>> b1511ec wic: Work around mcopy error  
> > 
> > This issue is not understood yet, thus the commit not ready for
> > upstream. Furthermore, the log does not describe how to reproduce
> > the issue. So - how to clarify if we still need it?  
> 
> I'll check how to reproduce that.
> 
> 
> > >>> 17f9196 wic: Introduce the `WicExecError` exception class  
> > 
> > Can you explain why fsck should return an error at all on a freshly
> > built file system image? This seems to paper over some issue to
> > me.  
> 
> At the time, it sounded like a bug somewhere in mkfs or fsck, but we
> haven't digged deeper yet. So yes, that's a workaround.
> 
> 
> > > 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.  
> > 
> > Local hacks can save some time for a while but will shoot back with
> > more effort eventually.  
> 
> It wasn't about saving time, it was about providing working code
> first, upstreaming second.
> 
> 
> > I think we are already at that point, so let's move forward.  
> 
> Ok, let me analyze the issues and come with a proposal.
> 
> 
> With kind regards,
> Baurzhan.
>