Re: [PATCH v2 00/16] wic integration

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

Am Thu, 3 May 2018 19:39:39 +0300
schrieb Alexander Smirnov <asmirnov@ilbers.de>:

> On 05/03/2018 07:32 PM, Henning Schild wrote:
> > Am Tue, 1 May 2018 22:23:01 +0300
> > schrieb Alexander Smirnov <asmirnov@ilbers.de>:
> >   
> >> On 04/13/2018 05:18 PM, Henning Schild wrote:  
> >>> This series does the follow things:
> >>>
> >>> 1. revert all changes that where made to wic so Isar uses an
> >>> unmodified version of it
> >>> 2. Introdcue an image-class that will create wic images
> >>> automatically 3. enable testing that in CI
> >>> 4. update docs
> >>>
> >>> Patches 1 to 7 just deal with getting back to an unmodified
> >>> version of wic.
> >>> Patch 11 - the big one - provides the real functionality.
> >>>
> >>> I will provide some more information on what is going on here by
> >>> replying to p11.
> >>>
> >>> Major changes to the first series:
> >>>    - rebase on recent Isar
> >>>    - wic is now running in buildchroot, as root
> >>>    - calling wic manually not supported any longer
> >>>    - distros before stretch are not supported either (see p11
> >>> discussion for why)
> >>>    - CI can now test wic for the first time  
> >>
> >> Applied to next, thanks!  
> > 
> > Thank you. I have one outstanding change i wanted to squash with
> > p11, originated from a review from Claudius. Should that get
> > squashed or go on top?
> > https://github.com/henning-schild-work/isar/commit/75bbea59fe2e4174f4eaf0f782792d208672fad6
> >   
> 
> I'd prefer on top, could you please send this patch on the list?

And now i remember another "open" point. Claudius suggested to split
the forking of the plugins into two steps. One that just copies them,
and a second to apply the Isar-specific changes.
That would make it easier to see what needed to change to make them
work under Isar, which could become increasingly interesting when we
version-bump our wic some day.

I could do that on top as well, sort of two no-op patches. But in this
case a rebase would probably be the better option. Or we do not do that
at all. How would you like to proceed?

Henning

> Alex