On Saturday, September 5, 2020 at 2:08:07 PM UTC+5:30 Henning Schild wrote:

> On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 00:26:20 +0530 
> Vijai Kumar K <Vijaikumar_...@mentor.com> wrote: 
>
> > When using --exclude-path option wic copies the rootfs to a new 
> > location and invokes pseudo as a standalone command to rebuild the 
> > database in the new rootfs. 
> > 
> > This is not applicable when using wic_fakeroot. Return 0 for such 
> > standalone invocations in wic_fakeroot. 
> > 
> > It also looks for files.db inside the pseudo directory and throws an 
> > exception if it is not found. Handle that too. 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Vijai Kumar K <Vijaikumar_...@mentor.com> 
> > --- 
> > meta/classes/wic-img.bbclass | 1 + 
> > scripts/wic_fakeroot | 5 +++++ 
> > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+) 
> > 
> > diff --git a/meta/classes/wic-img.bbclass 
> > b/meta/classes/wic-img.bbclass index a2c9627..b1a7259 100644 
> > --- a/meta/classes/wic-img.bbclass 
> > +++ b/meta/classes/wic-img.bbclass 
> > @@ -144,6 +144,7 @@ EOSUDO 
> > export BUILDDIR=${BUILDDIR} 
> > export MTOOLS_SKIP_CHECK=1 
> > mkdir -p ${IMAGE_ROOTFS}/../pseudo 
> > + touch ${IMAGE_ROOTFS}/../pseudo/files.db 
>
> Where is this coming from? It is not mentioned in the commit message 
> and not used in the code. 
>

This is to handle [2].

These kind of workarounds come because we use fakeroot. And our fakeroot 
was just
to handle the fsck issue in stretch. That issue is still there in stretch 
package. The other approach
is to drop the wic_fakeroot and these subsequent quirks handling and carry 
one patch on top of wic
just for the fsck support in stretch. Anyway I proceeded with wic_fakeroot 
assuming that it might be
useful when facing such package compatibility issues. But I see that has 
become an overhead. If only
we can carry one patch on top of wic this all touch pseudo/files.db, 
startswith(-) quirks are not needed. 

[2]https://github.com/openembedded/openembedded-core/blob/404292b570a78895a1c7900eeb319e36e31dec20/scripts/lib/wic/plugins/source/rootfs.py#L130 


> > 
> > # create the temp dir in the buildchroot to ensure uniqueness 
> > WICTMP=$(cd ${BUILDCHROOT_DIR}; mktemp -d -p tmp) 
> > diff --git a/scripts/wic_fakeroot b/scripts/wic_fakeroot 
> > index 88a03fa..16b011e 100755 
> > --- a/scripts/wic_fakeroot 
> > +++ b/scripts/wic_fakeroot 
> > @@ -25,6 +25,11 @@ cmd = args[0] 
> > # rootfs/root ... 
> > assert os.geteuid() == 0, "wic_fakeroot must be run as root!" 
> > 
> > +# Check if we are calling the pseudo command itself. Return 1 
> > +# for standalone pseudo operations. 
> > +if cmd.startswith('-'): 
> > + sys.exit(0) 
>
> I find it hard to match the comment to the code i see. "-" means its 
> not a cmd but an arg to wic_fakeroot? And what about the 0 vs 1. 
>

Yes. There is an instance[1] where FAKEROOT, in case of oe the pseudo, is 
called
as a standalone command with options. We are checking whether the first
option is an argument starting with '-' returning 0 on such calls.

Good catch. I will fix the comment.

[1] 
https://github.com/openembedded/openembedded-core/blob/404292b570a78895a1c7900eeb319e36e31dec20/scripts/lib/wic/plugins/source/rootfs.py#L133


> Henning 
>
> > # e2fsck <= 1.43.5 returns 1 on non-errors (stretch and before 
> > affected) # treat 1 as safe ... the filesystem was successfully 
> > repaired and is OK if cmd.startswith('fsck.'): 
>
>