Re: [PATCH 0/3] fix and test wic exclude-path

[Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>]

On 12.06.20 20:17, Henning Schild wrote:
> Am Fri, 12 Jun 2020 20:11:48 +0200
> schrieb "[ext] Henning Schild" <henning.schild@siemens.com>:
> 
>> Am Fri, 12 Jun 2020 17:17:19 +0200
>> schrieb "[ext] Jan Kiszka" <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>:
>>
>>> On 12.06.20 08:55, Baurzhan Ismagulov wrote:  
>>>> Hello Henning,
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 05:26:27PM +0200, Henning Schild wrote:
>>>>  
>>>>> Still having to work around that in a downstream layer. Any more
>>>>> comments or questions?    
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to look at the following issues:
>>>>
>>>> 1. I'd like to understand what exactly is failing when the fix is
>>>> not applied.
>>>>
>>>> 2. The test case is failing with the fix applied.
>>>>     
>>>
>>> Before we dig too deep on details:
>>>
>>> The pressure to update wic to a more recent version is increasing,
>>> just received another request today, so is our backlog of own
>>> upstream patches missing in Isar. I would proppose starting that
>>> update and then focuson  testing and stabilization of the result.  
>>
>> Agreed, we should make sure to use a recent bitbake and wic from
>> upstream. But we have a horrible fork with backports right now ...
> 
> The clear goal should be submodules or something like it. To prevent
> any isar specifics and enforce upstream work. Having copies allowed us
> to get into this mess. (talking about bitbake and libs here) Those
> other backports should never have been merged ... i just follow along
> here ...

We will likely have to carry patches on top of those submodules then. I
don't believe (yet) that this can be cleaner. But such things are best
understood by trying it, at least a bit until it explodes.

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RDA IOT SES-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux