On 24.11.2016 15:51, Ed Bartosh wrote: > On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 03:43:18PM +0100, Kristian Amlie wrote: >> On 24/11/16 14:23, Ed Bartosh wrote: >>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 08:38:46AM +0100, Kristian Amlie wrote: >>>> On 24/11/16 07:15, Ulrich Ölmann wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 04:56:56PM +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 2016-11-23 at 15:22 +0200, Ed Bartosh wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 02:08:28PM +0100, Kristian Amlie wrote: >>>>>>>> On 23/11/16 13:08, Ed Bartosh wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:54:52PM +0100, Kristian Amlie wrote: >>>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>>> This can be done by extending existing rootfs plugin. It should be >>>>>>>>> able >>>>>>>>> to do 2 things: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - populate content of one rootfs directory to the partition. We can >>>>>>>>> extend syntax of --rootfs-dir parameter to specify optional >>>>>>>>> directory path to use >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - exclude rootfs directories when populating partitions. I'd propose >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> introduce --exclude-dirs wks parser option to handle this. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Example of wks file with proposed new options: >>>>>>>>> part / --source rootfs --rootfs-dir=core-image-minimal >>>>>>>>> --ondisk sda --fstype=ext4 --label root --align 1024 --exclude-dirs >>>>>>>>> data --exclude-dirs home >>>>>>>>> part /data --source rootfs --rootfs-dir=core-image-minimal:/home >>>>>>>>> --ondisk sda --fstype=ext4 --label data --align 1024 >>>>>>>>> part /home --source rootfs --rootfs-dir=core-image-minimal:/data >>>>>>>>> --ondisk sda --fstype=ext4 --label data --align 1024 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Does this make sense? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Looks good. The only thing I would question is that, in the interest of >>>>>>>> reducing redundancy, maybe we should omit --exclude-dirs and have wic >>>>>>>> figure this out by combining all the entries, since "--exclude-dirs >>>>>>>> <dir>" and the corresponding "part <dir>" will almost always come in >>>>>>>> pairs. Possibly we could mark the "/" partition with one single >>>>>>>> --no-overlapping-dirs to force wic to make this consideration. Or do >>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>> think that's too magical? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Tt's quite implicit from my point of view. However, if people like it we >>>>>>> can implement it this way. >>>>>> >>>>>> I prefer the explicit --exclude-dirs. It's less surprising and perhaps >>>>>> there are usages for having the same content in different partitions >>>>>> (redundancy, factory reset, etc.). >>>>>> >>>>>> Excluding only the directory content but not the actual directory is >>>>>> indeed a good point. I'm a bit undecided. When excluding only the >>>>>> directory content, there's no way of building a rootfs without that >>>>>> mount point, if that's desired. OTOH, when excluding also the directory, >>>>>> the data would have to be staged under a different path in the rootfs >>>>>> and the mount point would have to be a separate, empty directory. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm leaning towards excluding the directory content and keeping the >>>>>> directory. >>>>> >>>>> what about having both possibilities by leaning against the syntax that >>>>> rsync >>>>> uses to specify if a whole source directory or only it's contents shall be >>>>> synced to some destination site (see [1])? >>>>> >>>>> In analogy to this to exclude only the contents of the directory named >>>>> 'data' >>>>> you would use >>>>> >>>>> --exclude-dirs data/ >>>>> >>>>> but to additionally exclude the dir itself as well it would read >>>>> >>>>> --exclude-dirs data >>>> >>>> This is creative, but ultimately too unintuitive IMHO. Rsync is the only >>>> tool which uses this syntax AFAIK, and it's a constant source of >>>> confusion, especially when mixed with cp or similar commands. >>>> >>> >>> Would this way be less intuitive? >>> --exclude-path data/* >>> --exclude-path data >>> >>> We can go even further with it allowing any level of directories: >>> --exclude-path data/tmp/* >>> --exclude-path data/db/tmp >>> ... >> >> I agree, this is pretty unambiguous and easy to understand. >> >> But this raises the question: Should we go all the way and support >> wildcards? Which might make it a bit complicated. Maybe support only >> pure '*' for now? > > As it shouldn't be hard to implement I'd go for it.
Note that in a shell, "data/*" doesn't include "data/.*". So this syntax avoids the confusing rsync syntax in trade for another one. I'd prefer the rsync flavour, because "behaves like rsync" is easier to remember than "behaves like a shell glob, but differently". Confusion could be prevented with good documentation, FWIW. Regards, Andreas -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core