| Message ID | 20250110154457.83539-1-Quirin.Gylstorff@siemens.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [isar-cip-core] initramfs-overlay: fix missing scriptpreq | expand |
On 10.01.25 16:44, Quirin Gylstorff wrote: > From: Quirin Gylstorff <quirin.gylstorff@siemens.com> > > During testing with LAVA it was detect that the overlays are not > mount on real hardware if the image is booted a second time. "mounted" Is this a regression of my refactorings, or was it always broken? > > Signed-off-by: Quirin Gylstorff <quirin.gylstorff@siemens.com> > --- > .../initramfs-overlay-hook/initramfs-overlay-hook_0.2.bb | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/recipes-initramfs/initramfs-overlay-hook/initramfs-overlay-hook_0.2.bb b/recipes-initramfs/initramfs-overlay-hook/initramfs-overlay-hook_0.2.bb > index 56ae8d2..4e2e292 100644 > --- a/recipes-initramfs/initramfs-overlay-hook/initramfs-overlay-hook_0.2.bb > +++ b/recipes-initramfs/initramfs-overlay-hook/initramfs-overlay-hook_0.2.bb > @@ -45,6 +45,8 @@ DEBIAN_DEPENDS .= ", awk, coreutils, util-linux" > HOOK_ADD_MODULES = "overlay" > HOOK_COPY_EXECS = "mountpoint awk e2fsck mke2fs" > > +SCRIPT_PREREQ="crypt" > + This is a weak dependency, right? Means, it will not fail if we have no crypt in play? Jan > do_install:append() { > install -m 0755 "${WORKDIR}/${INITRAMFS_OVERLAY_RECOVERY_SCRIPT}" \ > "${D}/usr/share/initramfs-tools/scripts"
On 1/10/25 17:07, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 10.01.25 16:44, Quirin Gylstorff wrote: >> From: Quirin Gylstorff <quirin.gylstorff@siemens.com> >> >> During testing with LAVA it was detect that the overlays are not >> mount on real hardware if the image is booted a second time. > > "mounted" > > Is this a regression of my refactorings, or was it always broken? I will send a v2 - I saw it this week the first time on the mtda-mcom. Could have something to do with the slow disk. > >> >> Signed-off-by: Quirin Gylstorff <quirin.gylstorff@siemens.com> >> --- >> .../initramfs-overlay-hook/initramfs-overlay-hook_0.2.bb | 2 ++ >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/recipes-initramfs/initramfs-overlay-hook/initramfs-overlay-hook_0.2.bb b/recipes-initramfs/initramfs-overlay-hook/initramfs-overlay-hook_0.2.bb >> index 56ae8d2..4e2e292 100644 >> --- a/recipes-initramfs/initramfs-overlay-hook/initramfs-overlay-hook_0.2.bb >> +++ b/recipes-initramfs/initramfs-overlay-hook/initramfs-overlay-hook_0.2.bb >> @@ -45,6 +45,8 @@ DEBIAN_DEPENDS .= ", awk, coreutils, util-linux" >> HOOK_ADD_MODULES = "overlay" >> HOOK_COPY_EXECS = "mountpoint awk e2fsck mke2fs" >> >> +SCRIPT_PREREQ="crypt" >> + > > This is a weak dependency, right? Means, it will not fail if we have no > crypt in play? I tested it without disk encryption. Quirin > > Jan > >> do_install:append() { >> install -m 0755 "${WORKDIR}/${INITRAMFS_OVERLAY_RECOVERY_SCRIPT}" \ >> "${D}/usr/share/initramfs-tools/scripts" >
diff --git a/recipes-initramfs/initramfs-overlay-hook/initramfs-overlay-hook_0.2.bb b/recipes-initramfs/initramfs-overlay-hook/initramfs-overlay-hook_0.2.bb index 56ae8d2..4e2e292 100644 --- a/recipes-initramfs/initramfs-overlay-hook/initramfs-overlay-hook_0.2.bb +++ b/recipes-initramfs/initramfs-overlay-hook/initramfs-overlay-hook_0.2.bb @@ -45,6 +45,8 @@ DEBIAN_DEPENDS .= ", awk, coreutils, util-linux" HOOK_ADD_MODULES = "overlay" HOOK_COPY_EXECS = "mountpoint awk e2fsck mke2fs" +SCRIPT_PREREQ="crypt" + do_install:append() { install -m 0755 "${WORKDIR}/${INITRAMFS_OVERLAY_RECOVERY_SCRIPT}" \ "${D}/usr/share/initramfs-tools/scripts"