On Wed, 4 Sept 2024 at 09:56, Mikko Rapeli <mikko.rap...@linaro.org> wrote: > > Not rejected per se; I would suggest that the existing wic > > implementation is rewritten to use the class (and hopefully becomes > > radically simpler and shorter)! > > > > It's fine to not be entirely backwards compatible; this is master, and > > we can break things. > > Does the implementation have to be a wic plugin? > > wic is another wrapper over bitbake and I'd need to teach openssl native > and python3native things to it which seems a bit too much. uki.bbclass > is much simpler and wic can process the produced .efi file when creating > the ESP boot partition. I can try to fix the tests to work with uki.bbclass.
No, implementation can stay in the bbclass. But I don't exactly remember how the whole thing fits together, and whether you can keep what the bbclass functionality in the bbclass and have wic call into it (perhaps indirectly) or vice versa. I just would like to avoid the situation where there are two entirely different implementations of the same thing in core, and only one of them gets tested. If wic can work together with the bbclass, then the existing wic selftests will test the bbclass as well. Alex
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#204196): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/204196 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/108224526/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
