Add optional second argument to do_overlayfs to make separate control easier#208
Open
cinderblock wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Add optional second argument to do_overlayfs to make separate control easier#208cinderblock wants to merge 1 commit into
do_overlayfs to make separate control easier#208cinderblock wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
Allow controlling boot partition's `rw` separately from root partition's
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I've been using
raspi-configwith thenonintoption in some scripts.I noticed with
sudo raspi-config nonint do_overlayfs *it is not possible to control the state of the boot fs independently of the root fs, assuming you have rw permissions already.I think the problem is here
raspi-config/raspi-config
Line 2817 in 0fc1f95
Where
RETis set to the first argument to the function ($1).I think it would be a little better if it were to use a second argument that defaults to the same as the first:
${2:-$1}.Alternatively a
shiftafter the previous ret assignment could work, but I think that would confuse things more than help.