[gentoo-dev] about non-ebuild files in the tree (and verification thereof)

[gentoo-dev] about non-ebuild files in the tree (and verification thereof)

[Fabian Groffen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1496 bytes --]

Hi,

I'm working on a verification implementation of
https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0074.html and ran into the following
scenario that I don't know if it's right or wrong:

Consider net-misc/srf-ip-conn-srv
% ls
files  Manifest  metadata.xml  srf-ip-conn-srv-9999.ebuild
srf-ip-conn-srv.pid
% cat Manifest
DIST jsmn-35086597a72d.tar.gz 11056 <snip>
DIST srf-ip-conn-140c9b8a8619.tar.gz 112882 <snip>

Notice that there is a .pid file in the ebuild dir, checked in git,
which even contains what appears to be a pid.  It isn't used from the
ebuild as far as I can tell.  Apart from being odd, this is actually
irrelevant.

In an rsync checkout of the gentoo-x86 tree, I see in the Manifest for
this package a DATA entry for the .pid-file.  Hence, verification with
both gemato as well as my own implementation succeed because the
.pid-file is acknowledged.

Now in a rsync checkout of the Prefix tree, where my own implementation
also runs the fat manifest creation, this entry is not present, because
I always believed only metadata.xml, ChangeLog* and *.ebuild files were
allowed.

Now I'm confused as to whether this is the case or not, I can't find a
GLEP or anything, but repoman also is as happy as it can be on this odd
file (I thought it used to complain about stray/unadded files).

Does anybody know or have a pointer to what the policies on files in our
ebuild dirs actually is?

Thanks,
Fabian

-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] about non-ebuild files in the tree (and verification thereof)

[Robin H. Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1466 bytes --]

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 04:10:52PM +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm working on a verification implementation of
> https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0074.html and ran into the following
> scenario that I don't know if it's right or wrong:
...
> Does anybody know or have a pointer to what the policies on files in our
> ebuild dirs actually is?
PMS, 4.3 Package directories:
A package directory may contain other files or directories, whose
purpose is not covered by this specification.

GLEP74 itself makes no determination of files being permitted in a given
directory.

> Now in a rsync checkout of the Prefix tree, where my own implementation
> also runs the fat manifest creation, this entry is not present, because
> I always believed only metadata.xml, ChangeLog* and *.ebuild files were
> allowed.
I'd say your separate implementation is wrong in this case, but that
file also should not permit at this time.

> Now I'm confused as to whether this is the case or not, I can't find a
> GLEP or anything, but repoman also is as happy as it can be on this odd
> file (I thought it used to complain about stray/unadded files).
I personally think repoman should complain about it because it's weird.


-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Dev, Infra Lead, Foundation Treasurer
E-Mail   : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85
GnuPG FP : 7D0B3CEB E9B85B1F 825BCECF EE05E6F6 A48F6136

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 1113 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] about non-ebuild files in the tree (and verification thereof)

[Fabian Groffen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1780 bytes --]

On 28-02-2018 22:08:54 +0000, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 04:10:52PM +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I'm working on a verification implementation of
> > https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0074.html and ran into the following
> > scenario that I don't know if it's right or wrong:
> ...
> > Does anybody know or have a pointer to what the policies on files in our
> > ebuild dirs actually is?
> PMS, 4.3 Package directories:
> A package directory may contain other files or directories, whose
> purpose is not covered by this specification.

Ah, forwards compatibility.

> GLEP74 itself makes no determination of files being permitted in a given
> directory.
> 
> > Now in a rsync checkout of the Prefix tree, where my own implementation
> > also runs the fat manifest creation, this entry is not present, because
> > I always believed only metadata.xml, ChangeLog* and *.ebuild files were
> > allowed.
> I'd say your separate implementation is wrong in this case, but that
> file also should not permit at this time.

I might change it not to bother about what should be in/out, but just
assume it's right as-is.  For now it is a nice headsup about something
being unexpected.

> > Now I'm confused as to whether this is the case or not, I can't find a
> > GLEP or anything, but repoman also is as happy as it can be on this odd
> > file (I thought it used to complain about stray/unadded files).
> I personally think repoman should complain about it because it's weird.

I'm sure this particular file was a mistake, that went unnoticed for a
very long time.  I do feel this should one way or the other not be
allowed.

Thanks for your insights,
Fabian

-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] about non-ebuild files in the tree (and verification thereof)

[Michał Górny]

W dniu śro, 28.02.2018 o godzinie 16∶10 +0100, użytkownik Fabian Groffen
napisał:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm working on a verification implementation of
> https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0074.html and ran into the following
> scenario that I don't know if it's right or wrong:
> 
> Consider net-misc/srf-ip-conn-srv
> % ls
> files  Manifest  metadata.xml  srf-ip-conn-srv-9999.ebuild
> srf-ip-conn-srv.pid
> % cat Manifest
> DIST jsmn-35086597a72d.tar.gz 11056 <snip>
> DIST srf-ip-conn-140c9b8a8619.tar.gz 112882 <snip>
> 
> Notice that there is a .pid file in the ebuild dir, checked in git,
> which even contains what appears to be a pid.  It isn't used from the
> ebuild as far as I can tell.  Apart from being odd, this is actually
> irrelevant.
> 
> In an rsync checkout of the gentoo-x86 tree, I see in the Manifest for
> this package a DATA entry for the .pid-file.  Hence, verification with
> both gemato as well as my own implementation succeed because the
> .pid-file is acknowledged.
> 
> Now in a rsync checkout of the Prefix tree, where my own implementation
> also runs the fat manifest creation, this entry is not present, because
> I always believed only metadata.xml, ChangeLog* and *.ebuild files were
> allowed.
> 
> Now I'm confused as to whether this is the case or not, I can't find a
> GLEP or anything, but repoman also is as happy as it can be on this odd
> file (I thought it used to complain about stray/unadded files).
> 
> Does anybody know or have a pointer to what the policies on files in our
> ebuild dirs actually is?
> 

I'm going to have the usual answer here: it was not rejected because
nobody predicted such a thing could happen. Since ebuilds do not have
a clear way of accessing this file, there is no clear reason why anyone
would try to add such a file.

Plus, given it's a special location (again, not accessible directly to
ebuilds) there's the argument of forward compatibility others mentioned.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny