From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dan.rpsys.net (5751f4a1.skybroadband.com [87.81.244.161]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A5B660E49 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 22:32:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dan.rpsys.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id s7TMW4lQ022647; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 23:32:04 +0100 Received: from dan.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (dan.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 4j9aei5yXYLI; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 23:32:04 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.3.10] ([192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by dan.rpsys.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id s7TMVxDv022643 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 29 Aug 2014 23:32:01 +0100 Message-ID: <1409351521.29296.210.camel@ted> From: Richard Purdie To: Mark Hatle Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 23:32:01 +0100 In-Reply-To: <5400FAED.8030903@windriver.com> References: <1409333952.29296.195.camel@ted> <5400C83C.3020306@windriver.com> <1409349774.29296.208.camel@ted> <5400FAED.8030903@windriver.com> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4-0ubuntu2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] package_rpm: Add optional improved directory handling X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 22:32:07 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 17:13 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote: > On 8/29/14, 5:02 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > > On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 13:36 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote: > > Going back in time, I remember us specifically talking about directory > > ownership and how we likely should try and reach a point where the > > common system directories do become owned by specific packages. With > > this kind of DIRFILES support we could move in the direction. The perms > > tables obviously help to a point ensuring consistent permissions but > > they don't help the ownership problem. Or is this less of an issue since > > we last discussed it (which admittedly was a while ago)? > > No there is currently nothing that says I exclusively own a directory (or link). > The fs-perms.txt could be extended to do this (in a transparent way). > > My concern with the DIRFILES as it appears to be implemented can be shown in the > existing example: > > I create a new recipe that writes: > > /etc/foo.conf > /usr/bin/foo > > (that's it) > > > In the SMACK case, the /etc and /usr/bin directories shouldn't be included.. so > how do we define DIRFILES? If it's blank, they'll be included.. but we don't > have any directories to set it to... so do we need to do: > DIRFILES = "something_random_so_it_works" > > That seems very counter intuitive to me. > > This is why I'm suggesting an inverse relationship.. We include everything > other then explicitly listed directories. That way the user can globally define > /etc, /usr/bin, ... and individual recipes can augment this with their own > custom values if appropriate. > > and in the default (oe-core) case no change means the directories will continue > to be included -- no flag days required. I'm more thinking that when we reach this stage, the core would end up setting: DIRFILES = "" as the default (think a core class or conf file), then recipes can override as needed. You don't need something_random_so_it_works, I had the empty value specifically in mind to trigger this from the core (as opposed to None where the variable isn't set at all). Cheers, Richard