Re: [PATCH] classes/archiver: fix tarball content in "original" mode

[Paul Barker <paul@pbarker.dev>]

On Tue, 2026-08-18 at 15:36 +0200, João Marcos Costa wrote:
> When ARCHIVER_MODE[src] is set to "original", a tarball is generated with
> the unpacked sources of a given recipe. Prior to it, a tmpdir
> (i.e. from tempfile.mkdtemp()) is created and the sources are unpacked inside:
> 
> (...)/vim/9.2.0340/archiver-work/tmp8pu2nsck
> `-- vim-9.2.0340
>     |-- READMEdir
>     |-- ci
>     |-- lang
> 
> This tmpdir, however, ends up being shipped in the deployed tarball:
> 
> $ tar -tf vim-9.2.0340-r0.tar.xz
> (...)
> tmp8pu2nsck/vim-9.2.0340/ci/config.mk.clang-12.sed
> tmp8pu2nsck/vim-9.2.0340/LICENSE
> tmp8pu2nsck/vim-9.2.0340/.git-blame-ignore-revs
> (...)
> 
> This can be avoided by using "-C" option from tar's command, with which we
> can point to the tmpdir and to the content inside separately:
> 
> tar --exclude=temp --exclude=patches --exclude='.pc' \
> -C (...)/vim/9.1.1683/archiver-work/tmpv0m93p52 -cf - . | \
> xz --memlimit=50% --threads=64 > \
> (...)/vim/9.1.1683/archiver-sources/(...)/vim-9.1.1683-r0/vim-9.1.1683-r0.tar.xz
> 
> and in the result:
> 
> ./
> ./vim-9.1.1683/
> ./vim-9.1.1683/SECURITY.md
> ./vim-9.1.1683/.codecov.yml
> (...)
> 
> Signed-off-by: João Marcos Costa <joaomarcos.costa@bootlin.com>

Reading this leaves me wondering why we're creating a tmpdir under
${ARCHIVER_WORKDIR}, why not just unpack the source directly under the
archiver workdir?

If the tmpdir is needed, I think the issue is that we're passing the
tmpdir path to create_tarball() in do_ar_original() instead of the full
path to the extracted sources. I think fixing the call site in
do_ar_original() would be cleaner if we can do that.

Best regards,

-- 
Paul Barker