* [PATCH] os-release: add more variables to list
@ 2018-10-25 7:20 Armin Kuster
2018-10-25 9:25 ` Richard Purdie
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Armin Kuster @ 2018-10-25 7:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: akuster, openembedded-core
If someone extends the OS_RELEASE_FIELDS in a bbappend, it will cause the hash to change which is
caught by the yocto-check-layer
Signed-off-by: Armin Kuster <akuster808@gmail.com>
---
meta/recipes-core/os-release/os-release.bb | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/os-release/os-release.bb b/meta/recipes-core/os-release/os-release.bb
index 7f3d9cb..88bf8f8 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-core/os-release/os-release.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-core/os-release/os-release.bb
@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ do_configure[noexec] = "1"
# Other valid fields: BUILD_ID ID_LIKE ANSI_COLOR CPE_NAME
# HOME_URL SUPPORT_URL BUG_REPORT_URL
-OS_RELEASE_FIELDS = "ID ID_LIKE NAME VERSION VERSION_ID PRETTY_NAME"
+OS_RELEASE_FIELDS = "ID ID_LIKE NAME VERSION VERSION_ID PRETTY_NAME BUILD_ID HOME_URL BUG_REPORT_URL SUPPORT_URL CPE_NAME"
ID = "${DISTRO}"
NAME = "${DISTRO_NAME}"
--
2.7.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] os-release: add more variables to list
2018-10-25 7:20 [PATCH] os-release: add more variables to list Armin Kuster
@ 2018-10-25 9:25 ` Richard Purdie
2018-10-28 18:24 ` akuster808
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Richard Purdie @ 2018-10-25 9:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Armin Kuster, akuster, openembedded-core
On Thu, 2018-10-25 at 08:20 +0100, Armin Kuster wrote:
> If someone extends the OS_RELEASE_FIELDS in a bbappend, it will cause
> the hash to change which is
> caught by the yocto-check-layer
>
> Signed-off-by: Armin Kuster <akuster808@gmail.com>
> ---
> meta/recipes-core/os-release/os-release.bb | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/os-release/os-release.bb
> b/meta/recipes-core/os-release/os-release.bb
> index 7f3d9cb..88bf8f8 100644
> --- a/meta/recipes-core/os-release/os-release.bb
> +++ b/meta/recipes-core/os-release/os-release.bb
> @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ do_configure[noexec] = "1"
>
> # Other valid fields: BUILD_ID ID_LIKE ANSI_COLOR CPE_NAME
> # HOME_URL SUPPORT_URL BUG_REPORT_URL
> -OS_RELEASE_FIELDS = "ID ID_LIKE NAME VERSION VERSION_ID PRETTY_NAME"
> +OS_RELEASE_FIELDS = "ID ID_LIKE NAME VERSION VERSION_ID PRETTY_NAME BUILD_ID HOME_URL BUG_REPORT_URL SUPPORT_URL CPE_NAME"
I'm not sure I agree with this. It would usually be a policy decision,
e.g. a ditro config which would change this and you'd not be doing this
with a bbappend?
Cheers,
Richard
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] os-release: add more variables to list
2018-10-25 9:25 ` Richard Purdie
@ 2018-10-28 18:24 ` akuster808
2018-10-29 17:12 ` richard.purdie
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: akuster808 @ 2018-10-28 18:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Richard Purdie, openembedded-core
On 10/25/18 10:25 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-10-25 at 08:20 +0100, Armin Kuster wrote:
>> If someone extends the OS_RELEASE_FIELDS in a bbappend, it will cause
>> the hash to change which is
>> caught by the yocto-check-layer
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Armin Kuster <akuster808@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> meta/recipes-core/os-release/os-release.bb | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/os-release/os-release.bb
>> b/meta/recipes-core/os-release/os-release.bb
>> index 7f3d9cb..88bf8f8 100644
>> --- a/meta/recipes-core/os-release/os-release.bb
>> +++ b/meta/recipes-core/os-release/os-release.bb
>> @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ do_configure[noexec] = "1"
>>
>> # Other valid fields: BUILD_ID ID_LIKE ANSI_COLOR CPE_NAME
>> # HOME_URL SUPPORT_URL BUG_REPORT_URL
>> -OS_RELEASE_FIELDS = "ID ID_LIKE NAME VERSION VERSION_ID PRETTY_NAME"
>> +OS_RELEASE_FIELDS = "ID ID_LIKE NAME VERSION VERSION_ID PRETTY_NAME BUILD_ID HOME_URL BUG_REPORT_URL SUPPORT_URL CPE_NAME"
> I'm not sure I agree with this. It would usually be a policy decision,
> e.g. a ditro config which would change this and you'd not be doing this
> with a bbappend?
Yeah, its the feedback I was looking for. Isn't OE core "NoDistro" and
I will be wanting to have the CPE_NAME available with out having to
define DISTRO. I am jet lagged so I am not seeing how to fix this for
meta-secruity.
- Armin
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] os-release: add more variables to list
2018-10-28 18:24 ` akuster808
@ 2018-10-29 17:12 ` richard.purdie
2018-10-29 19:36 ` akuster808
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: richard.purdie @ 2018-10-29 17:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: akuster808, openembedded-core
On Sun, 2018-10-28 at 18:24 +0000, akuster808 wrote:
> On 10/25/18 10:25 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > On Thu, 2018-10-25 at 08:20 +0100, Armin Kuster wrote:
> > > If someone extends the OS_RELEASE_FIELDS in a bbappend, it will
> > > cause
> > > the hash to change which is
> > > caught by the yocto-check-layer
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Armin Kuster <akuster808@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > > meta/recipes-core/os-release/os-release.bb | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/os-release/os-release.bb
> > > b/meta/recipes-core/os-release/os-release.bb
> > > index 7f3d9cb..88bf8f8 100644
> > > --- a/meta/recipes-core/os-release/os-release.bb
> > > +++ b/meta/recipes-core/os-release/os-release.bb
> > > @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ do_configure[noexec] = "1"
> > >
> > > # Other valid fields: BUILD_ID ID_LIKE ANSI_COLOR CPE_NAME
> > > # HOME_URL SUPPORT_URL BUG_REPORT_URL
> > > -OS_RELEASE_FIELDS = "ID ID_LIKE NAME VERSION VERSION_ID
> > > PRETTY_NAME"
> > > +OS_RELEASE_FIELDS = "ID ID_LIKE NAME VERSION VERSION_ID
> > > PRETTY_NAME BUILD_ID HOME_URL BUG_REPORT_URL SUPPORT_URL
> > > CPE_NAME"
> >
> > I'm not sure I agree with this. It would usually be a policy
> > decision, e.g. a ditro config which would change this and you'd not
> > be doing this with a bbappend?
>
> Yeah, its the feedback I was looking for. Isn't OE core "NoDistro"
> and I will be wanting to have the CPE_NAME available with out having
> to define DISTRO. I am jet lagged so I am not seeing how to fix this
> for meta-secruity.
This sounds very much like "I want to be a distro but I don't want to
be a distro".
Changing os-release just because a layer was included is a really bad
idea. Its distro policy what would be included there, including what
the cpe name might be.
Whether the nodistro defaults are right is a different question but
meta-security should not be poking there.
Cheers,
Richard
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] os-release: add more variables to list
2018-10-29 17:12 ` richard.purdie
@ 2018-10-29 19:36 ` akuster808
2018-10-29 21:10 ` richard.purdie
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: akuster808 @ 2018-10-29 19:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: richard.purdie, openembedded-core
On 10/29/18 10:12 AM, richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-10-28 at 18:24 +0000, akuster808 wrote:
>> On 10/25/18 10:25 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2018-10-25 at 08:20 +0100, Armin Kuster wrote:
>>>> If someone extends the OS_RELEASE_FIELDS in a bbappend, it will
>>>> cause
>>>> the hash to change which is
>>>> caught by the yocto-check-layer
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Armin Kuster <akuster808@gmail.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> meta/recipes-core/os-release/os-release.bb | 2 +-
>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/os-release/os-release.bb
>>>> b/meta/recipes-core/os-release/os-release.bb
>>>> index 7f3d9cb..88bf8f8 100644
>>>> --- a/meta/recipes-core/os-release/os-release.bb
>>>> +++ b/meta/recipes-core/os-release/os-release.bb
>>>> @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ do_configure[noexec] = "1"
>>>>
>>>> # Other valid fields: BUILD_ID ID_LIKE ANSI_COLOR CPE_NAME
>>>> # HOME_URL SUPPORT_URL BUG_REPORT_URL
>>>> -OS_RELEASE_FIELDS = "ID ID_LIKE NAME VERSION VERSION_ID
>>>> PRETTY_NAME"
>>>> +OS_RELEASE_FIELDS = "ID ID_LIKE NAME VERSION VERSION_ID
>>>> PRETTY_NAME BUILD_ID HOME_URL BUG_REPORT_URL SUPPORT_URL
>>>> CPE_NAME"
>>> I'm not sure I agree with this. It would usually be a policy
>>> decision, e.g. a ditro config which would change this and you'd not
>>> be doing this with a bbappend?
>> Yeah, its the feedback I was looking for. Isn't OE core "NoDistro"
>> and I will be wanting to have the CPE_NAME available with out having
>> to define DISTRO. I am jet lagged so I am not seeing how to fix this
>> for meta-secruity.
> This sounds very much like "I want to be a distro but I don't want to
> be a distro".
>
> Changing os-release just because a layer was included is a really bad
> idea. Its distro policy what would be included there, including what
> the cpe name might be.
This is why I think its appropriate to have at least "CPE_NAME" added.
>
> Whether the nodistro defaults are right is a different question but
> meta-security should not be poking there.
I really didn't want to do another layer for something as simple as
"CPE_NAME" but why not.
thanks for the feedback as always.
Kind regards,
Armin
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] os-release: add more variables to list
2018-10-29 19:36 ` akuster808
@ 2018-10-29 21:10 ` richard.purdie
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: richard.purdie @ 2018-10-29 21:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: akuster808, openembedded-core
On Mon, 2018-10-29 at 12:36 -0700, akuster808 wrote:
> On 10/29/18 10:12 AM, richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> > This sounds very much like "I want to be a distro but I don't want
> > to
> > be a distro".
> >
> > Changing os-release just because a layer was included is a really
> > bad
> > idea. Its distro policy what would be included there, including
> > what
> > the cpe name might be.
>
> This is why I think its appropriate to have at least "CPE_NAME"
> added.
> >
> > Whether the nodistro defaults are right is a different question but
> > meta-security should not be poking there.
>
> I really didn't want to do another layer for something as simple as
> "CPE_NAME" but why not.
Does OE have a standard "CPE_NAME" which works for everything/everyone?
Should it have?
I get the feeling I'm missing something here but you're not giving me
much to work with and the original patch didn't just add CPE_NAME...
Cheers,
Richard
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-10-29 21:10 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-10-25 7:20 [PATCH] os-release: add more variables to list Armin Kuster
2018-10-25 9:25 ` Richard Purdie
2018-10-28 18:24 ` akuster808
2018-10-29 17:12 ` richard.purdie
2018-10-29 19:36 ` akuster808
2018-10-29 21:10 ` richard.purdie
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox