[elbe-devel] [PATCH] dump: remove 2nd extract of archive

[Torben Hohn]

On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 11:09:03AM +0100, John Ogness wrote:
> On 2017-12-07, Manuel Traut <manuel.traut at linutronix.de> wrote:
> >>>> Originally archive extraction occurred only after the finetuning step.
> >>>> With commit 33d0e328b74d ("extract archive before finetuning to be
> >>>> able to use the files.") extraction was added before the finetuning
> >>>> step to allow finetuning to use archive files. However, the extraction
> >>>> after finetuning was never removed. This dramatically reduces the
> >>>> benefits of finetuning being able to manipulate the archive files.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Remove archive extraction after the finetuning step.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Update the logic to determine file origins in the elbe report
> >>>> based on this new ordering.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks, this is a change that was requested a few times.
> >>>
> >>> However, this might brake image builds that (accidently) delete files in
> >>> finetuning that are in the archive and expect them to be in the RFS.
> >> 
> >> Nothing in finetuning should be accidental.
> >>
> >> Rather than making the pre-finetuning extract nearly useless in order to
> >> "help" users with broken finetuning rules, I think it would make more
> >> sense to add a warning (or error!) that a fine-tuning rule deleted a
> >> file from the archive. This would be trivial to implement. I'm happy to
> >> provide a patch for this.
> >
> > Ok, an entry in validation.txt will be fine for me.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> On 2017-12-07, Holger Dengler <dengler at linutronix.de> wrote:
> > I prefer your solution. But not only deleting files may cause
> > different results (compared to current elbe versions), every
> > modification of a file from the archive must also race a warning.
> 
> Agreed. I will create a v2 patch where validation.txt includes a list of
> all files from the archive that were either deleted or modified by
> finetuning. I will call the new section: "Finetuning validation"

I think the Use-Case was something like:

<rm>/usr/share/doc</rm>

and having a set of docfiles in the archive.

basically removing the contents of directory, and then adding
a few files via archive seems like a valid use case.

We might just make the rm rule smarter, so that it does not delete
files from the archive in such a case ?



> 
> John Ogness
> 
> _______________________________________________
> elbe-devel mailing list
> elbe-devel at linutronix.de
> https://lists.linutronix.de/mailman/listinfo/elbe-devel

-- 
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Torben Hohn

Linutronix GmbH

Standort: Bremen

Phone: +49 7556 25 999 18; Fax.: +49 7556 25 999 99

Firmensitz / Registered Office: D-88690 Uhldingen, Bahnhofstr. 3
Registergericht / Local District Court: Amtsgericht Freiburg i. Br.; HRB
Nr. / Trade register no.: 700 806

Geschäftsführer / Managing Directors: Heinz Egger, Thomas Gleixner

Eine Bitte von uns: Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrtümlich erhalten haben,
benachrichtigen Sie uns in diesem Falle bitte sobald wie es Ihnen
möglich ist, durch Antwort-Mail. Vielen Dank!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linutronix.de/pipermail/elbe-devel/attachments/20171212/9452a0a1/attachment.sig>