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

[Manuel Traut]

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:33:03AM +0100, Torben Hohn wrote:
> 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 ?

NO! Please don't add any magic heuristics here, like

'don't remove man pages if they come from the archive but remove
 /usr/local/bin/myspecialsetup.sh because it was executed before'