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

[ew.foe at nassur.net]

Hello,

Quoting Manuel Traut <manuel.traut at linutronix.de>:

> 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'

+1 --- no magic, please!

extract the archive.
do whatever you want in finetuning, including destroying your build,  
if you want.
done.

Thanks for picking this up,
Erich