Re: [PATCH v3 01/14] dpkg-raw: Respect file permissions defined by recipe if requested

[Henning Schild <henning.schild@siemens.com>]

Am Wed, 16 Jan 2019 13:11:47 +0100
schrieb Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>:

> On 16.01.19 10:41, Henning Schild wrote:
> > Am Wed, 16 Jan 2019 06:32:14 +0100
> > schrieb Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>:
> >   
> >> From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
> >>
> >> dh_fixperms overwrites the permissions do_install may have
> >> defined. To avoid that, allow the recipe write to define an
> >> exception list via the PRESERVE_PERMS variable.
> >>
> >> Fixes: f301ccb2b5b1 ("meta/dpkg-raw: build raw packages like all
> >> others") CC: Henning Schild <henning.schild@siemens.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
> >> ---
> >>   RECIPE-API-CHANGELOG.md       | 7 +++++++
> >>   meta/classes/dpkg-raw.bbclass | 9 ++++++++-
> >>   2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/RECIPE-API-CHANGELOG.md b/RECIPE-API-CHANGELOG.md
> >> index 06a01e3..2bc1585 100644
> >> --- a/RECIPE-API-CHANGELOG.md
> >> +++ b/RECIPE-API-CHANGELOG.md
> >> @@ -124,3 +124,10 @@ updated hence recipes using them shouldn't be
> >> impacted per se.
> >>   These packages depend on a specific kernel. Its identification is
> >> now appended to the binary package names in the form
> >> "-${KERNEL_NAME}". +
> >> +### PRESERVE_PERMS needed with dpkg-raw for implicit file
> >> permission setting +
> >> +In order to use the same file permissions for an input file to a
> >> dpkg-raw +package on the build machine as well as on the target,
> >> its absolute target path +needs to be listed in the PRESERVE_PERMS
> >> variable (space-separated list of +files). Otherwise, default
> >> permissions are used. diff --git a/meta/classes/dpkg-raw.bbclass
> >> b/meta/classes/dpkg-raw.bbclass index 8d11433..42276e5 100644
> >> --- a/meta/classes/dpkg-raw.bbclass
> >> +++ b/meta/classes/dpkg-raw.bbclass
> >> @@ -53,12 +53,19 @@ Description: ${DESCRIPTION}
> >>   EOF
> >>   }
> >>   
> >> +FIXPERM_EXCLUSIONS = \
> >> +    "${@' '.join(['-X ' + x for x in \
> >> +                  (d.getVar('PRESERVE_PERMS', False) or
> >> '').split()])}" +
> >>   deb_create_rules() {
> >>   	cat << EOF > ${S}/debian/rules
> >>   #!/usr/bin/make -f
> >> +
> >> +override_dh_fixperms:
> >> +	dh_fixperms ${FIXPERM_EXCLUSIONS}
> >> +  
> > 
> > This should be done only if the variable is non-empty, to keep that
> > code generic. Also the variable name should maybe start with DH_ or
> > DEBIAN_.  
> 
> I can change the naming, but I disagree regarding your other concern: 
> dh_fixperms is by definition the default case if there is no
> override. Therefore
> 
> override_dh_fixperms:
> 	dh_fixperms

I would not be sure. Say a later step in some layers append would want
to set an actual override would the two conflict?

Henning

> 
> would be pointless but always correct.
> 
> Jan
>