[PATCH] Revert "dpkg: sbuild allows extra arguments via DPKG_SBUILD_EXTRA_ARGS"

[PATCH] Revert "dpkg: sbuild allows extra arguments via DPKG_SBUILD_EXTRA_ARGS"

[Jan Kiszka]

From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>

This reverts commit 6d5fbbab9c9e3c894cbc9cf18180fb0057f82f20.

There are no concrete use cases for this interface known. Adding it
without an idea what it should be good for can create downstream
problems as the class evolves and also motivate inappropriate use of
this low-level interface in recipes.

Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
---
 meta/classes/dpkg.bbclass | 3 ---
 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/meta/classes/dpkg.bbclass b/meta/classes/dpkg.bbclass
index 39308696..d5285032 100644
--- a/meta/classes/dpkg.bbclass
+++ b/meta/classes/dpkg.bbclass
@@ -23,8 +23,6 @@ do_prepare_build:append() {
     env > ${DPKG_PREBUILD_ENV_FILE}
 }
 
-DPKG_SBUILD_EXTRA_ARGS ?= ""
-
 # Build package from sources using build script
 dpkg_runbuild[vardepsexclude] += "${SBUILD_PASSTHROUGH_ADDITIONS}"
 dpkg_runbuild() {
@@ -111,7 +109,6 @@ dpkg_runbuild() {
         --chroot-setup-commands="echo \"APT::Get::allow-downgrades 1;\" > /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/50isar-apt" \
         --chroot-setup-commands="rm -f /var/log/dpkg.log" \
         --chroot-setup-commands="ln -sf ${ext_deb_dir}/*.deb -t ${deb_dir}/ || :" \
-        ${DPKG_SBUILD_EXTRA_ARGS} \
         --finished-build-commands="rm -f ${deb_dir}/sbuild-build-depends-main-dummy_*.deb" \
         --finished-build-commands="cp -Ln --no-preserve=owner ${deb_dir}/*.deb -t ${ext_deb_dir}/ || :" \
         --finished-build-commands="cp /var/log/dpkg.log ${ext_root}/dpkg_partial.log" \
-- 
2.35.3

Re: [PATCH] Revert "dpkg: sbuild allows extra arguments via DPKG_SBUILD_EXTRA_ARGS"

[Roberto A. Foglietta]

On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 at 15:42, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> wrote:
>
> From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
>
> This reverts commit 6d5fbbab9c9e3c894cbc9cf18180fb0057f82f20.
>
> There are no concrete use cases for this interface known. Adding it
> without an idea what it should be good for can create downstream
> problems as the class evolves and also motivate inappropriate use of
> this low-level interface in recipes.

Open-source is about empowering the users and unless illegal use of
it, there is no any reason to judge the use they do of it. It is hard
to think that a variable would motivate an "inappropriate use" unless
the user did not find a way to address a problem and the go to look in
that class. At that point, it might find a quick solution in that
variable without the need of overload the entire class in the top
layer and modify the class loosing the upstream updates. I agree that
there is no reason to documenting that variable. It is
self-explanatory and quick to identify for those get deep into the
dpkg class.

MHO.

Best regards, R-

Re: [PATCH] Revert "dpkg: sbuild allows extra arguments via DPKG_SBUILD_EXTRA_ARGS"

[Henning Schild]

Am Thu, 2 Feb 2023 20:06:12 +0100
schrieb "Roberto A. Foglietta" <roberto.foglietta@gmail.com>:

> On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 at 15:42, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
> >
> > This reverts commit 6d5fbbab9c9e3c894cbc9cf18180fb0057f82f20.
> >
> > There are no concrete use cases for this interface known. Adding it
> > without an idea what it should be good for can create downstream
> > problems as the class evolves and also motivate inappropriate use of
> > this low-level interface in recipes.  
> 
> Open-source is about empowering the users and unless illegal use of
> it, there is no any reason to judge the use they do of it. It is hard
> to think that a variable would motivate an "inappropriate use" unless
> the user did not find a way to address a problem and the go to look in
> that class. At that point, it might find a quick solution in that
> variable without the need of overload the entire class in the top
> layer and modify the class loosing the upstream updates. I agree that
> there is no reason to documenting that variable. It is
> self-explanatory and quick to identify for those get deep into the
> dpkg class.

All EXTRA_ARGS switches are very dangerous because they allow very
unintended hacks. We have several of them and some of them have caused
some serious fun. Especially if people use them "code-injection-style"

like EXTRA = "; true; sudo fun"

So just say what exactly you use it for. What is the value you are
setting it to and why? Maybe there is a cleaner solution to the problem
at hand.
If there is not problem at hand, or you fail to explain it. I have to
agree that this gives too much power and too much abuse potential. And
bitbake has means to overlay _append etc. So the open source power is
not limited by Isar not taking this.

Unintended use causes severe headache in maintaining Isar. Because
people will complain about interface changes when we change stuff ...
but how they use things was never intended ... so no interface.

Henning

> MHO.
> 
> Best regards, R-
> 

Re: [PATCH] Revert "dpkg: sbuild allows extra arguments via DPKG_SBUILD_EXTRA_ARGS"

[Roberto A. Foglietta]

On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 at 21:14, Henning Schild <henning.schild@siemens.com> wrote:
>
> Am Thu, 2 Feb 2023 20:06:12 +0100
> schrieb "Roberto A. Foglietta" <roberto.foglietta@gmail.com>:
>
> > On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 at 15:42, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
> > >
> > > This reverts commit 6d5fbbab9c9e3c894cbc9cf18180fb0057f82f20.
> > >
> > > There are no concrete use cases for this interface known. Adding it
> > > without an idea what it should be good for can create downstream
> > > problems as the class evolves and also motivate inappropriate use of
> > > this low-level interface in recipes.
> >
> > Open-source is about empowering the users and unless illegal use of
> > it, there is no any reason to judge the use they do of it. It is hard
> > to think that a variable would motivate an "inappropriate use" unless
> > the user did not find a way to address a problem and the go to look in
> > that class. At that point, it might find a quick solution in that
> > variable without the need of overload the entire class in the top
> > layer and modify the class loosing the upstream updates. I agree that
> > there is no reason to documenting that variable. It is
> > self-explanatory and quick to identify for those get deep into the
> > dpkg class.
>
> All EXTRA_ARGS switches are very dangerous because they allow very
> unintended hacks. We have several of them and some of them have caused
> some serious fun. Especially if people use them "code-injection-style"
>
> like EXTRA = "; true; sudo fun"
>

Some people might play funny tricks in their projects and no one could
prevent this but what has to do with ISAR? Why do we need to worry
about that? Overloading the class or function would not allow them to
play any trick they want? They can append or prepend whatever they
want in every class and every function they want. Why are extra
arguments variables such a problem and :append or :prepend or
.bbclassappend are not?

Best regards, R-

Re: [PATCH] Revert "dpkg: sbuild allows extra arguments via DPKG_SBUILD_EXTRA_ARGS"

[Henning Schild]

Am Thu, 2 Feb 2023 23:44:46 +0100
schrieb "Roberto A. Foglietta" <roberto.foglietta@gmail.com>:

> On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 at 21:14, Henning Schild
> <henning.schild@siemens.com> wrote:
> >
> > Am Thu, 2 Feb 2023 20:06:12 +0100
> > schrieb "Roberto A. Foglietta" <roberto.foglietta@gmail.com>:
> >  
> > > On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 at 15:42, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
> > > wrote:  
> > > >
> > > > From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
> > > >
> > > > This reverts commit 6d5fbbab9c9e3c894cbc9cf18180fb0057f82f20.
> > > >
> > > > There are no concrete use cases for this interface known.
> > > > Adding it without an idea what it should be good for can create
> > > > downstream problems as the class evolves and also motivate
> > > > inappropriate use of this low-level interface in recipes.  
> > >
> > > Open-source is about empowering the users and unless illegal use
> > > of it, there is no any reason to judge the use they do of it. It
> > > is hard to think that a variable would motivate an "inappropriate
> > > use" unless the user did not find a way to address a problem and
> > > the go to look in that class. At that point, it might find a
> > > quick solution in that variable without the need of overload the
> > > entire class in the top layer and modify the class loosing the
> > > upstream updates. I agree that there is no reason to documenting
> > > that variable. It is self-explanatory and quick to identify for
> > > those get deep into the dpkg class.  
> >
> > All EXTRA_ARGS switches are very dangerous because they allow very
> > unintended hacks. We have several of them and some of them have
> > caused some serious fun. Especially if people use them
> > "code-injection-style"
> >
> > like EXTRA = "; true; sudo fun"
> >  
> 
> Some people might play funny tricks in their projects and no one could
> prevent this but what has to do with ISAR? Why do we need to worry
> about that? Overloading the class or function would not allow them to
> play any trick they want? They can append or prepend whatever they
> want in every class and every function they want. Why are extra
> arguments variables such a problem and :append or :prepend or
> .bbclassappend are not?

Yes bitbake allows all tricks, so why merge your patch?

It has to do with Isar because you suggest a new variable/interface
that Isar will have to maintain. If you refuse to put the problem on
the table ... there is no reason to take your patch. And no
abuse-potential and no need to maintain.

Henning

> Best regards, R-

Re: [PATCH] Revert "dpkg: sbuild allows extra arguments via DPKG_SBUILD_EXTRA_ARGS"

[Roberto A. Foglietta]

On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 at 19:50, Henning Schild <henning.schild@siemens.com> wrote:
>
 If you refuse to put the problem on
> the table

no any problem but just an opportunity.

free software as free speech not as free meal. LOL

Best regards, R-

Re: [PATCH] Revert "dpkg: sbuild allows extra arguments via DPKG_SBUILD_EXTRA_ARGS"

[Uladzimir Bely]

In the email from Thursday, 2 February 2023 17:42:36 +03 user Jan Kiszka 
wrote:
> From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
> 
> This reverts commit 6d5fbbab9c9e3c894cbc9cf18180fb0057f82f20.
> 
> There are no concrete use cases for this interface known. Adding it
> without an idea what it should be good for can create downstream
> problems as the class evolves and also motivate inappropriate use of
> this low-level interface in recipes.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
> ---
>  meta/classes/dpkg.bbclass | 3 ---
>  1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
> 

Applied to next, thanks.

Re: [PATCH] Revert "dpkg: sbuild allows extra arguments via DPKG_SBUILD_EXTRA_ARGS"

[Roberto A. Foglietta]

On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 at 09:54, Uladzimir Bely <ubely@ilbers.de> wrote:
>
> Applied to next, thanks.

On the devel3 branch, I rework an old funny approach in favor of a
similar approach but without the need to add extra args on sbuild. So,
there is no longer a use case around. It is ok for me.

Date:   Sun Feb 5 02:14:43 2023 +0100
* 1593e79 - nvidia-modules does not use DPKG_SBUILD_EXTRA_ARGS
anymore, simplified

However, I will keep that patch/variable in my forks.

Best regards, R-