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

[Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>]

On 16.01.19 16:24, Henning Schild wrote:
> 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?

There is no overlay method for rules files. You replace them, or patch them 
knowing how the original version looks like.

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RDA IOT SES-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux