IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
When manually writing lockfile overrides (see previous commit), it's
sometimes easier to not have to specify the SHA256 of the package. For
example, in FCOS, all packages on development and production streams
will be sourced uniquely from coreos-pool, so there's no question of
where the package will come from. It's of course also easier in the
context of local development.
Another motivation for this though is a subtle interaction between
Fedora infra and the way we'd like to implement lockfile management: we
want the override process to be PR-based, with a privileged bot in the
backend tagging new overrides into the pool as necessary on merge.
However, packages built in Koji are initially unsigned, and so we can't
actually *know* what the SHA256 of the package will be until it's signed
and tagged into the pool by the bot.
Closes: #1867
Approved by: cgwalters
There are two reasons for this:
1. I'd like to add overrides semantics to lockfiles, and keying by the
package name only makes this much easier.
2. I'd like to make the digest optional, and keeping it as a tuple makes
this awkward.
A map seems natural too since it makes it more clear that we don't
expect multiple specifications for the same package name.
Another tiny advantage is that it's easier to process with e.g. `jq`.
Closes: #1867
Approved by: cgwalters
One problem with how we use lockfiles right now is that we don't enforce
them for dependencies. That is, if `foo` requires `bar`, but only `foo`
is in the manifest, then while `foo` will be locked, `bar` will never
be checked against the lockfile because it was never explicitly
requested.
Higher-level though, I don't like how indirect the locking here feels.
See some comments about that in:
https://github.com/projectatomic/rpm-ostree/pull/1745#discussion_r288772527https://github.com/projectatomic/rpm-ostree/pull/1745#discussion_r289419017
Essentially, the manifest is an input file of patterns, and all we
really know from the lockfile output is that the set of packages in
there satisfies this input in some way. But:
1. there are multiple ways to satisfy the same input (hence why hints
like `SOLVER_FAVOR` exist)
2. the solution is dependent on how the solver is implemented (i.e.
different libsolv versions might yield different solutions)
3. the solution is dependent on flags fed to the solver (i.e. different
libdnf versions might yield different solutions)
So any attempt at cross-checking between the input file and the lockfile
is going to be very hard. Using a stricter mode as I suggested in #1745
of only allowing pure pkgnames or NEVRAs would help, but it wouldn't
address the dependency issue. (Though I'm still thinking about possibly
doing this anyway.)
The solution I propose here is instead to take the nuclear approach: we
completely exclude from the sack all packages of the same name as
packages in our lockfiles, but which do not match the NEVRA. Therefore,
any possible solution has to also satisfy our lockfile (or error out).
Closes: #1849
Approved by: cgwalters
Fixes#1670
This patch introduces a new `compose tree
--ex-write-lockfile-to=manifest.lock` argument and a new `compose tree
--ex-lockfile=manifest.lock` to read it back for subsequent invocations.
Signed-off-by: Rafael Fonseca <r4f4rfs@gmail.com>
Closes: #1745
Approved by: jlebon
