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.
There are a few different use cases here. First, for layering new packages,
there's no good reason for us to force a reboot. Second, we want some support
for cherry-picking security updates and allowing admins to restart services. Finally,
at some point we should offer support for entirely replacing the running tree
if that's what the user wants.
Until now we've been very conservative, but there's a spectrum here. In
particular, this patch changes things so we push a rollback before we start
doing anything live. I think in practice, many use cases would be totally fine
with doing most changes live, and falling back to the rollback if something went
wrong.
This initial code drop *only* supports live layering of new packages. However,
a lot of the base infrastructure is laid for future work.
For now, this will be classified as an experimental feature, hence `ex livefs`.
Part of: https://github.com/projectatomic/rpm-ostree/issues/639Closes: #652
Approved by: jlebon
This was argued on list a while ago: http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-ecosystem/2016-August/000391.html
Basically, every use of `%pretrans` is a workaround for some in-place
upgrade problem. But we never do inplace updates, we always assemble
a new tree. Hence, there is no point for us to ever execute these.
Let's stop erroring out on them. If there does turn out to be some problem with
a particular package (e.g. the `openjdk-copy-configs` or whatever), we would
likely end up needing to fix that package's `%post`, not start executing its
`%pretrans`.
Closes: #763
Approved by: jlebon
I originally thought there was a bug here, but missed we were skipping
symlinks earlier above. See [previous discussion][1].
Now, I'm not aware right now of something this patch actively fixes, but I think
it makes sense to be consistent in our handling of things here with respect to
symlinks.
1: 29dd1bd801..8158dcfb47 (r95017893)Closes: #689
Approved by: jlebon
We don't want to expose the host's `/tmp` since that means scripts could
potentially find things like the X11 socket or whatever.
To debug things better, add a quick bash script to run bwrap like the C code
does. Perhaps down the line we can add `rpm-ostree internals run-bwrap` or so.
Closes: #647
Approved by: jlebon
See https://github.com/projectatomic/rpm-ostree/issues/233 - for RPMs which
place files in e.g. `/opt`, we have different behavior in the treecompose case
(silently drop it) versus package layering (does the wrong thing).
Since the unpacker right now is only used in the layering case, this just
ensures we'll get a consistent error there.
Closes: #624
Approved by: jlebon
I'm not sure why we weren't doing this before, but we need to also
support files in /var and /run that are owned by root.
Related: RHBZ#1421781
Closes: #622
Approved by: cgwalters
Thought it'd be fun to write a test for verifying proper handling of
scriptlets during package layering. There's obviously a lot more that
could go in here (patches welcome!), but it's a start.
Closes: #434
Approved by: cgwalters
We're going to be create many different packages in the future. Let's
refactor and generalize the targets so that they can build anything.
We also add a package foo, which will be used soon for a basic test of
package layering.
Closes: #344
Approved by: cgwalters
- Move all the uninstalled, non-destructive tests to check/
- Add a README
- Move utilities to utils/
- Move common files to common/
Closes: #304
Approved by: cgwalters
