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.
Today, lockfiles only restrict the NEVRA of specifc package names from
which libsolv can pick. But nothing stops libsolv from picking entirely
different packages which still satisfy the manifest requests.
This was mostly a theoretical issue in Fedora CoreOS, but became reality
with the addition of Fedora 32 packages in the pool. libsolv would
happily try to pick e.g. `libcurl-minimal` from f32 instead of sticking
with the f31 `libcurl` from the lockfiles:
https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-streams/issues/75#issuecomment-610734584
(But more generally, see
https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/454).
Let's add a `--ex-lockfile-strict` mode, which in CI and production
pipeline build contexts will require that (1) *only* locked packages are
considered by libsolv, and (2) *all* locked packages were marked for
install.
One important thing to note here is that we don't short-circuit libsolv
and manually `hy_goal_install` lockfile packages. We want to make sure
the treefile is still canonical. Strict mode simply ensures that the
result agrees with the lockfile.
That said, even in developer contexts, we don't want the
`libcurl-minimal` issue that happened to be triggered. But we still want
to allow flexibility in adding and removing packages to make hacking
easier. I have some follow-up patches which will enable this.
Again, a lot going on here, but essentially, we adapt the compose tests
to run either privileged or fully unprivileged via supermin, just like
cosa.
I actually got more than halfway through this initially using `cosa
build` directly for testing. But in the end, we simply need more
flexibility than that. We want to be able to manipulate exactly how
rpm-ostree is called, and cosa is very opinionated about this (and may
also change from under us in the future).
(Another big difference for example is that cosa doesn't care about
non-unified mode, whereas we *need* to have coverage for this until we
fully kill it.)
Really, the most important bit we want from there is the
unprivileged-via-supermin bits. So we copy and adapt that here. One
obvious improvement then is sharing this code more easily (e.g. a
`cosa runasroot` or something?)
However, we still use the FCOS manifest (frozen at a specific tag). It's
a realistic example, and because of the lockfiles and pool, we get good
reproducibility.
