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.
While working on unified core and the Fedora Atomic Host content set, I hit a
dependency between `docker.posttrans` which tries to read `/etc/os-release`, and
`fedora-release-atomichost.post` which creates that symlink.
It seems best practice to me to run `%post`s strictly before
`%posttrans`; we're not likely to do parallelization anytime
soon anyways.
While here I cleaned things up by having an enum for the script kind,
rather than multiple functions, otherwise we would have had another
wrapper in core.c.
Closes: #963
Approved by: jlebon
File triggers are a post-RHEL7 thing; more information at
http://rpm.org/user_doc/file_triggers.html
There are two notable users I've been testing this with;
`glib2` and `vagrant`. The `vagrant` one is more immediately urgent,
since it makes `vagrant-libvirt` work, which I currently rely on
for my workstation dev.
I've tested things successfully with `vagrant`, and I did verify that we run the
`glib2` ones when doing `rpm-ostree ex container`.
Long term, more transaction file triggers are likely to live in
"base" packages like `glib2`. We don't implement those yet, but
extending this to do that shouldn't be too hard.
There was *significant* what I'd call reverse engineering of the
implementation in librpm. The file triggers code there is spread out
and abstracted in a few different places in the code. I found
trying to understand what header values were involved to be quite
tricky.
There are some corner cases like multiple patterns that I *think*
this does correctly, but could use more validation. The main
question I had was - is it required that the patterns for e.g.
`%transfiletriggerin` and `%transfiletriggerun` be identical?
Closes: https://github.com/projectatomic/rpm-ostree/issues/648Closes: #869
Approved by: jlebon
This is a followup to https://github.com/projectatomic/rpm-ostree/pull/888
but more comprehensive; in the layering case, the sanitycheck runs
after all the `%posttrans` scripts, so we'll get a consistent error message
for the `rm -rf /` test.
We also do the sanitycheck for the "pure ostree" case, as well as cases
where we didn't actually layer packages (including `ex override remove` as
well as simply regenerating an initrd).
There's obviously a lot more we could do in a sanitycheck; as I say in the
comment it's tempting to consider trying to boot systemd (in a fully volatile
config), but for now let's do this. In the end of course the admin has rollback
too.
Closes: #892
Approved by: jlebon
I was thinking today about our script handling, and I realized
an excellent way to showcase the advancement rpm-ostree makes
over traditional package managers is the fact that we survive a
`%post` script that does `rm -rf /`!
See e.g. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=858521
It's been this way ever since we first implemented package layering;
the fact that we construct a new root and use bubblewrap to sandbox
makes us very resilient to this type of thing.
But, let's add a test case for this to be sure we preserve this behavior; for
example, if in the future we for some reason we decide to leak some host state
into the scripts.
Closes: #888
Approved by: jlebon
This is required for glibc-all-langpacks at least:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1367585
Otherwise, its usage is...extraordinarily rare. In fact looking at a snapshot of
`rpm-specs-20170518.tar.xz` from Fedora, the only other use is in
`postfix.spec`, and it appears bogus (the value is already expanded at build
time).
But the glibc case is special, as the value of `install_langs` is indeed
potentially dynamic per system.
Closes: #873
Approved by: jlebon
Seen in the wild with `vagrant`'s use of `%post -p /usr/bin/ruby`. This was a
very easy fix, and actually makes the code a little bit nicer, as we no longer
need to explicitly make the script executable, since we now pass it as
`argv[1]`, the same way librpm does. That in turn would make it possible to fix
the TODO and use `bwrap --file`, but that can come later.
Closes: https://github.com/projectatomic/rpm-ostree/issues/856Closes: #858
Approved by: jlebon
Nuke all the previous goop that was used to create RPMs at `make check`
time and transition all the tests to use the new `build_rpm` function.
It definitely feels cleaner to use. It's also really nice to have the
spec live in the same file as the test that uses it.
Closes: #854
Approved by: cgwalters
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
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
