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.
Since we enabled composefs at build time, the default (non-composefs)
case now always prints
`composefs: Optional support failed: No such file or directory`
But that's normal and expected.
Rework things here so that in the very special case where
we are in "maybe/optional" mode and we get ENOENT, then we
output a much more normal-looking message that doesn't include
the string "failed".
Now on the flip side - if I have explicitly enabled signature
checking, I think we *do* want to make that fatal even if
composefs is in "maybe" mode.
(This part is more debatable; perhaps we should just disallow
the case of "maybe" + signatures at all; but I think this is
an improvement in that direction)
Now that we don't support digest-but-not-signature verification
for composefs, the logic here was unnecessarily complicated.
With a prior prep patch that moved the composefs option
initialization up, we can just have everything related to signature
verification in a single conditonal.
We print if we're doing a signature+digest verification; its absence is
sufficient in the other case. The goal here is to avoid polluting
the logs when signatures are not enabled.
The ordering of the includes apparently matters...and I didn't
actually check that the previous change enables composefs on c9s.
But I did now. For reals.
While we have the patient open, I switched to `AC_LANG_PROGRAM`
because I originally thought the bug had something to do with that.
As far as I understand, more cleanly separating the includes
from the injected body text is a useful thing in `AC_LANG_PROGRAM`.
I've verified that this fixes compatibility with GRUB, which
parses the filename:
https://github.com/ostreedev/ostree/issues/2961
However, out of a large degree of conservatism I've made this
an opt-in behavior for now.
My plan is to test it out in the FCOS development streams first.
Add long overdue unit testing coverage for this, which
at least slightly closes out the android boot CI gap.
Actually, this *copies* the karg parsing code into otcore because
it now uses glib, which we're not yet using in the static
prepare-root. It's pretty tempting to drop support for the
static prepare root entirely. But for now we'll live with some
code duplication.
Sometimes android bootloaders boot in a nonab way:
https://source.android.com/docs/core/ota/nonab
In this case, "androidboot." kargs are present but not
"androidboot.slot_suffix" specifically.
In this case, rather than getting stuck in a partially booted
environment, boot system slot a.
