Hi!
On Wed, 2022-01-19 at 22:15:44 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> There is one thing which I really dislike about the proposed change, which
> is the fact that you are trying to support *broken* Debian systems (namely,
> those having /etc/passwd with different UID than the target system). No, I
> d
Hi Santiago,
Quoting Santiago Vila (2022-01-19 23:55:28)
> Hi. I've just added $DPKG_ROOT to every (old) change_owner and change_mode
> call.
thank you! I can confirm that with your 12.2 upload we were able to drop all
patches against base-files and DPKG_ROOT support works as expected:
https://s
Hi. I've just added $DPKG_ROOT to every (old) change_owner and
change_mode call.
The change_owner function did more than query /etc/passwd. It also prepended
$DPKG_ROOT to the path it acted upon. So if you didn't do more than what you
described above, then the result is incomplete.
Big oops! I guess every (old) call to change_owner is wrong now.
I'll send you a new tested
Quoting Santiago Vila (2022-01-19 22:56:42)
> El 19/1/22 a las 22:53, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues escribió:
> > Understood. Then let me scale back the patch a bit more. Now the attached
> > patch
> > uses /etc/passwd from the outside system and thus uses plain chown calls.
>
> Please take a
El 19/1/22 a las 22:53, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues escribió:
Understood. Then let me scale back the patch a bit more. Now the attached patch
uses /etc/passwd from the outside system and thus uses plain chown calls.
Please take a look a the version I've just uploaded.
What I did was to
Hi Santiago,
Quoting Santiago Vila (2022-01-19 22:51:51)
> Sorry for the late reply.
no worries. :)
> I've made a maintainer upload which is basically your debdiff but without the
> changes I do not feel comfortable with (i.e. without the functions
> change_owner and change_mode).
>
> I really
Hi,
Quoting Santiago Vila (2022-01-19 22:15:44)
> El 19/1/22 a las 22:09, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues escribió:
> > Quoting Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues (2021-10-23 11:08:56)
> >> I just wanted to send a friendly ping about DPKG_ROOT support of
> >> base-files.
> >> I hope that I was abl
Sorry for the late reply.
I've made a maintainer upload which is basically your debdiff but
without the changes I do not feel comfortable with (i.e. without the
functions change_owner and change_mode).
I really hope that this version works as well as the one you intended
for non-broken Debia
El 19/1/22 a las 22:09, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues escribió:
Hi Santiago,
Quoting Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues (2021-10-23 11:08:56)
I just wanted to send a friendly ping about DPKG_ROOT support of base-files.
I hope that I was able to address all your questions in my last mail to
Hi Santiago,
Quoting Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues (2021-10-23 11:08:56)
> I just wanted to send a friendly ping about DPKG_ROOT support of base-files.
> I hope that I was able to address all your questions in my last mail to this
> bug. If there is anything else I can do to help you?
since y
Hi Santiago,
I just wanted to send a friendly ping about DPKG_ROOT support of base-files. I
hope that I was able to address all your questions in my last mail to this bug.
If there is anything else I can do to help you?
Thanks!
cheers, josch
signature.asc
Description: signature
Hi,
Quoting Santiago Vila (2021-10-04 13:02:33)
> Looking at the original report, I read this:
>
> > It will point to the installation root with the trailing slash
> > stripped. That means under normal conditions, it is empty.
>
> So, if I understood correctly:
>
> - if installation root is / t
Hi.
I guess what bothers me about this is the "specification" more than
the implementation.
Looking at the original report, I read this:
> It will point to the installation root with the trailing slash
> stripped. That means under normal conditions, it is empty.
So, if I understood correctly:
Hi Santiago,
since you haven't given any additional input, I prepared patches for both
options and attached them to this mail.
Quoting Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues (2021-09-24 16:25:04)
> If you want to change the current patch, I could:
>
> 1. add a slash between $DPKG_ROOT and the next va
Hi Santiago,
Quoting Santiago Vila (2021-09-24 12:25:27)
> Is DPKG_ROOT always supposed to have a trailing slash?
no. In fact, during normal operation (without --force-script-chrootless),
DPKG_ROOT is not "/" but "" and thus does not have a trailing slash. And even
with --force-script-chrootless,
Hi.
Simple question:
Is DPKG_ROOT always supposed to have a trailing slash?
I guess it would be more robust by not assuming such thing, in
which case I don't understand why I see things like "$DPKG_ROOT$1" in
the patch. (Or maybe there is something I'm missing).
Thanks.
Hi Santiago,
Quoting Santiago Vila (2016-05-19 11:38:30)
> On Wed, 18 May 2016, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> > How about another approach to chown? Since user ids are never changed to
> > base-passwd and we know that base-passwd is available during package
> > build, we could do the name -> id lookup at
On Wed, 18 May 2016, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> How about another approach to chown? Since user ids are never changed to
> base-passwd and we know that base-passwd is available during package
> build, we could do the name -> id lookup at package build time. Would
> you like a patch implementing that?
Hi Santiago,
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:05:28PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> A few comments about this:
Thanks for your quick reply!
> * The idea is certainly interesting, but I would try to use a better
> rationale for this project. In the current rationale I see in the wiki
> page you quoted:
To summarize:
* I'm not convinced that we need this (for now).
* I'm ok to keep this wishlist bug open, for reference.
* I suggest that you do something similar to reproducible builds, i.e.
create your own repository of modified packages as a "proof of concept".
* I'd like to see some data abou
> Is it acceptable for base-files?
Maybe. Maybe not.
A few comments about this:
* The idea is certainly interesting, but I would try to use a better
rationale for this project. In the current rationale I see in the wiki
page you quoted:
https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/Spec/InstallBootstrap
Package: base-files
Version: 9.6
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
User: helm...@debian.org
Usertags: rebootstrap
Hi Santiago,
In version 1.18.5, dpkg gained a new way for installing binary packages.
It now supports executing maintainer scripts outside the system it is
operating on. The feature is t
23 matches
Mail list logo
