| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:19:40 +0200 Simon Stelling <blubb@g.o> |
| 6 |
> wrote: |
| 7 |
> | > Protected Locations |
| 8 |
> | > =================== |
| 9 |
> | > |
| 10 |
> | > Protected locations are determined by the ``CONFIG_PROTECT`` |
| 11 |
> | > environment variable, which is defined in the profiles and which |
| 12 |
> | > may be augmented or overridden by the current environment and user |
| 13 |
> | > configuration files. This variable contains a space separated list |
| 14 |
> | > of values which are matched against the beginning of a full file |
| 15 |
> | > path and name of files to be installed. |
| 16 |
> | |
| 17 |
> | "which are matched against the beginning of a full file path" would |
| 18 |
> | mean that e.g. CONFIG_PROTECT="/etc/foo" would protect the following: |
| 19 |
> | |
| 20 |
> | /etc/foobar/doh |
| 21 |
> | /etc/foo |
| 22 |
> | /etc/foobaz |
| 23 |
> | |
| 24 |
> | .. or did I misunderstand something here? I don't know whether that is |
| 25 |
> | the current behaviour of portage, but IMO it certainly shouldn't be. |
| 26 |
> | It should rather be |
| 27 |
> | |
| 28 |
> | /etc/foo (file) |
| 29 |
> | or, if /etc/foo is a dir: |
| 30 |
> | /etc/foo/* |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> Mm. I had a play with this. I'd like someone else to do independent |
| 33 |
> tests, because I'm seeing something weird here. But it looks like |
| 34 |
> Portage's current behaviour is: |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> with CONFIG_PROTECT="/foo": |
| 37 |
> * if /foo is a file, it's not protected |
| 38 |
> * if /foo is a directory, its contents (including subdirectories) are |
| 39 |
> protected |
| 40 |
> * /foofoo (file) is not protected |
| 41 |
> * /foobar/baz is not protected |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> and weirdly, with CONFIG_PROTECT="/foo/" |
| 44 |
> * if /foo/ is a directory, its contents are protected during unmerge |
| 45 |
> but not during merge |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> All of this is rather weird, and doesn't match up to what I've been |
| 48 |
> told by Portage people that Portage is supposed to do... |
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
I've attached to bug 14321 [1] a patch that I believe implements the |
| 52 |
CONFIG_PROTECT behavior that most people would expect from portage. |
| 53 |
The differences from previous behavior are as follows: |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
1) Allows files (not just directories) in CONFIG_PROTECT and |
| 56 |
CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
2) Properly accounts for an optional trailing slash on directory paths. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
3) Prevents /etc/foo from matching /etc/foobaz or /etc/foobaz/bar. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
Testing of the patch (against portage-2.1.1) would be appreciated. |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
Zac |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
[1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14321#c15 |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 69 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) |
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
iD8DBQFFBzhF/ejvha5XGaMRApxqAJ0XcfuqkfNn8L68HLRRynSyXf9grgCcCgok |
| 72 |
CNysJhEHA5mUvX84vmB8PU0= |
| 73 |
=KPm0 |
| 74 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 75 |
-- |
| 76 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives