On Tue, Dec 3, 2024 at 2:59 AM Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues
<josch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Quoting Masahiro Yamada (2024-12-02 16:42:02)
> > > @@ -84,7 +93,26 @@ install_linux_image () { # Tell initramfs builder
> > > whether it's wanted export INITRD=$(if_enabled_echo CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INITRD
> > > Yes No)
> > >
> > > - test -d ${debhookdir}/${script}.d && run-parts --arg="${KERNELRELEASE}" --arg="/${installed_image_path}" ${debhookdir}/${script}.d
> > > + # run-parts will error out if one of its directory arguments does not
> > > + # exist, so filter the list of hook directories accordingly.
> > > + hookdirs=
> > > + for dir in ${debhookdir}; do
> > > + test -d "\$dir/${script}.d" || continue
> > > + hookdirs="\$hookdirs \$dir/${script}.d"
> > > + done
> > > + hookdirs="\${hookdirs# }"
> > > + test -n "\$hookdirs" || exit 0
> > > +
> > > + # If more than one hook directory remained, check version of run-parts. If
> > > + # run-parts is too old, fall back to only processing the first.
> > > + case \$hookdirs in *" "*) if ! run-parts --help 2>&1 \
> > > + | grep -Fxq "Usage: run-parts [OPTION]... DIRECTORY [DIRECTORY ...]"; then
> > > + echo "E: run-parts >=5.21 is required for multiple hook directories, falling back to $firsthookdir" >&2
> >
> > Same comment as in the previous version.
> > If both /etc/kernel/postinst.d/ and /usr/share/kernel/postinst.d/ exist,
> > can we assume the run-parts>=5.12 on that system?
>
> since KDEB_HOOKDIR can now be any directories and any number of directories,
> the question should rather be: if more than one directory from KDEB_HOOKDIR
> exists, can we assume that run-parts>=5.12 exists on that system?
>
> Personally, I'd prefer a best-effort fallback mechanism. The alternative would
> be that kernel installation would just error out in case a (buggy) package on a
> distro ships something in /usr/share/kernel/postinst.d/ but failed to also
> declare a versioned dependency against debianutils. The error message cannot
> (or rather only with considerable effort) tell the user *why* their kernel
> installation errored out. By only considering the first hook directory
> (probably /etc) in those situation, the kernel would succeed to install and the
> hooks from the (buggy) package would be skipped. I understand that such a
> behaviour comes with its own set of disadvantages. One could also argue, that
> it is better to error out loudly in case of an error instead of hiding a
> message prefixed with a "E:" in a bunch of console output when a kernel package
> gets installed.
>
> What is your position on this question? What behaviour would you prefer? If you
> strongly prefer the kernel installation to error out loudly if run-parts is too
> old, then my next patch will implement just that. I think whether "we can
> assume run-parts>=5.12" depends on what we declare to be the right way to hold
> this feature. If we say "packages must declare this versioned dependency and if
> they fail to do this then it is their bug and not ours" then yes, then we can
> assume run-parts>=5.12 in case of multiple directories.
My preference is to pass the existing hook directories to run-parts.
If KDEB_HOOKDIR specifies two directories and both exist,
pass them to run-parts.
>
> > Do we need to check the help message and offer the fallback mechanism?
>
> The answer two that question depends on the answer to the last question. If we
> want to error out loudly with unsupported run-parts, then no help message has
> to be checked. Otherwise, when we want to check what version of run-parts we
> have, then there are two options. Either parsing the --version output (which is
> not trivial itself because run-parts prints six lines of copyright information)
> or parsing the --help output. The debianutils maintainer encouraged using the
> latter option which is why I chose that one.
>
> Thanks!
>
> cheers, josch
--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
