On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 4:32 PM Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> On 5/31/20 1:24 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sun, 31 May 2020, Zac Medico wrote:
> >
> >> We've also got these other basename calls in fetch.py:
> >
> >>> diff --git a/lib/portage/package/ebuild/fetch.py 
> >>> b/lib/portage/package/ebuild/fetch.py
> >>> index 28e7caf53..56b375d58 100644
> >>> --- a/lib/portage/package/ebuild/fetch.py
> >>> +++ b/lib/portage/package/ebuild/fetch.py
> >>> @@ -730,9 +730,9 @@ def fetch(myuris, mysettings, listonly=0, fetchonly=0,
> >>> else:
> >>> for myuri in myuris:
> >>> if urlparse(myuri).scheme:
> >>> -                               
> >>> file_uri_tuples.append((os.path.basename(myuri), myuri))
> >>> +                               
> >>> file_uri_tuples.append((urlunquote(os.path.basename(myuri)), myuri))
> >>> else:
> >>> -                               
> >>> file_uri_tuples.append((os.path.basename(myuri), None))
> >>> +                               
> >>> file_uri_tuples.append((urlunquote(os.path.basename(myuri)), None))
> >
> >> The case with no scheme is not a URI, so we need to decide whether
> >> or not to unquote, and we should make _parse_uri_map behavior
> >> consistent for this case.
> >
> > I think that this follows from PMS, section 8.2 [1]:
> >
> > | The following elements are recognised in at least one class of
> > | specification. All elements must be surrounded on both sides by
> > | whitespace, except at the start and end of the string.
> > |
> > | [...]
> > | - A URI, in the form proto://host/path. Permitted in SRC_URI and
> > | HOMEPAGE. In EAPIs listed in table 8.4 as supporting SRC_URI arrows,
> > | may optionally be followed by whitespace, then ->, then whitespace,
> > | then a simple filename when in SRC_URI. For SRC_URI behaviour, see
> > | section 8.2.10.
> > | - A flat filename. Permitted in SRC_URI.
> >
> > So if it isn't an URI then it is a "flat filename" which IMHO is to be
> > interpreted literally without any unquoting.
> >
> > Ulrich
> >
> > [1] https://projects.gentoo.org/pms/7/pms.html#x1-690008.2
> >
>
> This interpretation sounds good to me.

Agreed.

Reply via email to