Christopher Lemmer Webber <[email protected]> ezt írta (időpont: 2018. aug. 13., H, 2:28):
> Timothy Sample writes: > > > Hi Guix, > > > > I just submitted a patch for <https://bugs.gnu.org/30680>, but now I’m > > wondering if there isn’t a more general way to solve the problem. > > > > The bug has to do with grafting and checksums. I know three bugs that > > follow this theme: the one above (Racket), <https://bugs.gnu.org/19973> > > (GDB), and <https://bugs.gnu.org/25752> (Go). The basic problem is that > > these packages store checksums of files during build time. If they get > > updated due to grafting, the files change, but the checksums do not. > > The checksums become invalid, which causes other problems like trying to > > update files in the store or asserting that debugging information is > > invalid. > > > > The patch I submitted makes Racket assume that files in the store are > > good. It patches Racket to skip checksum validation if it is checking a > > file in the store. A similar approach could be taken for GDB and Go. > > > > It occurs to me that if we had some way to run package-specific code > > during grafting we could solve problems like this easily and without > > patching software that is not broken. > > > > The basic idea would be to add a field (or use a property) to the > > package record. Let’s call it “graft-hook”. It would be Scheme code > > that gets run after grafting takes place, giving us a chance to patch > > special things like checksums. The hook would be passed the list of > > files that were been modified during grafting. Then, in the Racket > > package for example, I could write a graft-hook that updates the SHA-1 > > hash of each of the modified source files. > > +1 I think this would be a good design choice. We also gain back the security that the original check provides. > This seems like a really good approach to me and seems also much nicer / > safer in the long run than the solution in #30680 since it wouldn't just > patch out the package in question's checks, it would correct them. That > seems very good indeed to me. > > > Since grafting is done at the derivation level, the hook code would have > > to be propagated down from the package level. I haven’t looked at all > > the details yet, because maybe this is a bad idea and I shouldn’t waste > > my time! :) My first impression is that it is not too tricky. > > > > Are these problems too specialized to deserve a general mechanism like > > this? Let me know what you think! > > > > > > -- Tim > > As said, it seems good to me. But I would be interested in what Mark > would think, since he is mostly responsible for the grafts design. > >
