From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Adolf Belka To: development@lists.ipfire.org Subject: Re: Question regarding rootfile warning "Error! '/aarch64' in rootfiles files found!" Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 15:06:28 +0100 Message-ID: <2d14cd47-bc25-9587-4124-a4c8b698edea@ipfire.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3009548652223514861==" List-Id: --===============3009548652223514861== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Michael and Peter, On 09/12/2021 20:54, Michael Tremer wrote: > Hello, > >> On 9 Dec 2021, at 19:52, Peter M=C3=BCller wr= ote: >> >> Hello Michael, >> >> thanks for your reply. >> >> As far as I understood the issue, make.sh checking for architecture names = in paths >> is fine, but in filenames (such as x86_64.h), it is not. A whitelist appro= ach would >> not be necessary in this case, it only needs to ignore the file name of a = given path >> while checking for architecture names. > In this case it is, but generally it isn=E2=80=99t. > > The check was built for Perl and Python modules that carry the architecture= name in their paths. For Perl that is usually a directory and Python has it = in the filename. > > The idea is to catch any build problems if someone builds it on one archite= cture and doesn=E2=80=99t notice. > > I never notice. > > I do not think there is a technical solution to this. > As this is the first time that we have had a filename that ends up using exac= tly one of the IPFire architecture names I would have thought it should be po= ssible to tell make.sh to ignore that very specific file path/name. The chances of more filenames occurring like this looks to me to be quite sma= ll based on history but if it happens again then a whitelist approach could b= e created. I would be willing to look at this. Regards, Adolf. > -Michael > >> Does this make sense? Or did I misunderstood you? >> >> Thanks, and best regards, >> Peter M=C3=BCller >> >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> What is the bug for? The check does exactly what it is supposed to do. >>> >>> We either need to get rid of it entirely because it has false positives o= r we need to have a whitelist. >>> >>> Is that a solution that you had in mind? >>> >>> -Michael >>> >>>> On 9 Dec 2021, at 19:39, Peter M=C3=BCller = wrote: >>>> >>>> P.S.: Bug #12743 (https://bugzilla.ipfire.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D12743) h= as been raised for this. >>>> >>>> Should anybody have spare time to work on it, please feel free to do so.= :-) >>>> >>>>> Hello Adolf, >>>>> >>>>> thanks for your reply. >>>>> >>>>>> How should we deal with the situation where a source file filename hap= pens to use an architecture name the same as an IPFire name. >>>>> I also think this is a false positive, though it surprises me we never = came across this >>>>> scenario all the years before. Either way, make.sh (or whatever's doing= this check) needs >>>>> to be updated to ignore such cases. >>>>> >>>>> I'll file a bug for this later... >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, and best regards, >>>>> Peter M=C3=BCller >>>>> --===============3009548652223514861==--