Hi Michael and Peter,
On 09/12/2021 20:54, Michael Tremer wrote:
Hello,
On 9 Dec 2021, at 19:52, Peter Müller peter.mueller@ipfire.org wrote:
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 approach 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’t.
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 architecture and doesn’t 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 exactly one of the IPFire architecture names I would have thought it should be possible 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 small based on history but if it happens again then a whitelist approach could be 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 Müller
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 or we need to have a whitelist.
Is that a solution that you had in mind?
-Michael
On 9 Dec 2021, at 19:39, Peter Müller peter.mueller@ipfire.org wrote:
P.S.: Bug #12743 (https://bugzilla.ipfire.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12743) has 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 happens 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 Müller