[arch-projects] [PATCH] [namcap] Treat all non-tar files as PKGBUILD files, regardless of filename
From: Luke Shumaker
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 01:31:45PM -0500, Luke Shumaker wrote:
From: Luke Shumaker
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/57193
If the user mistakenly passes in some other (non-package, non-PKGBUILD) file, instead of refusing to process it (saying "Error: Cannot process ${filename}"), it will now try to parse it as a PKGBUILD, probably encounter and print at least one error, but finally say "Error: ${filename} is not a valid PKGBUILD". This is actually probably *more* helpful to a confused user who passed in the wrong file. --- namcap.py | 4 +--- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/namcap.py b/namcap.py index b62a2fa..fd62d3c 100755 --- a/namcap.py +++ b/namcap.py @@ -248,9 +248,7 @@ for package in packages:
if os.path.isfile(package) and tarfile.is_tarfile(package): process_realpackage(package, active_modules) - elif package.endswith('PKGBUILD'): + else:
Install files? Other assets? Doesn't this mean we assume they're PKGBUILDs?
process_pkgbuild(package, active_modules) - else: - print("Error: Cannot process %s" % package)
# vim: set ts=4 sw=4 noet: -- 2.15.1
On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 13:50:19 -0500, Dave Reisner wrote:
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 01:31:45PM -0500, Luke Shumaker wrote:
From: Luke Shumaker
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/57193
If the user mistakenly passes in some other (non-package, non-PKGBUILD) file, instead of refusing to process it (saying "Error: Cannot process ${filename}"), it will now try to parse it as a PKGBUILD, probably encounter and print at least one error, but finally say "Error: ${filename} is not a valid PKGBUILD". This is actually probably *more* helpful to a confused user who passed in the wrong file. --- namcap.py | 4 +--- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/namcap.py b/namcap.py index b62a2fa..fd62d3c 100755 --- a/namcap.py +++ b/namcap.py @@ -248,9 +248,7 @@ for package in packages:
if os.path.isfile(package) and tarfile.is_tarfile(package): process_realpackage(package, active_modules) - elif package.endswith('PKGBUILD'): + else:
Install files? Other assets? Doesn't this mean we assume they're PKGBUILDs?
Yes, it does. It's already the case that running namcap on those install files and other assets is an error. Though, this will make those errors much more... verbose. For example, running `namcap *` in pacman's package directory currently looks like: $ namcap * PKGBUILD (pacman) W: Reference to i686 should be changed to $CARCH PKGBUILD (pacman) W: Reference to x86_64 should be changed to $CARCH PKGBUILD (pacman) W: Reference to i686 should be changed to $CARCH PKGBUILD (pacman) W: Reference to i686 should be changed to $CARCH PKGBUILD (pacman) W: Reference to i686 should be changed to $CARCH PKGBUILD (pacman) W: Reference to i686 should be changed to $CARCH PKGBUILD (pacman) W: Reference to x86_64 should be changed to $CARCH PKGBUILD (pacman) W: Reference to x86_64 should be changed to $CARCH PKGBUILD (pacman) W: Reference to x86_64 should be changed to $CARCH Error: Cannot process makepkg.conf Error: Cannot process pacman.conf.i686 Error: Cannot process pacman.conf.x86_64 But this patch changes that to: $ namcap * PKGBUILD (pacman) W: Reference to i686 should be changed to $CARCH PKGBUILD (pacman) W: Reference to x86_64 should be changed to $CARCH PKGBUILD (pacman) W: Reference to i686 should be changed to $CARCH PKGBUILD (pacman) W: Reference to i686 should be changed to $CARCH PKGBUILD (pacman) W: Reference to i686 should be changed to $CARCH PKGBUILD (pacman) W: Reference to i686 should be changed to $CARCH PKGBUILD (pacman) W: Reference to x86_64 should be changed to $CARCH PKGBUILD (pacman) W: Reference to x86_64 should be changed to $CARCH PKGBUILD (pacman) W: Reference to x86_64 should be changed to $CARCH Error: error: invalid package file Error: makepkg.conf is not a valid PKGBUILD Error: error: invalid package file Error: pacman.conf.i686: line 9: [options]: command not found pacman.conf.i686: line 18: HoldPkg: command not found pacman.conf.i686: line 23: Architecture: command not found pacman.conf.i686: line 36: CheckSpace: command not found pacman.conf.i686: line 41: SigLevel: command not found pacman.conf.i686: line 42: LocalFileSigLevel: command not found pacman.conf.i686: line 75: [core]: command not found pacman.conf.i686: line 76: Include: command not found pacman.conf.i686: line 78: [extra]: command not found pacman.conf.i686: line 79: Include: command not found pacman.conf.i686: line 84: [community]: command not found pacman.conf.i686: line 85: Include: command not found Error: pacman.conf.i686 is not a valid PKGBUILD Error: error: invalid package file Error: pacman.conf.x86_64: line 9: [options]: command not found pacman.conf.x86_64: line 18: HoldPkg: command not found pacman.conf.x86_64: line 23: Architecture: command not found pacman.conf.x86_64: line 36: CheckSpace: command not found pacman.conf.x86_64: line 41: SigLevel: command not found pacman.conf.x86_64: line 42: LocalFileSigLevel: command not found pacman.conf.x86_64: line 75: [core]: command not found pacman.conf.x86_64: line 76: Include: command not found pacman.conf.x86_64: line 78: [extra]: command not found pacman.conf.x86_64: line 79: Include: command not found pacman.conf.x86_64: line 84: [community]: command not found pacman.conf.x86_64: line 85: Include: command not found Error: pacman.conf.x86_64 is not a valid PKGBUILD There is a possible safety concern. namcap will call `parsepkgbuild` on the file, which does evaluate the file as a bash script; it is conceivable that it this could accidentally do something bad, depending on what the file is. However, I don't believe this to be a legitimate concern because of the rbash restricted environment that it is executed in. -- Happy hacking, ~ Luke Shumaker
participants (3)
-
ashark＠linuxcomp.ru
-
Dave Reisner
-
Luke Shumaker