Skip to content

Provide support for duplicate paths #865

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from
Closed

Conversation

eejayes
Copy link
Contributor

@eejayes eejayes commented Apr 30, 2024

Outside of the discussion in the issue #849, there were some unforeseen interactions with create_parents. Otherwise the behavioral change should be what was discussed.

It is outside of the scope to order where the paths from deps or srcs are added to the archives, within a given instance of pkg_tar. It may be worth documenting that controlling the ordering of paths whether they originate from tars which are concatenated or files, requires a sequence of pkg_tar instances rather than relying on a single one. In a way undefined behavior may be expected when adding paths which conflict in the same pkg_tar instance.

eejayes and others added 3 commits March 21, 2024 09:43
Add feature as described in bazelbuild#832.

RELNOTES: Automatic creation of parent directory specifications for
paths with depth are prevented in pkg_tar archives.
Duplicate path entries are made possible within tar archives as
discussed in feature request bazelbuild#849. This includes an interaction with
create parents, where the only logical scenario which would require
inference of a parent directory is when one does not already exist.
This is because allowance of duplicates is only useful when explicit
paths are declared.

RELNOTES: Duplicate path entries supported within tar archives
Copy link

google-cla bot commented Apr 30, 2024

Thanks for your pull request! It looks like this may be your first contribution to a Google open source project. Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

View this failed invocation of the CLA check for more information.

For the most up to date status, view the checks section at the bottom of the pull request.

Copy link
Collaborator

@aiuto aiuto left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I can not understand what this change is about from the PR description.
Can you fix that to clearly describe the behavior change and how it reduces undefined behavior?
It does eliminate undefined behavior, right?

@eejayes
Copy link
Contributor Author

eejayes commented May 2, 2024

I can not understand what this change is about from the PR description.

I understand that. I am not so acquainted with the workflow yet. Let's discontinue this PR in favor of #850 which should now be in good shape.

@eejayes eejayes closed this May 2, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants