-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 16
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
Fix symlink collision bug #3
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
# 2) if that fails don't create the symlink at all | ||
# we can sometimes skip symlink creation because of ocassional | ||
# duplicates in pkg_config output | ||
if dest.exists: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Instead of just looking up 1 level in the directory tree, what do you think about generating unique identifiers from the complete srcpath? (For example: s.replace("_", "__").replace("/", "_slash_")
?) This will be more robust to collisions in file paths.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I had been thinking along similar lines, but I'm not sure a simple fix like this is feasible. The name of the symlink that gets created is a load-bearing decision that affects the include path components.
if dest.exists: | ||
dest = base.get_child(src.basename + src.dirname.basename) | ||
if _symlink_no_duplicate(ctx, src, dest): | ||
result += [str(dest)[rootlen:]] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Modifying the name of the symlink that is created like this may lead to nondeterministic include path naming (or spooky action at a distance, where include path names depend on the order in which symlinks are created). Moreover, if you look at how the return value of _symlinks
is used, you should see that this changes how the strip_include
option to the pkg_config
rule works.
For example, consider a package with include paths /usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/MyPackage
and /usr/include/MyPackage
. It provides the include files /usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/MyPackage/my.h
and /usr/include/MyPackage/package.h
.
A user of the pkg_config
Bazel rule might specify a strip_prefix
value of MyPackage
, so that they can just #include "my.h"
and #include "package.h"
directly.
Under this PR, Bazel will create symlinks named includes/MyPackage
and includes/include/MyPackage
or includes/x86_64-linux-gnu/MyPackage
, depending on which gets created first. There is no single strip_prefix
value that can correctly strip out both of these. Furthermore, the names of the symlinks that get created depends on the order in which they are created, which is undesirable for multiple reasons.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yes, that makes a lot of sense; a strip_prefix
or prefix
(for adding a path prefix)
Resolves #1
Tested with gtkmm