profile.d: don't try to source non-existent os-release file #1475
Conversation
When /etc/os-release does not exist we directly try to source /usr/lib/os-release. This causes a 'No such file or directory' error when entering a toolbox which has neither. Fix this by checking for the presence of /usr/lib/os-release before sourcing it, just like what is done for /etc/os-release. Signed-off-by: Patrick Talbert <[email protected]>
|
Build failed. ✔️ unit-test SUCCESS in 4m 57s |
|
@ptalbert should it set some defaults for the expected variables that now are unset? |
|
On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 5:49 PM Michael Hofmann ***@***.***> wrote:
@ptalbert <https://github.com/ptalbert> should it set some defaults for
the expected variables that now are unset?
I don't see this script doing anything special which requires some default
value. In the case where neither os-release file exists the behaviour of
the script will not be any different after this change.
… —
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1475 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABQY3SB6SOHTYNC4VLS5NGDY3LHPNAVCNFSM6AAAAABFTGNLVGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDAMZSGQZDMNZUGU>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Welcome to Toolbx! :)
It's true that the complete absence of os-release(5) makes no difference to the profile.d/toolbox.sh snippet as it's today. However, the toolbox(1) binary does make extensive use of os-release(5) for some critical logic.
The toolbox(1) binary currently uses the github.com/acobaugh/osrelease Go module to parse os-release(5) and it has the same structure as the profile.d/toolbox.sh snippet. ie., /etc/os-release may be missing, but it somewhat assumes that /usr/lib/os-release is present. eg., there's no fallback to linux if ID is absent.
Therefore, if we are going to make changes to support set-ups without any os-release(5), we need to ensure that the whole thing, including the binary and the snippet, works. This brings me to the question: how did you end up without any os-release(5)?
By using a RHEL6-based container image 😂. But if this is really going to ripple through multiple pieces of code here, maybe it would be easier to just fake an os-release file in the container image -> https://gitlab.com/cki-project/containers/-/merge_requests/539 |
|
@debarshiray like Michael said, I noticed this when using a rhel6 container image with toolbox. Every time you enter the toolbox (or source your profile in the container) there is this warning about a missing /usr/lib/os-release. For our purposes I am happy to take Michael's solution but maybe there are a few unrelated people out there using toolbox with containers that predate os-release 🤷. If there is something else I can test please let me know. |
When /etc/os-release does not exist we directly try to source /usr/lib/os-release. This causes a 'No such file or directory' error when entering a toolbox which has neither.
Fix this by checking for the presence of /usr/lib/os-release before sourcing it, just like what is done for /etc/os-release.