emerge-webrsync: Create repo location with $PORTAGE_USERNAME:$PORTAGE_GRPNAME ownership

[duxsco]

Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/707980

[thesamesam]

The commit message shouldn't be empty, but it also needs discussion of the: a) rationale, and b) trade-offs here at least.

[duxsco]

@thesamesam The commit message isn't empty:

❯ git --no-pager show --no-patch --format=%s
emerge-webrsync: Create repo location with portage:portage ownership

❯ git --no-pager show --no-patch --format=%b
Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/707980
Signed-off-by: David Sardari <[email protected]>

❯ git --no-pager show --no-patch --format=%B
emerge-webrsync: Create repo location with portage:portage ownership

Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/707980
Signed-off-by: David Sardari <[email protected]>

[thesamesam]

I (obviously) meant the body needs text.

[floppym]

We really should not hard-code "portage:portage" for this. See https://bugs.gentoo.org/941605#c9.

[duxsco]

We really should not hard-code "portage:portage" for this. See https://bugs.gentoo.org/941605#c9.

Agreed, PORTAGE_USERNAME or similar is the way to go.

[duxsco]

@floppym fyi, I implemented your suggestion.

[floppym]

There's some code in sync_local() that hard codes "portage:portage" as well. Would you mind fixing that up?

[duxsco]

fyi, I created a bug for the missing definition of PORTAGE_USERNAME and PORTAGE_GRPNAME: https://bugs.gentoo.org/941977

And, I am gonna take the Posix parameter expansion out again. The statement in man make.conf should hold true.

I make this PR a draft as long as the bug isn't resolved.

[duxsco]

fyi, there is also:

portage/misc/emerge-delta-webrsync

Line 524 in fad3818

local ownership="portage:portage"

[Flowdalic]

Is this still work-in-progress?

[duxsco]

@Flowdalic As long as https://bugs.gentoo.org/941977 isn't taken care of, this PR cannot be merged.

[thesamesam]

Just add a default value for now?

[thesamesam]

Also, portage certainly does default to that - it just may not be exported (can't check easily on mobile).

[duxsco]

fyi, I created a new PR:
#1414

[thesamesam]

Please rebasd this one now thats in

[thesamesam]

Needs another rebase and to be marked as ready, if it is.

[duxsco]

Needs another rebase and to be marked as ready, if it is.

OK, I use it for a while on my laptop first.

[thesamesam]

I think the change looks good, but please:

1. Split the default fix for user/groups into one commit, and
2. Split the chown fix into another
   for a total of 2 commits.

Please ideally squash using git rebase -i too.

[duxsco]

@thesamesam done. I haven't tested the code yet, as I'm busy with private stuff. But if you think it's kosher, feel free to merge.

[thesamesam]

Thanks.

[thesamesam]

(I am a bit confused as to how you hadn't tested it yet given the PR was from October and the substance of it was the same, so I hope you just mean the latest variant wasn't yet tested.)

[duxsco]

(I am a bit confused as to how you hadn't tested it yet given the PR was from October and the substance of it was the same, so I hope you just mean the latest variant wasn't yet tested.)

I have tested it at that time. But, I haven't re-tested it recently.

[duxsco]

@thesamesam As this change #1416 isn't in current portage yet, I set just now PORTAGE_USERNAME="portage" and PORTAGE_GRPNAME="portage" in make.conf and did a emerge-webrsync with non-existent /var/db/repos/gentoo. This resulted in the creation of /var/db/repos/gentoo with portage:portage ownership. Without the settings in make.conf, the repo folder gets created with root:root ownership.