[OE-core] [PATCH] os-release: add more variables to list

[akuster808]

On 10/29/18 10:12 AM, richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-10-28 at 18:24 +0000, akuster808 wrote:
>> On 10/25/18 10:25 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2018-10-25 at 08:20 +0100, Armin Kuster wrote:
>>>> If someone extends the OS_RELEASE_FIELDS in a bbappend, it will
>>>> cause
>>>> the hash to change which is
>>>> caught by the yocto-check-layer
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Armin Kuster <akuster808 at gmail.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  meta/recipes-core/os-release/os-release.bb | 2 +-
>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/os-release/os-release.bb
>>>> b/meta/recipes-core/os-release/os-release.bb
>>>> index 7f3d9cb..88bf8f8 100644
>>>> --- a/meta/recipes-core/os-release/os-release.bb
>>>> +++ b/meta/recipes-core/os-release/os-release.bb
>>>> @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ do_configure[noexec] = "1"
>>>>  
>>>>  # Other valid fields: BUILD_ID ID_LIKE ANSI_COLOR CPE_NAME
>>>>  #                     HOME_URL SUPPORT_URL BUG_REPORT_URL
>>>> -OS_RELEASE_FIELDS = "ID ID_LIKE NAME VERSION VERSION_ID
>>>> PRETTY_NAME"
>>>> +OS_RELEASE_FIELDS = "ID ID_LIKE NAME VERSION VERSION_ID
>>>> PRETTY_NAME BUILD_ID HOME_URL BUG_REPORT_URL SUPPORT_URL
>>>> CPE_NAME"
>>> I'm not sure I agree with this. It would usually be a policy
>>> decision, e.g. a ditro config which would change this and you'd not
>>> be doing this with a bbappend?
>> Yeah,  its the feedback I was looking for. Isn't OE  core "NoDistro"
>> and I will be wanting to have the CPE_NAME available with out having
>> to define DISTRO. I am jet lagged so I am not seeing how to fix this
>> for meta-secruity.
> This sounds very much like "I want to be a distro but I don't want to
> be a distro".
>
> Changing os-release just because a layer was included is a really bad
> idea. Its distro policy what would be included there, including what
> the cpe name might be.
This is why I think its appropriate to have at least  "CPE_NAME" added.
>
> Whether the nodistro defaults are right is a different question but
> meta-security should not be poking there.

I really didn't want to do another layer for something as simple as
"CPE_NAME" but why not.

thanks for the feedback as always.

Kind regards,

Armin

>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
>
>