Installing directories

[olivierlemasle]

Is it possible to install directories with rpm-rs?
I only found the way to install files, but not their parent directory, which leads to the creation of unowned / orphaned directories.

[olivierlemasle]

I've now found that it is currently not possible to install directories with rpm-rs.

Issues

1. Installing then uninstalling a RPM package may leave some empty directories (unowned / orphaned). For example:

   1. Generate a RPM package with:

      let pkg = rpm::RPMBuilder::new("awesome", "1.0.0", "MIT", "x86_64", "awesome rpm")
          .with_file(
              "./test_assets/awesome.toml",
              rpm::RPMFileOptions::new("/etc/awesome/awesome.toml"),
          )?
          .build()?;
      let mut f = fs::File::create("./awesome.rpm")?;
      pkg.write(&mut f)?;

   2. Install then remove the package:

      # ls -al /etc/awesome/
      ls: cannot access '/etc/awesome/': No such file or directory
      
      # rpm -i ./awesome.rpm
      
      # ls -al /etc/awesome/
      total 20
      drwxr-xr-x    2 root root  4096 Sep 21 11:22 .
      drwxr-xr-x. 205 root root 12288 Sep 21 11:22 ..
      -rw-r--r--    1 root root    31 Sep 12 10:27 awesome.toml
      
      # rpm -e awesome
      
      # ls -al /etc/awesome/
      total 16
      drwxr-xr-x    2 root root  4096 Sep 21 11:22 .
      drwxr-xr-x. 205 root root 12288 Sep 21 11:22 ..
      

2. There's no way to simply install an empty directory (e.g. /var/log/awesome with proper permissions)

Solutions

I've made it work on my side, but before opening a Pull Request, I'd like to discuss the API...

As there's no content for an empty directory, there's no need to pass
a source... except for copying metadata (modified_at and default permissions). So we could do something like:

builder
    .with_dir(
        "./test_assets", // just used to copy metadata
        RPMFileOptions::new("/etc/awesome")
            .mode(rpm::FileMode::dir(0o644)) // need to use FileMode::dir
    )?
    .with_file(
        "./test_assets/awesome.toml",
        RPMFileOptions::new("/etc/awesome/awesome.toml"),
    )?

or:

builder
    .with_dir(
        RPMDirectoryOptions::new("/etc/awesome", modified_at)
            .mode(rpm::FileMode::dir(0o644)) // With RPMDirectoryOptions, this could be the default value
    )?
    .with_file(
        "./test_assets/awesome.toml",
        RPMFileOptions::new("/etc/awesome/awesome.toml"),
    )?

or:

builder
    .with_dir("/etc/awesome", modified_at, 0o644, RPMDirectoryOptions::new())?
    // options would still be used for e.g flag
    .with_file(
        "./test_assets/awesome.toml",
        RPMFileOptions::new("/etc/awesome/awesome.toml"),
    )?

What are your thoughts?

Should modified_at be required or should we provide a default value (e.g. now)?

Should we have two types of options for files and directories?

Should we give a path as a "model" for permissions and modified_at?

Of course, before opening a Pull Request, I'll wait for your feedback here, and the clarification of this fork's future.

[drahnr]

I think the RPMFileOptions are just broken, the interface should handle this.

Note: I am not sure how ownership is tracked in rpmdb, of directories. I.e. what happens if multiple packages claim ownership of a directory? /usr i.e. is shared by many. I currently don't have the time to investigate this thoroughly.