Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2021 09:41:48 +0300
From: Timo Teras <timo.teras@iki.fi>
To: Ariadne Conill <ariadne@dereferenced.org>
Cc: Wolf <wolf@wolfsden.cz>, ~alpine/devel@lists.alpinelinux.org
Subject: Re: Why does apk fail to install packages with 0 size?
Message-ID: <20210408094148.734c4091@vostro>
In-Reply-To: <bc1dec8a-e93-8410-a5c9-b27b41c2ef91@dereferenced.org>
References: <20210407225006.thogaepvkqq2ytbx@wolfsden.cz>
	<bc1dec8a-e93-8410-a5c9-b27b41c2ef91@dereferenced.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi,

On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 18:08:25 -0600 (MDT)
Ariadne Conill <ariadne@dereferenced.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 8 Apr 2021, Wolf wrote:
> 
> > So, my question is: Is this behaviour intentional? If so, why? And
> > if it is not, what would be nice way to fix this? I can work on
> > patch, however I'm not sure what would be the best angle.  
> 
> I didn't think about the 0 installed-size at first.  Yes, this is 
> intentional: packages with a 0 installed-size are treated as virtuals.

Same here. And yes, intentional. What normally happens is that 'abuild'
will stat all files disk-allocation size in the package and sum them to
installed size. Even zero files usually have "IO Blocks" size of 4k or
whatever is the smallest size on disk. But apparently there are file
systems where this can be zero. This does remind me of similar issue
earlier now. I think abuild should in this case still set non-zero
installed-size as the fix.

> But, this can probably be fixed with a better design as part of
> apk-tools 3.

Yes. The problem more connected to package generation. And this will be
automatically fixed in apk3 where package generation happens by apk
itself.

Timo