9848 2016-06-29 13:02:49 +0000 testimage/testexport: support permissions and attributes for package installation 2020-01-30 16:19:37 +0000 1 1 10 QA/Testing Runtime Testing general 5.99 x86 Multiple RESOLVED OBSOLETE Medium enhancement Future 1 mariano.lopez unassigned joshuagloe leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez randy.macleod sgw --- --- Yes (doc changes required) oldest_to_newest 63450 0 mariano.lopez 2016-06-29 13:02:49 +0000 Currently the installation of packages during a runtime test is done using scp, this will change the owner and the attributes of the copied files, this can lead to problems in certain conditions. I had a conversation with Joshua and it seems the easiest way to do it is to send the tars to the DUT and uncompress them in the target. 63621 1 mariano.lopez 2016-07-04 15:09:08 +0000 busybox's tar doesn't have options to preserve owner, permission or attributes, therefore we need to provide a tar binary. 63622 2 joshuagloe 2016-07-04 15:15:06 +0000 I know we talked about rsync before but I can't recall whether you tested it? The rsync man page[1] says that rsync can: "can copy locally, to/from another host over any remote shell, or to/from a remote rsync daemon" 1. http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/precise/en/man1/rsync.1.html 63624 3 mariano.lopez 2016-07-04 15:17:41 +0000 (In reply to comment #2) > I know we talked about rsync before but I can't recall whether you tested it? > I haven't tested it yet, the issue with rsync was that we needed to provide the binary in the target, but now we need to provide tar, so rsync becomes a viable option again. I'll try rsync next. 63625 4 joshuagloe 2016-07-04 15:19:23 +0000 (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > I know we talked about rsync before but I can't recall whether you tested it? > > > > I haven't tested it yet, the issue with rsync was that we needed to provide > the binary in the target, but now we need to provide tar, so rsync becomes a > viable option again. I'll try rsync next. My understanding of the manpage is that the binary shouldn't be required on the target, because rsync can copy "to/from another host over any remote shell" — thus I'd expect if we have rsync-native on the host we can rsync to the target. 63626 5 mariano.lopez 2016-07-04 15:20:50 +0000 (In reply to comment #4) > My understanding of the manpage is that the binary shouldn't be required on > the target, because rsync can copy "to/from another host over any remote > shell" — thus I'd expect if we have rsync-native on the host we can rsync to > the target. I tested that, you need rsync in both hosts 76085 6 leonardo.sandoval.gonzalez 2017-08-23 16:31:46 +0000 unfortunately, the enhancement window is over, so moving it to 2.5. 85914 7 akuster 2019-12-22 19:36:58 +0000 is this something we still need to test? 86196 8 randy.macleod 2020-01-30 16:19:37 +0000 This doesn't seem to be a problem in our current workflow. Reopen if it becomes one.