Hi,
Here's hopefully the last update for some time (that is, before I get to
working on implementation). There are two small changes:
- clarified the text on top archive directory: mentioned it shouldn't
have an explicit member in the archive and that the implementations
should be ready to handle mismatched directory name (i.e. when archive
ends up being renamed),
- removed .txt suffix from 'gpkg-1' package identifier file.
---
GLEP:
Title: Gentoo binary package container format
Author: Michał Górny
Type: Standards Track
Status: Draft
Version: 1
Created: 2018-11-15
Last-Modified: 2018-11-30
Post-History: 2018-11-17
Content-Type: text/x-rst
---
Abstract
This GLEP proposes a new binary package container format for Gentoo.
The current tbz2/XPAK format is shortly described, and its deficiences
are explained. Accordingly, the requirements for a new format are set
and a gpkg format satisfying them is proposed. The rationale for
the design decisions is provided.
Motivation
==
The current Portage binary package format
-
The historical ``.tbz2`` binary package format used by Portage is
a concatenation of two distinct formats: header-oriented compressed .tar
format (used to hold package files) and trailer-oriented custom XPAK
format (used to hold metadata) [#MAN-XPAK]_. The format has already
been extended incompatibly twice.
The first time, support for storing multiple successive builds of binary
package for a single ebuild version has been added. This feature relies
on appending additional hyphen, followed by an integer to the package
filename. It is disabled by default (preserving backwards
compatibility) and controlled by ``binpkg-multi-instance`` feature.
The second time, support for additional compression formats has been
added. When format other than bzip2 is used, the ``.tbz2`` suffix
is replaced by ``.xpak`` and Portage relies on magic bytes to detect
compression used. For backwards compatibility, Portage still defaults
to using bzip2; compression program can be switched using
``BINPKG_COMPRESS`` configuration variable.
Additionally, there have been minor changes to the stored metadata
and file storage policies. In particular, behavior regarding
``INSTALL_MASK``, controllable file compression and stripping has
changed over time.
The advantages of tbz2/XPAK format
--
The tbz2/XPAK format used by Portage has three interesting features:
1. **Each binary package is fully contained within a single file.**
While this might seem unnecessary, it makes it easier for the user
to transfer binary packages without having to be concerned about
finding all the necessary files to transfer.
2. **The binary packages are compatible with regular compressed
tarballs, most of the time.** With notable exceptions of historical
versions of pbzip2 and the recent zstd compressor, tbz2/XPAK packages
can be extracted using regular tar utility with a compressor
implementation that discards trailing garbage.
3. **The metadata is uncompressed, and can be efficiently accessed
without decompressing package contents.** This includes
the possibility of rewriting it (e.g. as a result of package moves)
without the necessity of repacking the files.
Transparency problem with the current binary package format
---
Notwithstanding its advantages, the tbz2/XPAK format has a significant
design fault that consists of two issues:
1. **The XPAK format is a custom binary format with explicit use
of binary-encoded file offsets and field lengths.** As such, it is
non-trivial to read or edit without specialized tools. Such tools
are currently implemented separately from the package manager,
as part of the portage-utils toolkit, written in C [#PORTAGE-UTILS]_.
2. **The tarball compatibility feature relies on obscure feature of
ignoring trailing garbage in compressed files**. While this is
implemented consistently in most of the compressors, this feature
is not really a part of specification but rather traditional
behavior. Given that the original reasons for this no longer apply,
new compressor implementations are likely to miss support for this.
Both of the issues make the format hard to use without dedicated tools,
or when the tools misbehave. This impacts the following scenarios:
A. **Using binary packages for system recovery.** In case of serious
breakage, it is really preferable that the format depends on as few
tools a possible, and especially not on Gentoo-specific tools.
B. **Inspecting binary packages in detail exceeding standard package
manager facilities.**
C. **Modifying binary packages in ways not predicted by the package
manager authors.** A real-life example of this is working around
broken ``pkg_*`` phases which prevent the package from being
installed.
OpenPGP
