refactor: add cfg aliases

[xtqqczze]

Fixes pre-commit hook failures on non-Linux platforms by adding proper #[cfg(target_os = "linux")] guards to selinux/smack feature gates.

Contributes to #11019

Closes #10995

[github-actions]

GNU testsuite comparison:

GNU test failed: tests/date/resolution. tests/date/resolution is passing on 'main'. Maybe you have to rebase?
GNU test failed: tests/rm/isatty. tests/rm/isatty is passing on 'main'. Maybe you have to rebase?
GNU test failed: tests/tail/retry. tests/tail/retry is passing on 'main'. Maybe you have to rebase?
Skip an intermittent issue tests/pr/bounded-memory (fails in this run but passes in the 'main' branch)
Note: The gnu test tests/cp/link-heap is now being skipped but was previously passing.
Note: The gnu test tests/printf/printf-surprise is now being skipped but was previously passing.

[github-actions]

GNU testsuite comparison:

Congrats! The gnu test tests/date/date-locale-hour is no longer failing!
Note: The gnu test tests/cp/link-heap is now being skipped but was previously passing.
Note: The gnu test tests/dd/no-allocate is now being skipped but was previously passing.
Note: The gnu test tests/seq/seq-epipe is now being skipped but was previously passing.
Note: The gnu test tests/tail/pipe-f is now being skipped but was previously passing.

[github-actions]

GNU testsuite comparison:

Note: The gnu test tests/cut/cut-huge-range is now being skipped but was previously passing.

[sylvestre]

sorry
i really don't like the duplication of src/uu/*/build.rs

[xtqqczze]

I don’t like the duplication either, but I’m not sure how to avoid it. Do you have suggestions on how we could factor this out?

[sylvestre]

i prefer the current state than this duplication, sorry

[xtqqczze]

I guess we could include!("../../common/common_cfg.rs") in each build.rs?

[sylvestre]

if it works, it would be better

[xtqqczze]

I've tried specifying the cfg in .cargo/config.toml but it doesn't support expressions like all(...) or any(...).

The only alternative I can think of is introducing a small common_cfg helper crate to centralize the cfg_aliases logic, but that feels a bit heavy-handed.

[xtqqczze]

I guess we could include!("../../common/common_cfg.rs") in each build.rs?

@sylvestre If this works, would you approve the changes?

[oech3]

Cannot we use workespace's toplevel build.rs?

[sylvestre]

Cannot we use workespace's toplevel build.rs?

i don't think it works. i tried too and failed

[sylvestre]

I guess we could include!("../../../common/common_cfg.rs") in each build.rs?

@sylvestre If this works, would you approve the changes?

yes
thanks

[xtqqczze]

I guess we could include!("../../common/common_cfg.rs") in each build.rs?

Annoyingly, this didn't work.

[github-actions]

GNU testsuite comparison:

GNU test failed: tests/cp/cp-a-selinux. tests/cp/cp-a-selinux is passing on 'main'. Maybe you have to rebase?
Skip an intermittent issue tests/date/date-locale-hour (fails in this run but passes in the 'main' branch)
Skip an intermittent issue tests/tail/inotify-dir-recreate (fails in this run but passes in the 'main' branch)
Skipping an intermittent issue tests/cut/bounded-memory (passes in this run but fails in the 'main' branch)
Skipping an intermittent issue tests/pr/bounded-memory (passes in this run but fails in the 'main' branch)
Note: The gnu test tests/cp/link-heap is now being skipped but was previously passing.
Note: The gnu test tests/env/env-signal-handler was skipped on 'main' but is now failing.

[github-actions]

GNU testsuite comparison:

GNU test failed: tests/cp/cp-a-selinux. tests/cp/cp-a-selinux is passing on 'main'. Maybe you have to rebase?
Note: The gnu test tests/cut/cut-huge-range is now being skipped but was previously passing.

[github-actions]

GNU testsuite comparison:

GNU test failed: tests/cp/cp-a-selinux. tests/cp/cp-a-selinux is passing on 'main'. Maybe you have to rebase?
Skip an intermittent issue tests/cut/bounded-memory (fails in this run but passes in the 'main' branch)
Congrats! The gnu test tests/tail/pipe-f is now passing!

[oech3]

I don't like symlink since it breaks tarball extraction on Windows, but can you symlink build.rs?

[xtqqczze]

I don't like symlink since it breaks tarball extraction on Windows, but can you symlink build.rs?

Can't do this because some utilities already have a build.rs.

[oech3]

I'm not sure if you still want to continue this. But if this is blocked by crate's limitation, you should open an issue at there.

[xtqqczze]

@oech3 It's not blocked, but I don't know how to avoid duplication of the aliases

[xtqqczze]

I guess we could include!("../../common/common_cfg.rs") in each build.rs?

This actually works, but rust-analyzer has an issue and shows a macro error: rust-lang/rust-analyzer#20129

[codspeed-hq]

Merging this PR will regress 4 benchmarks

⚠️ Different runtime environments detected

Some benchmarks with significant performance changes were compared across different runtime environments,
which may affect the accuracy of the results.

Open the report in CodSpeed to investigate

⚡ 2 improved benchmarks
❌ 4 regressed benchmarks
✅ 339 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 46 skipped benchmarks¹

Warning

Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

Performance Changes

	Mode	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Efficiency
❌	Simulation	numfmt_to_si_precision[10000]	90.5 ms	95 ms	-4.79%
❌	Simulation	du_max_depth_balanced_tree[(6, 4, 10)]	60.2 ms	62.3 ms	-3.32%
❌	Simulation	numfmt_large_numbers_si[10000]	92.8 ms	95.9 ms	-3.24%
❌	Simulation	du_summarize_balanced_tree[(5, 4, 10)]	15.5 ms	16 ms	-3.17%
⚡	Simulation	false_consecutive_calls	383.6 ns	316.9 ns	+21.04%
⚡	Simulation	ls_recursive_deep_tree[(200, 2)]	3.6 ms	3.5 ms	+4.39%

Tip

Investigate this regression by commenting @codspeedbot fix this regression on this PR, or directly use the CodSpeed MCP with your agent.

---

_{Comparing xtqqczze:cfg_aliases/selinux (ff464bc) with main (b13ee7a)}

Footnotes

1. 46 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports. ↩