On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Dave Airlie <airl...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Sun, 2009-09-13 at 19:43 +0300, Jonathan Dieter wrote: >> Deltarpm seems to be unable to generate correct rpms for deltarpms >> generated from noarch rpms. The uncompressed payload is correct, but >> the compressed xz payload is different. >> >> To test, using Rawhide's deltarpm, try running "applydeltarpm -r >> anjuta-doc-2.27.3.0-3.fc12.noarch.rpm >> anjuta-doc-2.27.3.0-3.fc12_2.27.92.0-1.fc12.noarch.drpm test.rpm". You >> should end up with an md5 mismatch. If you rpm2cpio test.rpm, you'll >> find that the uncompressed cpio archive is identical to that of >> anjuta-doc-2.27.92.0-1.fc12.noarch.rpm. >> >> As I understand it, noarch rpms are generated on PPC builders. >> >> I suspect this problem is because of one of two reasons: >> 1. The version of xz on the PPC builders is a different version than >> that on the other builders? >> 2. xz generates different compressed files when run on different >> architectures >> >> If it is #2, this is a major problem (at least for yum-presto) because >> the whole purpose of deltarpm is to regenerate the original (compressed) >> rpm, given an older version and a deltarpm. If we can't do that, the >> regenerated package won't pass the signature check and will be >> re-downloaded in full. >> >> I have access to i586 and x86_64 systems, but no PPC systems. Could >> someone either give me access to a PPC system or verify themselves >> whether xz generates different files on different architectures (all >> other things being equal). > > It doesn't. > [airl...@pegasus ~]$ md5sum lm93_busted.o > d7174fc439c4678927725d06de4f18a2 lm93_busted.o > [airl...@pegasus ~]$ xz -z -c lm93_busted.o | md5sum > 86dbb83fea5f4e2f77396b3f491a0cc1 - > > [airl...@ppcg5 ~]$ md5sum lm93_busted.o > d7174fc439c4678927725d06de4f18a2 lm93_busted.o > [airl...@ppcg5 ~]$ xz -z -c lm93_busted.o | md5sum > acf84a6c173b040f6cf8ea96c7daa513 - > > > thats just a random file I had on my machine here, > first is x86 32-bit, second is ppc. > xz-4.999.9-0.1.beta.fc12 on both. > > Dave.
That really really sucks. Thanks for checking it for me. Jonathan -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
