[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] macros: add %_rpmmacrodir (#262)
It has been used in redhat-rpm-config for long time and some
packages depend on it (though without `_` prefix).
It's just more convenient than writing %{_rpmconfigdir}/macros.d/...
Signed-off-by: Igor Gnatenko
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/262
-- Commit Summary --
* macros: add %_rpmmacrodir
-- File Changes --
M macros.in (2)
-- Patch Links --
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/262.patch
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/262.diff
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/262
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Do not hardcode "lib/rpm" as the installation path for default config… (#263)
…uration and macros. This can be named in various different ways, especially in cross-compilation environments, so let's take it from the build setup. You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/263 -- Commit Summary -- * Do not hardcode "lib/rpm" as the installation path for default configuration and macros. -- File Changes -- M configure.ac (2) M macros.in (2) M rpm.am (4) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/263.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/263.diff -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/263 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] macros: add %_rpmmacrodir (#262)
Merged #262. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/262#event-1171910137___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Do not hardcode "lib/rpm" as the installation path for default config… (#263)
Conan-Kudo requested changes on this pull request.
So this can be a problem, because on LSB-compliant 64-bit systems (i.e. most of
them running RPM), `${libdir}` is `/usr/lib64`.
If we wanted to move it anywhere, we'd probably move it to `${libexecdir}`,
since that is static across architectures, and would more or less have the same
effect you're looking for.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/263#pullrequestreview-51180631___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Print exit code with rpm -vv (from @n3npq, #195) (#252)
Closed #252. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/252#event-1172069958___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Print exit code with rpm -vv (from @n3npq, #195) (#252)
Pushed. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/252#issuecomment-316698323___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Print exit code with rpm -vv (from @n3npq, #195) (#252)
@ffesti Thanks! -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/252#issuecomment-316698441___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Print exit code with rpm -vv (+PATCH) (#195)
Closed #195. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/195#event-1172099300___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Print exit code with rpm -vv (+PATCH) (#195)
Pushed as #252 -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/195#issuecomment-316702937___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Python tests are running even python support is disabled (#264)
I think I will not add full tests log, but tests are failing on
```python
cat << EOF > test.py
import rpm, sys
dbpath=rpm.expandMacro('%_dbpath')
rpm.addMacro('_dbpath', '${abs_builddir}/testing%s' % dbpath)
def myprint(msg = ''):
sys.stdout.write('%s\n' % msg)
myprint(rpm.__version__)
EOF
python test.py
--- /dev/null 2017-07-20 10:25:05.082012205 +
+++ /opt/rpm/tests/rpmtests.dir/at-groups/340/stderr2017-07-20
10:26:07.746704426 +
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+Traceback (most recent call last):
+ File "test.py", line 1, in
+import rpm, sys
+ImportError: No module named rpm
--- - 2017-07-20 10:26:07.755072483 +
+++ /opt/rpm/tests/rpmtests.dir/at-groups/340/stdout2017-07-20
10:26:07.750704465 +
@@ -1,2 +1 @@
-4.13.90
./rpmpython.at:6: exit code was 1, expected 0
```
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/264___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Python bindings from builddir are not used in tests (#265)
``` ... make[2]: Entering directory '/opt/rpm/python' CC rpmmodule.lo CC header-py.lo CC rpmarchive-py.lo CC rpmds-py.lo CC rpmfd-py.lo CC rpmfi-py.lo CC rpmfiles-py.lo CC rpmkeyring-py.lo CC rpmmi-py.lo CC rpmii-py.lo CC rpmps-py.lo CC rpmmacro-py.lo CC rpmstrpool-py.lo CC rpmtd-py.lo CC rpmte-py.lo CC rpmts-py.lo CCLD _rpm.la CC rpmbmodule.lo CC spec-py.lo CCLD _rpmb.la CC rpmsmodule.lo CCLD _rpms.la make[2]: Leaving directory '/opt/rpm/python' ... ``` And during tests: ``` +ImportError: No module named rpm ``` -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/265___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [PATCH] config: Detect major/minor warnings and include the correct system header.
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 02:49:38PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: > glibc 2.25 introduced (really long and annoying) warnings for each use > of the major/minor macros from the wrong header: > > lib/cpio.c: In function ‘rpmcpioHeaderWrite’: > lib/cpio.c:245:13: warning: In the GNU C Library, "major" is defined > by . For historical compatibility, it is > currently defined by as well, but we plan to > remove this soon. To use "major", include > directly. If you did not intend to use a system-defined macro > "major", you should undefine it after including . > dev = major(st->st_dev); SET_NUM_FIELD(hdr->devMajor, dev, field); > ^~ > > Adjust the configure check and undef the warning producing macros to get > rid of the wrong definitions and use the macros from the right include. > > Tested against RHEL7 (glibc 2.17) and Fedora 26 (glibc 2.25). > > Signed-off-by: Mark Wielaard > --- > configure.ac | 8 > lib/cpio.c | 6 ++ > 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac > index cc657ec..017a908 100644 > --- a/configure.ac > +++ b/configure.ac > @@ -561,7 +561,15 @@ AM_ICONV > > dnl Checks for header files we can live without. > AC_HEADER_STDC > +dnl glibc and autoconf don't really play well together. > +dnl glibc will produce a warning when including the wrong header. > +dnl but still define major and minor. Causing us to include the header > +dnl that produces a giant warning for each major/minor use. > +dnl Use -Werror to work around that. > +old_CFLAGS=$CFLAGS > +CFLAGS="$CFLAGS -Werror" > AC_HEADER_MAJOR > +CFLAGS=$old_CFLAGS > AC_STRUCT_DIRENT_D_TYPE > > AC_CHECK_HEADERS(limits.h) > diff --git a/lib/cpio.c b/lib/cpio.c > index 57c9592..b7ba27d 100644 > --- a/lib/cpio.c > +++ b/lib/cpio.c > @@ -9,9 +9,15 @@ > > #include "system.h" > > +/* system.h might already have included the wrong header, undef major > + and minor and get the real definition from one of the correct headers. */ > #if MAJOR_IN_MKDEV > +#undef major > +#undef minor > #include > #elif MAJOR_IN_SYSMACROS > +#undef major > +#undef minor > #include > #else > #include /* already included from system.h */ I'm not sure what sys/mkdev.h does, but glibc's sys/sysmacros.h certainly undefines major, minor, and makedev prior to defining its own versions of these macros. My guess is that these undefs are not needed. -- ldv signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Semaphore CI (#266)
cc @markoa You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/266 -- Commit Summary -- * add Fedora's Dockerfile for CI * tests: don't copy fstab to chroot * ci: enable silent rules -- File Changes -- A ci/Dockerfile (50) M tests/Makefile.am (2) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/266.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/266.diff -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/266 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Semaphore CI (#266)
cgwalters commented on this pull request. > @@ -0,0 +1,49 @@ +FROM fedora +MAINTAINER Igor Gnatenko + +WORKDIR /opt/rpm +COPY . . + +RUN echo -e "deltarpm=0\ninstall_weak_deps=0\ntsflags=nodocs" >> /etc/dnf/dnf.conf +RUN dnf -y update +RUN dnf -y install \ In some [PAPR](https://github.com/projectatomic/papr) projects like rpm-ostree we just pull the builddeps from the distro, I think this is a lot saner than repeating them here again. See [this example](https://github.com/projectatomic/rpm-ostree/blob/f25444554dac95c5ff469f64192bad17a2916c3a/ci/build.sh#L20). -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/266#pullrequestreview-51231058___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Semaphore CI (#266)
cgwalters commented on this pull request. > @@ -0,0 +1,49 @@ +FROM fedora +MAINTAINER Igor Gnatenko + +WORKDIR /opt/rpm +COPY . . + +RUN echo -e "deltarpm=0\ninstall_weak_deps=0\ntsflags=nodocs" >> /etc/dnf/dnf.conf +RUN dnf -y update +RUN dnf -y install \ Which calls into this: https://github.com/projectatomic/rpm-ostree/blob/f25444554dac95c5ff469f64192bad17a2916c3a/ci/libbuild.sh#L18 (Which is a good example of a minor annoyance from the yum → dnf rename) -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/266#discussion_r128541216___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Semaphore CI (#266)
ignatenkobrain commented on this pull request. > @@ -0,0 +1,49 @@ +FROM fedora +MAINTAINER Igor Gnatenko + +WORKDIR /opt/rpm +COPY . . + +RUN echo -e "deltarpm=0\ninstall_weak_deps=0\ntsflags=nodocs" >> /etc/dnf/dnf.conf +RUN dnf -y update +RUN dnf -y install \ well, yes and no. * If RPM starts/stops requiring something -- it is only way how to properly deal with that (especially with RPM release cadence) * We don't really need all deps for all tests here -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/266#discussion_r128549447___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Semaphore CI (#266)
LGTM :shipit: -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/266#issuecomment-316740455___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Semaphore CI (#266)
One thing I'm wondering about, why I don't see job triggered by this pull-request ;) -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/266#issuecomment-316741207___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Semaphore CI (#266)
Merged #266. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/266#event-1172459222___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] find-debuginfo.sh: Remove non-allocated NOBITS sections from minisymtab. (#267)
In the minisymtab section (the .gnu_debugdata embedded ELF image) we do not need unallocated sections (except for the SYMTAB and STRTAB sections we are creating). We already remove PROGBITS and NOTES. Also remove NOBITS sections. They should not really take up much (any) space but they still add to the section tables. These sections might be created with the new --keep-section support (which puts the actual section in the main ELF binary, and a NOBITS variant in the .debug file). Also binutils objcopy seems to sometimes add them anyway filled with zeros instead of marking them NOBITS. Signed-off-by: Mark Wielaard (this is same patch as posted to mailing list, sending it here since now we have CI) You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/267 -- Commit Summary -- * find-debuginfo.sh: Remove non-allocated NOBITS sections from minisymtab. -- File Changes -- M scripts/find-debuginfo.sh (8) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/267.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/267.diff -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/267 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] replaceSigDigests is only used with IMAEVM. (#268)
The replaceSigDigests function is only used in includeFileSignatures when WITH_IMAEVM is defined. If not warning is generated. Signed-off-by: Mark Wielaard (this is same patch as posted to mailing list, sending it here since now we have CI) You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/268 -- Commit Summary -- * replaceSigDigests is only used with IMAEVM. -- File Changes -- M sign/rpmgensig.c (2) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/268.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/268.diff -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/268 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Adding header tag formats to generate UUIDS (#269)
UUID's provide a common format for identification and database retrieval.
The attached patch adds a header tag format to RPM queries.
- UUIDv1 time stamps (for events like build/install times):
```
$ ./rpm -q --qf '%{buildtime:uuidv1}\n' bash
c60fd500-bc0a-11e7-804e-003048b801de
```
- UUIDv3 namespace identifiers based on MD5 (like package/header digests)
```
$ ./rpm -q --qf '%{sigmd5:uuidv3}\n' bash
c24fd63e-14c4-32d1-84f5-168a1f2908db
```
- UUIDv4 random nonces (overkill because random, but added for completeness)
```
$ ./rpm -q --qf '%{sigmd5:uuidv4}\n' bash
b7a15d96-c4cd-4e41-8598-6463375cb39f
```
- UUIDv5 namespace identifiers based on SHA1 (like package/header digests)
```
$ ./rpm -q --qf '%{sigmd5:uuidv5}\n' bash
9292a557-f445-5f36-9b79-8e79a6efaaa2
```
The UUIDv3/UUIDv5 name spaces can be configured through optional macros
(defaults below)
```
%_uuid_authhttp://rpm.org
%_uuid_path/packages
```
For reference, the actual text used for, say, Sha1header, in a namespace UUID
looks like
```
http://rpm.org/packages/Sha1header/
```
Essentially a prefix (to make the namespace unique) of %_uuid_auth and
%_uuid_path followed by a tag name and a tag value.
UUID's will be the starting point for a RPM+LMDB implementation used as header
retrieval keys.
You will need the acinclude.m4 file from issue #257 to use the patch below.
Adding the hires timestamps from issue #197 would improve the UUIDv1
granularity (not implemented).
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/269___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Adding header tag formats to generate UUIDS (#269)
[rpm_uuid.patch.gz](https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/files/1163437/rpm_uuid.patch.gz) -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/269#issuecomment-316801741___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fail to check signature (#270)
This happens when updating update from 4.13.0.1-release to master branch: ```sh rpm -qlp /tmp/capsule-01.00.12-r0.core2_64.rpm error: /tmp/capsule-01.00.12-r0.core2_64.rpm: signature region 62: tag number mismatch 7 ril 6 dl 792 rdl 168 error: /tmp/capsule-01.00.12-r0.core2_64.rpm: not an rpm package (or package manifest) ``` I used commit a8e51b3bb05c6acb1d9b2e3d34f859ddda1677be as starting point for a bisect since I knew it was failing and was already with it checked out (related bug: https://github.com/intel-aero/meta-intel-aero/issues/219). Test script: ```sh cat /tmp/test.sh #!/bin/bash -e git clean -ffxd ./autogen.sh --prefix=/usr --without-lua --disable-python --with-external-db \ CPPFLAGS="-I/usr/include/nspr4 -I/usr/include/nss3 -I/usr/include/db45 " make -j4 ./rpm -qlp /tmp/capsule-01.00.12-r0.core2_64.rpm ``` Bisect log: ``` # Tested with with "git bisect run /tmp/test.sh" git bisect start # bad: [a8e51b3bb05c6acb1d9b2e3d34f859ddda1677be] brp-python-bytecompile: Process python lib dirs even without standard Python git bisect bad a8e51b3bb05c6acb1d9b2e3d34f859ddda1677be # good: [e97d475ae2cf6709f2bbdaba34f90b87d454c13c] Preparing for rpm 4.13.0.1 git bisect good e97d475ae2cf6709f2bbdaba34f90b87d454c13c # good: [d27f0167aa53951c4164a5d49149ad416c5a1ee4] Get rid of warnigs caused by d18fdd7f8964d01b4dfc39bf84133695cff5a13a git bisect good d27f0167aa53951c4164a5d49149ad416c5a1ee4 # good: [e5d3b9f682383ee026b5a86a47eb5f288bdf8991] rpmdb.c: (rpmdbCheckTerminate) return non-zero on subsequent runs git bisect good e5d3b9f682383ee026b5a86a47eb5f288bdf8991 # bad: [5b714956b7776edea635f73daa1137aa44609290] Optionally validate string is hex in rpmSigInfoParse() git bisect bad 5b714956b7776edea635f73daa1137aa44609290 # bad: [e9e637e2559926ef0d4aa3f7cf686d1944e1d036] Fix expandFormat() to work with all string types git bisect bad e9e637e2559926ef0d4aa3f7cf686d1944e1d036 # good: [cb97c0161236e5ba9d560b95cadd41eba87cccfc] Add + use a helper function for converting entry info to host endianess git bisect good cb97c0161236e5ba9d560b95cadd41eba87cccfc # bad: [0cc5ee83f1f7f345a9d46166eac2cbe4d5ba84dc] Bury the last remains of non-header signatures into lead git bisect bad 0cc5ee83f1f7f345a9d46166eac2cbe4d5ba84dc # good: [d26dff0632f5a23c6da3795656e8137d4057bc13] Eliminate unnecessary entry argument to headerVerifyRegion() git bisect good d26dff0632f5a23c6da3795656e8137d4057bc13 # good: [66145664fb1d7bb7e9d584c69f97c7869de5997f] Whitespace cleanup in headerVerifyRegion() git bisect good 66145664fb1d7bb7e9d584c69f97c7869de5997f # bad: [441a0998fca9b3d01052bc3d33f8a72f725d5865] Require exact match on header vs region sizes when reading package files git bisect bad 441a0998fca9b3d01052bc3d33f8a72f725d5865 # good: [6e0b5dc9f10d7d3ee944dcd63d1c6019b2e80f0d] Verify region data size fits the header git bisect good 6e0b5dc9f10d7d3ee944dcd63d1c6019b2e80f0d # first bad commit: [441a0998fca9b3d01052bc3d33f8a72f725d5865] Require exact match on header vs region sizes when reading package files ``` Test rpm can be downloaded from here: https://downloadmirror.intel.com/26500/eng/capsule-01.00.12-r0.core2_64.rpm It's not obvious for me what the fix should be since the commit itself should actually be a fix as far as I understand. Doing the wrong thing and removing the check for `exact_size` "fixes" the issue, but is also probably the wrong thing to do. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/270___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fail to check signature (#270)
That is a package produced by RPM5: ``` $ /opt/local/bin/rpm -qp --yaml ./capsule-01.00.12-r0.core2_64.rpm | grep Rpmversion Rpmversion: 5.4.16 ``` The package uses a non-repudiable signature and verifies fine: ``` $ /opt/local/bin/rpm -qvvp ./capsule-01.00.12-r0.core2_64.rpm ... D: PUB: 3375C959 31F7927C V4 DSA D: == DSA pubkey id 3375c959 31f7927c (package) D: ./capsule-01.00.12-r0.core2_64.rpm: Header V4 DSA signature: OK, key ID 31f7927c ``` However, RPM4 can't find the pubkey contained in the package. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/270#issuecomment-31657___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fail to check signature (#270)
Thanks for identifying the specific checkin. RPM4 has changed the definition of what is called an "immutable region" in a signature header. An "immutable region" is identified with an index/data length as well as a trailer which duplicates the same information. The test for an exact_match in the commit has altered the definition of an "immutable region" and appears to have introduced an incompatibility. If you are going to handle Yocto packages built by RPM5 using RPM4 sanely, your best bet is to back out that specific "exact_match" change. You will be no worse off than you were before, the test is rather arcane and anal retentive. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/270#issuecomment-316893255___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fail to check signature (#270)
@n3npq thanks for looking into this. This rpm may be the only one I'll have to deal with and I can regenerate it using rpm4 reasonably easy. However I thought it was important to notify upstream since when other distros update they may face similar problems since they don't have much control over what .rpm users are going to install. Maybe an option to rpm to allow it to continue even if the "exact_match" test fails? Or changing this to be a warning rather than an error since it causes compatibility issues? Thanks -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/270#issuecomment-316898358___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fail to check signature (#270)
Regarding using RPM4 to manager RPM5 packages, the reason is that the previous version of the distro was using RPM5. However due to incompatibilities with dnf it was decided by uptream Yocto developers do switch to RPM4. In our Yocto-based distro there are some leftover rpm files that weren't rebuilt since it's a BIOS package and there weren't any updates to it. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/270#issuecomment-316898876___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fail to check signature (#270)
The often stated public policy here with RPM4 is "Compatibility with RPM5 is a negative goal." Don't hold your breath for a patch: I will generate and distribute a patch as soon as I understand the full consequences of recent changes to the RPM format. Yes, Yocto issues are well known. The rpm5+dnf incompatibilities were grossly exaggerated. *shrug* whatever. FYI: I maintain RPM5, and have several (like almost 10 ;-) years of experience dealing with Poky/Yocto packaging issues. Meanwhile I suspect that capsule is only the first, not the last, RPM5 package that you will see. Ripping out the "exact_size" test will solve the issue until there is more info or a better fix available. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/270#issuecomment-316903692___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
