Re: rpm -Uhv --oldpackage loses configs

> On Jun 7, 2016, at 10:57 PM, Tomasz Pala wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 14:29:24 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > There are also better solutions than /var/spool/repackage that can be attempted these days. >>> >>> What are they? Filesystem-level

Re: rpm -Uhv --oldpackage loses configs

On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 21:21:35 +0300, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: >>> >There are also better solutions than /var/spool/repackage that can be >>> >attempted these >>> >days. >> What are they? > > docker is one ;) How? Recently I've upgraded foo and after two weeks some problem emerged. How exactly

Re: rpm -Uhv --oldpackage loses configs

On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 14:29:24 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >>> There are also better solutions than /var/spool/repackage that can be >>> attempted these >>> days. >> >> What are they? Filesystem-level snapshots are not suitable when you need >> to revert anything older than a few hours

Re: rpm -Uhv --oldpackage loses configs

On 07.06.2016 21:31, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: Next time you can wait for proyvind to give you a patch to solve whatever rpm problem you report, if that is what you prefer. no i prefer rpm5 modernized it's contribution system, submitting patches to mailing list is so 90s. it should have

Re: rpm -Uhv --oldpackage loses configs

> On Jun 7, 2016, at 2:27 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > > On 07.06.2016 21:18, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> Patches cheerfully accepted at > > seen how you bashed proyvind when he submitted his patches to the list! > 40% of pld patches originate from him.

Re: rpm -Uhv --oldpackage loses configs

> On Jun 7, 2016, at 2:07 PM, Tomasz Pala wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 13:42:23 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > >> There are also better solutions than /var/spool/repackage that can be >> attempted these >> days. > > What are they? Filesystem-level snapshots are not

Re: rpm -Uhv --oldpackage loses configs

On 07.06.2016 21:18, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: Patches cheerfully accepted at seen how you bashed proyvind when he submitted his patches to the list! 40% of pld patches originate from him. do not want to go that path! -- glen

Re: rpm -Uhv --oldpackage loses configs

On 07.06.2016 21:07, Tomasz Pala wrote: On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 13:42:23 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >There are also better solutions than /var/spool/repackage that can be attempted these >days. What are they? docker is one ;) -- glen ___

Re: rpm -Uhv --oldpackage loses configs

On 07.06.2016 21:04, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: The spewage contains pam warning: /etc/security/limits.conf created as /etc/security/limits.conf.rpmnew warning: /etc/security/namespace.init created as /etc/security/namespace.init.rpmnew So the install did not install, the

Re: rpm -Uhv --oldpackage loses configs

> On Jun 7, 2016, at 1:58 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > > >> Meanwhile abandoning %config renaming (and doing a git check-in with >> RPM+LIBGIT2), >> is likely the best forward-looking solution. > pld will not sign up to this. %config handling needs to be fixed. Then PLD has its

Re: rpm -Uhv --oldpackage loses configs

On 07.06.2016 20:42, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: On Jun 7, 2016, at 1:29 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: On 06.06.2016 22:00, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: (pld has --downgrade alias to --oldpackage via popt) downgrading from repackage lost config files, i.e saved them as .rpmsave leaving original

Re: rpm -Uhv --oldpackage loses configs

> On Jun 7, 2016, at 1:49 PM, Tomasz Pala wrote: > > Note: I'm not referring to %config issue reported, this is only by-the-way > question. > > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 13:16:45 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > >>> A propos - would it be possible for rpm to support "--verify

Re: rpm -Uhv --oldpackage loses configs

Note: I'm not referring to %config issue reported, this is only by-the-way question. On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 13:16:45 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> A propos - would it be possible for rpm to support "--verify --package" >> exactly for this purpose, i.e. verifying metadata/manifest against

Re: rpm -Uhv --oldpackage loses configs

> On Jun 7, 2016, at 1:29 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > > On 06.06.2016 22:00, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: >> (pld has --downgrade alias to --oldpackage via popt) >> >> downgrading from repackage lost config files, >> i.e saved them as .rpmsave leaving original path missing > > remote

Re: rpm -Uhv --oldpackage loses configs

On 07.06.2016 20:29, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: On 06.06.2016 22:00, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: (pld has --downgrade alias to --oldpackage via popt) downgrading from repackage lost config files, i.e saved them as .rpmsave leaving original path missing remote reproducer using docker: (commands that

Re: rpm -Uhv --oldpackage loses configs

On 06.06.2016 22:00, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: (pld has --downgrade alias to --oldpackage via popt) downgrading from repackage lost config files, i.e saved them as .rpmsave leaving original path missing remote reproducer using docker: (commands that Dockerfile runs are displayed on that page, so

Re: rpm -Uhv --oldpackage loses configs

On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 10:00:38PM +0300, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > (pld has --downgrade alias to --oldpackage via popt) > > downgrading from repackage lost config files, > i.e saved them as .rpmsave leaving original path missing > It it the same directory: > # ls -l */*pam* > -rw-r--r-- 1 root

Re: rpm -Uhv --oldpackage loses configs

On 07.06.2016 17:48, Jeff Johnson wrote: Sorry for not being precise. Yes the metadata header contains those files. Are the files in the payload? rpm2cpio *.rpm | cpio -itv If the files are not in the payload, then they will not be installed. yes. present: root@glen 1465233457/1#

Re: rpm -Uhv --oldpackage loses configs

On Jun 7, 2016, at 10:45 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > On 07.06.2016 17:39, Jeff Johnson wrote: >> Were the files present on the file system (presumably not, but I'd like >> confirmation)? > yes of course they were present. otherwise there would not be messages from > rpm like: > > warning:

Re: rpm -Uhv --oldpackage loses configs

On Jun 7, 2016, at 10:44 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > >> Do the repackaged rpm’s contain those files.? > > the config files are present in .rpm file and in rpmdb where i installed the > .rpm file: > > # rpm -qplvc 1465233457/pam-1.1.8-8.x86_64.rpm|grep auth > -rw-r--r--1 rootroot

Re: rpm -Uhv --oldpackage loses configs

On 07.06.2016 17:39, Jeff Johnson wrote: Were the files present on the file system (presumably not, but I'd like confirmation)? yes of course they were present. otherwise there would not be messages from rpm like: warning: /etc/security/namespace.init saved as

Re: rpm -Uhv --oldpackage loses configs

On 07.06.2016 17:31, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: ># ls -l */*pam* >-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 326K 6. juuni 20:17 1465233457/pam-1.1.8-8.x86_64.rpm >-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 35K 6. juuni 20:17 1465233457/pam-libs-1.1.8-8.x86_64.rpm > >root@glen spool/repackage# >root@glen spool/repackage# rpm -Uhv

Re: rpm -Uhv --oldpackage loses configs

On Jun 7, 2016, at 10:37 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > On 07.06.2016 17:31, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> Its still not clear to me whether the new package files were installed or >> not. > they were not > > mv -i will ask to overwrite files, it never asked ... so... > Yes I read the man page.

Re: rpm -Uhv --oldpackage loses configs

On 07.06.2016 17:31, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: Its still not clear to me whether the new package files were installed or not. they were not mv -i will ask to overwrite files, it never asked ... so... -- glen ___ pld-devel-en mailing list

Re: rpm -Uhv --oldpackage loses configs

> On Jun 7, 2016, at 4:35 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > > On 07.06.2016 06:33, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> I’m not sure how repackaged rpm’s are involved: that isn’t entirely clear >> from the report. > again, it was included in report that files were installed from repackage >

Re: [projects/geninitrd] Mount /run with 0755.

On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 08:30:57AM +0200, arekm wrote: > commit 583a7f5f8783fb1f92b75ca9f651d675df016b73 > Author: Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz > Date: Tue Jun 7 08:30:46 2016 +0200 > > Mount /run with 0755. [...] > - echo "mount -t tmpfs run /run" | add_linuxrc > + echo

Re: rpm -Uhv --oldpackage loses configs

On 07.06.2016 06:33, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: I’m not sure how repackaged rpm’s are involved: that isn’t entirely clear from the report. again, it was included in report that files were installed from repackage pool: # ls -l */*pam* -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 326K 6. juuni 20:17

Re: rpm -Uhv --oldpackage loses configs

On 07.06.2016 06:33, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: I see rpm renaming modified %config files to *.rpmsave exactly as always, nothing more. > >But doesn't install files that were to replace them. > Really? There is nothing in the e-mail report that indicates that files were not installed. i said in