Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

> On Mar 4, 2017, at 4:35 PM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > > > I have a dim memory of a compatibility patch fix for immutable region trailers > that was needed like a 10+ years ago that I deleted (because deemed unneeded). > Good: the hack that I recall was very very ancient (like

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

> On Mar 4, 2017, at 3:59 PM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > > > > I will know more from examining RPMTAG_RPMVERSION and other build tracking > tags … > OK, here is RPMTAG_RPMVERSION: 0428 0006 01ac 0001 ... d+01ac 342e3500 which is “4.5”, and that package was

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

> On Mar 4, 2017, at 4:30 AM, Jakub Bogusz wrote: > > And one more patch, to make rpm4compat.h header usable again. > fdSize() became exported function, so stop defining static function of > the same name. > Thanks for the patch. Note that maintaining an API compatible

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

> On Mar 4, 2017, at 4:17 AM, Jakub Bogusz wrote: >> >> >> The variable il is derived and may be tainted, while off and nb are de facto >> positioning >> within the header memory blob. And yes, it may not matter. > > il is already used earlier to calculate dataStart.

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

> On Mar 4, 2017, at 1:21 PM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > > > > A header with nested immutable regions would then look like > Y X ABCD QRST abcd x qrst y > where Q,R,S,T are tags associated with the outer immutable region. > Grrr … but at least a picture helped me recreate

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

> On Mar 2, 2017, at 4:05 PM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > > >> On Mar 2, 2017, at 3:52 PM, Jakub Bogusz > > wrote: >> >> >> As far as I understand the code, rdl is size of immutable entry infos >> part, while off is an offset in

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

And one more patch, to make rpm4compat.h header usable again. fdSize() became exported function, so stop defining static function of the same name. -- Jakub Boguszhttp://qboosh.pl/ fdSize is now extern function, declared in . --- rpm-5.4.17/lib/rpm4compat.h.orig2017-03-02

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 04:05:49PM -0500, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > > > On Mar 2, 2017, at 3:52 PM, Jakub Bogusz wrote: > > > > > > As far as I understand the code, rdl is size of immutable entry infos > > part, while off is an offset in tags data part. > > And when

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

> On Mar 2, 2017, at 3:52 PM, Jakub Bogusz wrote: > > > As far as I understand the code, rdl is size of immutable entry infos > part, while off is an offset in tags data part. > And when immutable tags data is short enough (shorter than entry infos > of immutable part),

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:18:01PM -0500, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > > > On Feb 28, 2017, at 3:42 PM, Jakub Bogusz wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 07:15:22PM -0500, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > >> > >>> On Feb 23, 2017, at 3:36 PM, Jakub Bogusz

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

> On Feb 28, 2017, at 3:42 PM, Jakub Bogusz wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 07:15:22PM -0500, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> >>> On Feb 23, 2017, at 3:36 PM, Jakub Bogusz wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 01:43:14PM -0500, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 07:15:22PM -0500, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > > > On Feb 23, 2017, at 3:36 PM, Jakub Bogusz wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 01:43:14PM -0500, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > >> This one is left though: > >> > >>> error: db3: header #187105280 cannot

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 08:10:33PM -0500, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > > I???m sure your analysis is correct ??? > > > > ??? meanwhile what was the core issue? What problem are you trying to solve? This one - inability to query database without write access to db environment (i.e. from plain user

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

> > I’m sure your analysis is correct … > > … meanwhile what was the core issue? What problem are you trying to solve? > > Issues relating to whether a cursor COULD (or SHOULD) read uncommitted data > are quite complex, including whether the flags are inherited from the > database open > and

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

> On Feb 24, 2017, at 5:03 PM, Jakub Bogusz wrote: > >>> >> >> Update: still the same with uid>0 (no write permission to /var/lib/rpm). >> It seems that DB_READ_COMMITTED and DB_READ_UNCOMMITTED require +w, >> so they should be filtered out in unprivileged mode. > >

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 10:02:17PM +0100, Jakub Bogusz wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 09:51:13PM +0100, Jakub Bogusz wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 09:36:24PM +0200, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > > > not cool. > > > > > > $ rpm -q rpm > > > BDB0056 DB->cursor: DB_READ_COMMITTED,

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

> On Feb 23, 2017, at 3:36 PM, Jakub Bogusz wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 01:43:14PM -0500, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> This one is left though: >> >>> error: db3: header #187105280 cannot be loaded -- skipping. >>> error: db3: header #4127850496 cannot be loaded --

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 01:43:14PM -0500, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > This one is left though: > > > error: db3: header #187105280 cannot be loaded -- skipping. > > error: db3: header #4127850496 cannot be loaded -- skipping. > > How to check what these "headers" mean? > (old, unsupported keys?

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

This one is left though: > error: db3: header #187105280 cannot be loaded -- skipping. > error: db3: header #4127850496 cannot be loaded -- skipping. How to check what these "headers" mean? (old, unsupported keys? some old packages with missing fields which are now required?) The error message

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 09:51:13PM +0100, Jakub Bogusz wrote: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 09:36:24PM +0200, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > > not cool. > > > > $ rpm -q rpm > > BDB0056 DB->cursor: DB_READ_COMMITTED, DB_READ_UNCOMMITTED and DB_RMW > > require locking > > error: db3copen:db3.c:1470:

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 09:36:24PM +0200, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > not cool. > > $ rpm -q rpm > BDB0056 DB->cursor: DB_READ_COMMITTED, DB_READ_UNCOMMITTED and DB_RMW > require locking > error: db3copen:db3.c:1470: db->cursor(22): Invalid argument > BDB0056 DB->cursor: DB_READ_COMMITTED,

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 4:23 PM, Tomasz Pala wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 14:58:51 -0500, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > >> AFAIK there???s only a handful of files that benefit from capabilities (but >> I haven???t looked recently: for all I know > Hmmm … that seems to be

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 14:58:51 -0500, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > AFAIK there???s only a handful of files that benefit from capabilities (but I > haven???t looked recently: for all I know For the start - almost every SUID binary. Then - binaries that are currently run with EUID==root only to

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 2:26 PM, Jakub Bogusz wrote: > > By the way - are there any plans to implement fcaps in rpm5? > (like in rpm.org since 4.7.0) > > e.g. mtr.spec looks sad with > %attr(4755,root,root) %{_bindir}/mtr > instead of %caps(cap_net_raw=ep)… > The problem

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

By the way - are there any plans to implement fcaps in rpm5? (like in rpm.org since 4.7.0) e.g. mtr.spec looks sad with %attr(4755,root,root) %{_bindir}/mtr instead of %caps(cap_net_raw=ep)... -- Jakub Boguszhttp://qboosh.pl/ ___ pld-devel-en

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 12:51 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > > On 12.01.2017 19:20, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> Otherwise: >> Did rpm-5.4.17 build correctly? > yes. otherwise i wouldn't able to get the db error, right? :) > > anyway, i haven't looked yet the logs if proper db

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

On 12.01.2017 19:20, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: Otherwise: Did rpm-5.4.17 build correctly? yes. otherwise i wouldn't able to get the db error, right? :) anyway, i haven't looked yet the logs if proper db was linked, but i'm sure it was because there was no other db version available at

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 12:05 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > > On 11.01.2017 00:33, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >>> >i sent it also to pld builders, so you can inspect the logs if you wish. >>> > >>> >but do note that is not the same build i had problem with, so it's not >>>

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

On 11.01.2017 00:33, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >i sent it also to pld builders, so you can inspect the logs if you wish. > >but do note that is not the same build i had problem with, so it's not definitive answer to everything >https://srcbuilder.pld-linux.org/th/queue.html#155086 > That’s the

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

On 11.01.2017 00:33, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: db5.2 should be fine. Better imho would be to add db-6.1.23 or db-6.1.26/db-6.2.23(+PATCH) for RPM-only use, relatively easy to add parallel to “system db” since rpm uses db versioned paths.*shrug* pld "system" db version is 5.3, so that's not the

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

> On Jan 10, 2017, at 4:50 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > > On 10.01.2017 21:49, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> What version of Berkeley DB are you intending? > > pld still intends to use db5.2, not changing db version in "patch" release of > rpm (5.4.15->5.4.17) > db5.2 should

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

On 10.01.2017 21:49, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: What version of Berkeley DB are you intending? pld still intends to use db5.2, not changing db version in "patch" release of rpm (5.4.15->5.4.17) will check the build logs tomorrow. i sent it also to pld builders, so you can inspect the logs if

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

> On Jan 10, 2017, at 2:49 PM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > >> >> On Jan 10, 2017, at 2:36 PM, Elan Ruusamäe > > wrote: >> >> not cool. >> > > You (likely) have misbuilt rpm somehow, likely by picking up > #include > in

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

> On Jan 10, 2017, at 2:36 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > > not cool. > You (likely) have misbuilt rpm somehow, likely by picking up #include in /usr/include rather than the version specific db.h using -I/usr/include/dbXY. > $ rpm -q rpm > BDB0056 DB->cursor:

pld rpm 5.4.17

not cool. $ rpm -q rpm BDB0056 DB->cursor: DB_READ_COMMITTED, DB_READ_UNCOMMITTED and DB_RMW require locking error: db3copen:db3.c:1470: db->cursor(22): Invalid argument BDB0056 DB->cursor: DB_READ_COMMITTED, DB_READ_UNCOMMITTED and DB_RMW require locking error: db3copen:db3.c:1470: