From n3npq at me.com Mon Oct 1 04:04:22 2012 From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2012 22:04:22 -0400 Subject: rpm-4.5-69.i686 crash on Qt upgrade In-Reply-To: <50681A00.6040608@pld-linux.org> References: <50681A00.6040608@pld-linux.org> Message-ID: On Sep 30, 2012, at 6:08 AM, Elan Ruusam?e wrote: > decided to write, as mmazur said in irc that for him crash occoured also in Qt upgrade > > my random guess is that rpm45 does not like something that rpm5 put into .rpm package, > as haven't seen rpm45 crashing for a long time. > As good a gas as any: wanna bet? ;-) Show me -v -v output and I can likely guess what the problem is. 73 de Jeff From glen at pld-linux.org Mon Oct 1 12:13:38 2012 From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Elan_Ruusam=E4e?=) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 13:13:38 +0300 Subject: rpm-4.5-69.i686 crash on Qt upgrade In-Reply-To: References: <50681A00.6040608@pld-linux.org> Message-ID: <50696CD2.40906@pld-linux.org> On 01.10.2012 05:04, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > On Sep 30, 2012, at 6:08 AM, Elan Ruusam?e wrote: > >> decided to write, as mmazur said in irc that for him crash occoured also in Qt upgrade >> >> my random guess is that rpm45 does not like something that rpm5 put into .rpm package, >> as haven't seen rpm45 crashing for a long time. >> > As good a gas as any: wanna bet? ;-) > > Show me -v -v output and I can likely guess what the problem is. > -v -v of what? i don't have time machine or backup of that previous state -- glen From baggins at pld-linux.org Mon Oct 1 12:47:29 2012 From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=) Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 12:47:29 +0200 Subject: rpm-4.5-69.i686 crash on Qt upgrade In-Reply-To: References: <50681A00.6040608@pld-linux.org> Message-ID: <20121001104729.GS20345@sith.mimuw.edu.pl> On Sun, 30 Sep 2012, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > > On Sep 30, 2012, at 6:08 AM, Elan Ruusam?e wrote: > > > decided to write, as mmazur said in irc that for him crash occoured also in Qt upgrade > > > > my random guess is that rpm45 does not like something that rpm5 put into .rpm package, > > as haven't seen rpm45 crashing for a long time. > > > > As good a gas as any: wanna bet? ;-) > > Show me -v -v output and I can likely guess what the problem is. Here you go: D: ========== +++ QtXmlPatterns-4.8.3-6 x86_64-linux 0x2 D: Expected size: 1027293 = lead(96)+sigs(268)+pad(4)+data(1026925) D: Actual size: 1027293 D: QtXmlPatterns-4.8.3-6: Header V4 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID e4f1bc2d D: install: QtXmlPatterns-4.8.3-6 has 6 files, test = 0 6:QtXmlPatterns D: ========== Directories not explicitly included in package: D: 0 /usr/bin/ D: 1 /usr/lib64/ D: 2 /usr/lib64/qt4/bin/ D: ========== D: fini 120755 1 ( 0, 0) 37 /usr/bin/xmlpatternsvalidator;5049aab4 D: fini 120755 1 ( 0, 0) 25 /usr/lib64/libQtXmlPatterns.so.4.8;5049aab4 D: fini 100755 1 ( 0, 0) 4448144 /usr/lib64/libQtXmlPatterns.so.4.8.3;5049aab4 ########################################### [100%] D: fini 100755 1 ( 0, 0) 65424 /usr/lib64/qt4/bin/xmlpatterns;5049aab4 D: fini 100755 1 ( 0, 0) 12000 /usr/lib64/qt4/bin/xmlpatternsvalidator;5049aab4 LZDIO: 553 reads, 4526496 total bytes in 0.094108 secs D: +++ /var/cache/hrmib/QtXmlPatterns-4.8.3-6.x86_64 D: +++ h# 1751 Header V4 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID e4f1bc2d D: adding "QtXmlPatterns" to Name index. D: adding 6 entries to Basenames index. D: adding "X11/Libraries" to Group index. D: adding 20 entries to Requirename index. D: adding 5 entries to Providename index. D: adding 3 entries to Dirnames index. D: adding 20 entries to Requireversion index. D: adding 5 entries to Provideversion index. D: adding 1 entries to Installtid index. D: adding 1 entries to Sigmd5 index. D: adding "c16b5e5e3d026f4d5a8628ffcbf09f094ef22f4d" to Sha1header index. rpm: rpmdb.c:3429: rpmdbAdd: Assertion `(dlen & 1) == 0' failed. -- Jan R?korajski | PLD/Linux SysAdm | http://www.pld-linux.org/ bagginsmimuw.edu.pl bagginspld-linux.org From qboosh at pld-linux.org Mon Oct 1 18:28:37 2012 From: qboosh at pld-linux.org (Jakub Bogusz) Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 18:28:37 +0200 Subject: [packages/gtk-webkit3] Replace -g2 with -g1 to not run into 4 GB ar format limit. Release 2 In-Reply-To: <30934c41b1c49a1d41f4e83803528b019ecd60fa_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org> References: <9130be7041b448dcd9e0888f46558e797c44785e_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org> <30934c41b1c49a1d41f4e83803528b019ecd60fa_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org> Message-ID: <20121001162837.GA2998@mail> On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 09:33:21AM +0200, megabajt wrote: > commit 30934c41b1c49a1d41f4e83803528b019ecd60fa > Author: Marcin Banasiak > Date: Mon Oct 1 09:32:59 2012 +0200 > > Replace -g2 with -g1 to not run into 4 GB ar format limit. Release 2 > @@ -68,6 +67,8 @@ Requires: pango >= 1:1.21.0 > %{?with_introspection:Conflicts: gir-repository < 0.6.5-7} > BuildRoot: %{tmpdir}/%{name}-%{version}-root-%(id -u -n) > > +%define filterout -g2 > + > %description > gtk-webkit3 is a port of the WebKit embeddable web component to GTK+ 3. > > @@ -111,6 +112,11 @@ Dokumentacja API WebKita. > %{__autoheader} > %{__automake} > %{__autoconf} > +# replace -g2 with -g1 to not run into 4 GB ar format limit > +# https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=91154 > +# http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14625 > +export CFLAGS="%{rpmcflags} -g1" > +export CXXFLAGS="%{rpmcxxflags} -g1" Not this way, please. You can use sed to replace -g2 with -g1, but don't add -g1 unconditionally. -- Jakub Bogusz http://qboosh.pl/ From n3npq at me.com Mon Oct 1 19:33:44 2012 From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 13:33:44 -0400 Subject: rpm-4.5-69.i686 crash on Qt upgrade In-Reply-To: <20121001104729.GS20345@sith.mimuw.edu.pl> References: <50681A00.6040608@pld-linux.org> <20121001104729.GS20345@sith.mimuw.edu.pl> Message-ID: On Oct 1, 2012, at 6:47 AM, Jan R?korajski wrote: > On Sun, 30 Sep 2012, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > >> >> On Sep 30, 2012, at 6:08 AM, Elan Ruusam?e wrote: >> >>> decided to write, as mmazur said in irc that for him crash occoured also in Qt upgrade >>> >>> my random guess is that rpm45 does not like something that rpm5 put into .rpm package, >>> as haven't seen rpm45 crashing for a long time. >>> >> >> As good a gas as any: wanna bet? ;-) >> >> Show me -v -v output and I can likely guess what the problem is. > > Here you go: > > D: ========== +++ QtXmlPatterns-4.8.3-6 x86_64-linux 0x2 > D: Expected size: 1027293 = lead(96)+sigs(268)+pad(4)+data(1026925) > D: Actual size: 1027293 > D: QtXmlPatterns-4.8.3-6: Header V4 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID e4f1bc2d > D: install: QtXmlPatterns-4.8.3-6 has 6 files, test = 0 > 6:QtXmlPatterns > D: ========== Directories not explicitly included in package: > D: 0 /usr/bin/ > D: 1 /usr/lib64/ > D: 2 /usr/lib64/qt4/bin/ > D: ========== > D: fini 120755 1 ( 0, 0) 37 /usr/bin/xmlpatternsvalidator;5049aab4 > D: fini 120755 1 ( 0, 0) 25 /usr/lib64/libQtXmlPatterns.so.4.8;5049aab4 > D: fini 100755 1 ( 0, 0) 4448144 /usr/lib64/libQtXmlPatterns.so.4.8.3;5049aab4 > ########################################### [100%] > D: fini 100755 1 ( 0, 0) 65424 /usr/lib64/qt4/bin/xmlpatterns;5049aab4 > D: fini 100755 1 ( 0, 0) 12000 /usr/lib64/qt4/bin/xmlpatternsvalidator;5049aab4 > LZDIO: 553 reads, 4526496 total bytes in 0.094108 secs > D: +++ /var/cache/hrmib/QtXmlPatterns-4.8.3-6.x86_64 > D: +++ h# 1751 Header V4 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID e4f1bc2d > D: adding "QtXmlPatterns" to Name index. > D: adding 6 entries to Basenames index. > D: adding "X11/Libraries" to Group index. > D: adding 20 entries to Requirename index. > D: adding 5 entries to Providename index. > D: adding 3 entries to Dirnames index. > D: adding 20 entries to Requireversion index. > D: adding 5 entries to Provideversion index. > D: adding 1 entries to Installtid index. > D: adding 1 entries to Sigmd5 index. > D: adding "c16b5e5e3d026f4d5a8628ffcbf09f094ef22f4d" to Sha1header index. > rpm: rpmdb.c:3429: rpmdbAdd: Assertion `(dlen & 1) == 0' failed. > OK. Here is the code containing the assertion failure (in rpm-4.5, 2 occurrences): if (dbi->dbi_rpmtag == RPMTAG_FILEDIGESTS) { const char * s = rpmvals[i]; size_t dlen = strlen(s); byte * t; assert((dlen & 1) == 0); dlen /= 2; bin = t = xcalloc(1, dlen); for (j = 0; j < dlen; j++, t++, s += 2) *t = (nibble(s[0]) << 4) | nibble(s[1]); key->data = bin; key->size = dlen; /*@switchbreak@*/ break; } The assertion is a sanity check on the number of hex digits in RPMTAG_FILEDIGESTS strings (which will always be even). What digest is in use for file content? The digest algorithm is configurable in rpm-5.x, and is more likely to be SHA256/SHA1 than MD5 these days. 73 de Jeff > -- > Jan R?korajski | PLD/Linux > SysAdm | http://www.pld-linux.org/ > bagginsmimuw.edu.pl > bagginspld-linux.org > _______________________________________________ > pld-devel-en mailing list > pld-devel-en at lists.pld-linux.org > http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en From n3npq at me.com Mon Oct 1 20:41:15 2012 From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 14:41:15 -0400 Subject: rpm-4.5-69.i686 crash on Qt upgrade In-Reply-To: References: <50681A00.6040608@pld-linux.org> <20121001104729.GS20345@sith.mimuw.edu.pl> Message-ID: <071151EC-3D7D-4827-9146-0BC811BBFAE0@me.com> On Oct 1, 2012, at 1:33 PM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > > The assertion is a sanity check on the number of hex digits in RPMTAG_FILEDIGESTS > strings (which will always be even). > > What digest is in use for file content? The digest algorithm is configurable in rpm-5.x, and > is more likely to be SHA256/SHA1 than MD5 these days. > The simplest "legacy compatible" fix is to drop the Filedigests index. You will lose the ability to query by "fileid" (which I doubt you will miss). (untested patch against cvs, not PLD rpm-4.5) Index: macros.in =================================================================== RCS file: /v/rpm/cvs/rpm/Attic/macros.in,v retrieving revision 1.159.2.14 diff -p -u -w -r1.159.2.14 macros.in --- macros.in 19 Mar 2009 01:04:41 -0000 1.159.2.14 +++ macros.in 1 Oct 2012 18:39:07 -0000 @@ -633,7 +633,7 @@ print (t)\ %{!?_rpmdb_rebuild:%{__dbi_btconfig_current}}\ %{nil} -%_dbi_tags Packages:Name:Basenames:Group:Requirename:Providename:Conflictname:Triggername:Dirnames:Requireversion:Provideversion:Installtid:Sigmd5:Sha1header:Filemd5s:Depends:Pubkeys +%_dbi_tags Packages:Name:Basenames:Group:Requirename:Providename:Conflictname:Triggername:Dirnames:Requireversion:Provideversion:Installtid:Sigmd5:Sha1header:Depends:Pubkeys %_dbi_config_Dirnames %{_dbi_btconfig} %_dbi_config_Requireversion %{_dbi_btconfig} hth 73 de Jeff From baggins at pld-linux.org Mon Oct 1 22:55:40 2012 From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=) Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 22:55:40 +0200 Subject: rpm-4.5-69.i686 crash on Qt upgrade In-Reply-To: References: <50681A00.6040608@pld-linux.org> <20121001104729.GS20345@sith.mimuw.edu.pl> Message-ID: <20121001205540.GA1505@home.lan> On Mon, 01 Oct 2012, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > > On Oct 1, 2012, at 6:47 AM, Jan R?korajski wrote: > > > On Sun, 30 Sep 2012, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > > > >> > >> On Sep 30, 2012, at 6:08 AM, Elan Ruusam?e wrote: > >> > >>> decided to write, as mmazur said in irc that for him crash occoured also in Qt upgrade > >>> > >>> my random guess is that rpm45 does not like something that rpm5 put into .rpm package, > >>> as haven't seen rpm45 crashing for a long time. > >>> > >> > >> As good a gas as any: wanna bet? ;-) > >> > >> Show me -v -v output and I can likely guess what the problem is. > > > > Here you go: > > > > D: ========== +++ QtXmlPatterns-4.8.3-6 x86_64-linux 0x2 [...] > > D: adding "c16b5e5e3d026f4d5a8628ffcbf09f094ef22f4d" to Sha1header index. > > rpm: rpmdb.c:3429: rpmdbAdd: Assertion `(dlen & 1) == 0' failed. > > > > OK. > > Here is the code containing the assertion failure (in rpm-4.5, 2 occurrences): > if (dbi->dbi_rpmtag == RPMTAG_FILEDIGESTS) { > const char * s = rpmvals[i]; > size_t dlen = strlen(s); > byte * t; > assert((dlen & 1) == 0); > dlen /= 2; > bin = t = xcalloc(1, dlen); > for (j = 0; j < dlen; j++, t++, s += 2) > *t = (nibble(s[0]) << 4) | nibble(s[1]); > key->data = bin; > key->size = dlen; > /*@switchbreak@*/ break; > } > > The assertion is a sanity check on the number of hex digits in RPMTAG_FILEDIGESTS > strings (which will always be even). > > What digest is in use for file content? The digest algorithm is configurable in rpm-5.x, and > is more likely to be SHA256/SHA1 than MD5 these days. Both rpm 4.5 and now rpm 5.4 use MD5 as file digest algo. And ripping out filemd5 index is quite pointless, as the problem is the inability to install package build with rpm5 on a system with rpm 4.5, so the real fix is "upgrade to rpm5". But it would be good to know what is the cause of that bug to not break things before upgrade. -- Jan R?korajski | PLD/Linux SysAdm | http://www.pld-linux.org/ bagginsmimuw.edu.pl bagginspld-linux.org From n3npq at me.com Tue Oct 2 06:01:36 2012 From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 00:01:36 -0400 Subject: rpm-4.5-69.i686 crash on Qt upgrade In-Reply-To: <20121001205540.GA1505@home.lan> References: <50681A00.6040608@pld-linux.org> <20121001104729.GS20345@sith.mimuw.edu.pl> <20121001205540.GA1505@home.lan> Message-ID: On Oct 1, 2012, at 4:55 PM, Jan R?korajski wrote: >> >> What digest is in use for file content? The digest algorithm is configurable in rpm-5.x, and >> is more likely to be SHA256/SHA1 than MD5 these days. > > Both rpm 4.5 and now rpm 5.4 use MD5 as file digest algo. > > And ripping out filemd5 index is quite pointless, as the problem is the Agreed: pointless hack-o-round removing the Filedigest index ? > inability to install package build with rpm5 on a system with rpm 4.5, ? but "legacy compatibility" doesn't come for free, and rpm-4.5 has no upgrade path (all explained carefully at length to arekm & glen years ago when the decision to use rpm-4.5 instead of rpm-5.x was made) > so the real fix is "upgrade to rpm5". But it would be good to know what > is the cause of that bug to not break things before upgrade. > I can certainly generate the patch to rpm-4.5: convince me why I should waste any time on retrofitting "stuff" into an obsolete version of rpm-4.5 and I will do so. These are ancient -- and quite predictable -- compatibility issues associated with a change from MD5 to other Newer! Better! Bestest! digest algorithms. Hint: I again suggest you try removing adding entries to the Filedigests index to avoid having to solve "legacy compatible" issues that really do not matter. hth 73 de Jeff From baggins at pld-linux.org Tue Oct 2 07:39:43 2012 From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 07:39:43 +0200 Subject: rpm-4.5-69.i686 crash on Qt upgrade In-Reply-To: References: <50681A00.6040608@pld-linux.org> <20121001104729.GS20345@sith.mimuw.edu.pl> <20121001205540.GA1505@home.lan> Message-ID: <20121002053943.GA1514@home.lan> On Tue, 02 Oct 2012, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > > On Oct 1, 2012, at 4:55 PM, Jan R?korajski wrote: > >> > >> What digest is in use for file content? The digest algorithm is configurable in rpm-5.x, and > >> is more likely to be SHA256/SHA1 than MD5 these days. > > > > Both rpm 4.5 and now rpm 5.4 use MD5 as file digest algo. > > > > And ripping out filemd5 index is quite pointless, as the problem is the > > Agreed: pointless hack-o-round removing the Filedigest index ? > > > inability to install package build with rpm5 on a system with rpm 4.5, > > ? but "legacy compatibility" doesn't come for free, and rpm-4.5 > has no upgrade path (all explained carefully at length to arekm & glen > years ago when the decision to use rpm-4.5 instead of rpm-5.x was made) > > > so the real fix is "upgrade to rpm5". But it would be good to know what > > is the cause of that bug to not break things before upgrade. > > > > I can certainly generate the patch to rpm-4.5: convince me why I should waste any > time on retrofitting "stuff" into an obsolete version of rpm-4.5 and I will do so. No, no, no. I don't want to touch rpm-4.5 code at all. I'd like to know what is rpm5 doing that kills rpm-4.5. Or, how to put into every build package a simple dep "Conflicts: rpm < 5" as it will simply force rpm upgrade. > These are ancient -- and quite predictable -- compatibility issues associated > with a change from MD5 to other Newer! Better! Bestest! digest algorithms. But the default is still MD5. > Hint: I again suggest you try removing adding entries to the Filedigests index > to avoid having to solve "legacy compatible" issues that really do not matter. I can do that, but it will not solve the issue reported here. It will be a bandaid after the fact. BTW what's going on with rpm5.org? I can't connect to it from anywhere. -- Jan R?korajski | PLD/Linux SysAdm | http://www.pld-linux.org/ bagginsmimuw.edu.pl bagginspld-linux.org From n3npq at me.com Tue Oct 2 15:11:00 2012 From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 09:11:00 -0400 Subject: rpm-4.5-69.i686 crash on Qt upgrade In-Reply-To: <20121002053943.GA1514@home.lan> References: <50681A00.6040608@pld-linux.org> <20121001104729.GS20345@sith.mimuw.edu.pl> <20121001205540.GA1505@home.lan> <20121002053943.GA1514@home.lan> Message-ID: <20719DC8-0D0C-4525-9426-BD052D9A28A8@me.com> On Oct 2, 2012, at 1:39 AM, Jan R?korajski wrote: > On Tue, 02 Oct 2012, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > >> >> On Oct 1, 2012, at 4:55 PM, Jan R?korajski wrote: >>>> >>>> What digest is in use for file content? The digest algorithm is configurable in rpm-5.x, and >>>> is more likely to be SHA256/SHA1 than MD5 these days. >>> >>> Both rpm 4.5 and now rpm 5.4 use MD5 as file digest algo. >>> >>> And ripping out filemd5 index is quite pointless, as the problem is the >> >> Agreed: pointless hack-o-round removing the Filedigest index ? >> >>> inability to install package build with rpm5 on a system with rpm 4.5, >> >> ? but "legacy compatibility" doesn't come for free, and rpm-4.5 >> has no upgrade path (all explained carefully at length to arekm & glen >> years ago when the decision to use rpm-4.5 instead of rpm-5.x was made) >> >>> so the real fix is "upgrade to rpm5". But it would be good to know what >>> is the cause of that bug to not break things before upgrade. >>> >> >> I can certainly generate the patch to rpm-4.5: convince me why I should waste any >> time on retrofitting "stuff" into an obsolete version of rpm-4.5 and I will do so. > > No, no, no. I don't want to touch rpm-4.5 code at all. I'd like to know > what is rpm5 doing that kills rpm-4.5. > Then examine all the data that is in the rpm header, looking for a file digest that has an odd (as in 1, 3, 5, ?) no. of hex digits in the string. If the assert failure is happening only sometimes, then the root cause, not just the assert failure symptom, needs to be identified. WYSIWYG rpm -qp --yaml foo*.rpm > Or, how to put into every build package a simple dep "Conflicts: rpm < 5" as it > will simply force rpm upgrade. > Ick: totally the wrong approach. >> These are ancient -- and quite predictable -- compatibility issues associated >> with a change from MD5 to other Newer! Better! Bestest! digest algorithms. > > But the default is still MD5. > Then there SHOULD be a hex string with an odd (as in 1,3,5, ?) no. of hex digits. And the root cause is likely something else. >> Hint: I again suggest you try removing adding entries to the Filedigests index >> to avoid having to solve "legacy compatible" issues that really do not matter. > > I can do that, but it will not solve the issue reported here. It will be a > bandaid after the fact. > What solution is possible if no code can be changed? Dropping the Filedigests index is a C-O-N-F-I-G-U-R-A-T-I-O-N change btw. > BTW what's going on with rpm5.org? I can't connect to it from anywhere. Yep @rpm5.org http is busted atm, maybe forever. 73 de Jeff From n3npq at me.com Tue Oct 2 15:11:00 2012 From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 09:11:00 -0400 Subject: rpm-4.5-69.i686 crash on Qt upgrade In-Reply-To: <20121002053943.GA1514@home.lan> References: <50681A00.6040608@pld-linux.org> <20121001104729.GS20345@sith.mimuw.edu.pl> <20121001205540.GA1505@home.lan> <20121002053943.GA1514@home.lan> Message-ID: On Oct 2, 2012, at 1:39 AM, Jan R?korajski wrote: > On Tue, 02 Oct 2012, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > >> >> On Oct 1, 2012, at 4:55 PM, Jan R?korajski wrote: >>>> >>>> What digest is in use for file content? The digest algorithm is configurable in rpm-5.x, and >>>> is more likely to be SHA256/SHA1 than MD5 these days. >>> >>> Both rpm 4.5 and now rpm 5.4 use MD5 as file digest algo. >>> >>> And ripping out filemd5 index is quite pointless, as the problem is the >> >> Agreed: pointless hack-o-round removing the Filedigest index ? >> >>> inability to install package build with rpm5 on a system with rpm 4.5, >> >> ? but "legacy compatibility" doesn't come for free, and rpm-4.5 >> has no upgrade path (all explained carefully at length to arekm & glen >> years ago when the decision to use rpm-4.5 instead of rpm-5.x was made) >> >>> so the real fix is "upgrade to rpm5". But it would be good to know what >>> is the cause of that bug to not break things before upgrade. >>> >> >> I can certainly generate the patch to rpm-4.5: convince me why I should waste any >> time on retrofitting "stuff" into an obsolete version of rpm-4.5 and I will do so. > > No, no, no. I don't want to touch rpm-4.5 code at all. I'd like to know > what is rpm5 doing that kills rpm-4.5. > Then examine all the data that is in the rpm header, looking for a file digest that has an odd (as in 1, 3, 5, ?) no. of hex digits in the string. If the assert failure is happening only sometimes, then the root cause, not just the assert failure symptom, needs to be identified. WYSIWYG rpm -qp --yaml foo*.rpm > Or, how to put into every build package a simple dep "Conflicts: rpm < 5" as it > will simply force rpm upgrade. > Ick: totally the wrong approach. >> These are ancient -- and quite predictable -- compatibility issues associated >> with a change from MD5 to other Newer! Better! Bestest! digest algorithms. > > But the default is still MD5. > Then there SHOULD be a hex string with an odd (as in 1,3,5, ?) no. of hex digits. And the root cause is likely something else. >> Hint: I again suggest you try removing adding entries to the Filedigests index >> to avoid having to solve "legacy compatible" issues that really do not matter. > > I can do that, but it will not solve the issue reported here. It will be a > bandaid after the fact. > What solution is possible if no code can be changed? Dropping the Filedigests index is a C-O-N-F-I-G-U-R-A-T-I-O-N change btw. > BTW what's going on with rpm5.org? I can't connect to it from anywhere. Yep @rpm5.org http is busted atm, maybe forever. 73 de Jeff From baggins at pld-linux.org Tue Oct 2 19:10:49 2012 From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 19:10:49 +0200 Subject: rpm-4.5-69.i686 crash on Qt upgrade In-Reply-To: <20719DC8-0D0C-4525-9426-BD052D9A28A8@me.com> References: <50681A00.6040608@pld-linux.org> <20121001104729.GS20345@sith.mimuw.edu.pl> <20121001205540.GA1505@home.lan> <20121002053943.GA1514@home.lan> <20719DC8-0D0C-4525-9426-BD052D9A28A8@me.com> Message-ID: <20121002171049.GA1692@home.lan> On Tue, 02 Oct 2012, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > Then examine all the data that is in the rpm header, looking for > a file digest that has an odd (as in 1, 3, 5, ?) no. of hex digits > in the string. > > If the assert failure is happening only sometimes, then the > root cause, not just the assert failure symptom, needs to > be identified. > > WYSIWYG > rpm -qp --yaml foo*.rpm > Diff between package built with rpm-4.5 and rpm5: --- QtXmlPatterns-4.8.2-8.x86_64.rpm.yaml 2012-10-02 18:58:09.785203104 +0200 +++ QtXmlPatterns-4.8.3-6.x86_64.rpm.yaml 2012-10-02 18:58:09.805203104 +0200 @@ -53,14 +69,14 @@ Filedigests: - ~ - ~ - ~ - - ca8235752f514d51cf0ffeb9e341ec9d - - b35726f465b533a4406165d9e524d5bf - - 829fb2332a1dd35094a626c5610f3f74 + - 46b61400c99701b4c11d11d910e028bbdator + - 53d8d681212d8e71bba13fe28b7a6faadator + - f5ca838ce74266d1803ee0659572e884dator Filelinktos: - ../lib64/qt4/bin/xmlpatternsvalidator - - libQtXmlPatterns.so.4.8.2 - - libQtXmlPatterns.so.4.8.2 + - libQtXmlPatterns.so.4.8.3 + - libQtXmlPatterns.so.4.8.3 - ~ - ~ - ~ Looks like buffer error. > > Or, how to put into every build package a simple dep "Conflicts: rpm < 5" as it > > will simply force rpm upgrade. > > > > Ick: totally the wrong approach. > > >> These are ancient -- and quite predictable -- compatibility issues associated > >> with a change from MD5 to other Newer! Better! Bestest! digest algorithms. > > > > But the default is still MD5. > > > > Then there SHOULD be a hex string with an odd (as in 1,3,5, ?) no. of hex digits. > > And the root cause is likely something else. > > >> Hint: I again suggest you try removing adding entries to the Filedigests index > >> to avoid having to solve "legacy compatible" issues that really do not matter. > > > > I can do that, but it will not solve the issue reported here. It will be a > > bandaid after the fact. > > > > What solution is possible if no code can be changed? Dropping the > Filedigests index is a C-O-N-F-I-G-U-R-A-T-I-O-N change btw. The solution is to fix the buffer error which effects can be seen above. > > BTW what's going on with rpm5.org? I can't connect to it from anywhere. > > Yep @rpm5.org http is busted atm, maybe forever. Awww :( What is the current place of rpm5 now in that case? -- Jan R?korajski | PLD/Linux SysAdm | http://www.pld-linux.org/ bagginsmimuw.edu.pl bagginspld-linux.org From n3npq at me.com Tue Oct 2 19:20:33 2012 From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 13:20:33 -0400 Subject: rpm-4.5-69.i686 crash on Qt upgrade In-Reply-To: <20121002171049.GA1692@home.lan> References: <50681A00.6040608@pld-linux.org> <20121001104729.GS20345@sith.mimuw.edu.pl> <20121001205540.GA1505@home.lan> <20121002053943.GA1514@home.lan> <20719DC8-0D0C-4525-9426-BD052D9A28A8@me.com> <20121002171049.GA1692@home.lan> Message-ID: On Oct 2, 2012, at 1:10 PM, Jan R?korajski wrote: > On Tue, 02 Oct 2012, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > >> Then examine all the data that is in the rpm header, looking for >> a file digest that has an odd (as in 1, 3, 5, ?) no. of hex digits >> in the string. >> >> If the assert failure is happening only sometimes, then the >> root cause, not just the assert failure symptom, needs to >> be identified. >> >> WYSIWYG >> rpm -qp --yaml foo*.rpm >> > > Diff between package built with rpm-4.5 and rpm5: > > --- QtXmlPatterns-4.8.2-8.x86_64.rpm.yaml 2012-10-02 18:58:09.785203104 +0200 > +++ QtXmlPatterns-4.8.3-6.x86_64.rpm.yaml 2012-10-02 18:58:09.805203104 +0200 > @@ -53,14 +69,14 @@ > Filedigests: > - ~ > - ~ > - ~ > - - ca8235752f514d51cf0ffeb9e341ec9d > - - b35726f465b533a4406165d9e524d5bf > - - 829fb2332a1dd35094a626c5610f3f74 > + - 46b61400c99701b4c11d11d910e028bbdator > + - 53d8d681212d8e71bba13fe28b7a6faadator > + - f5ca838ce74266d1803ee0659572e884dator > Filelinktos: > - ../lib64/qt4/bin/xmlpatternsvalidator > - - libQtXmlPatterns.so.4.8.2 > - - libQtXmlPatterns.so.4.8.2 > + - libQtXmlPatterns.so.4.8.3 > + - libQtXmlPatterns.so.4.8.3 > - ~ > - ~ > - ~ > > Looks like buffer error. Looks like a missing \0 being added on some (but not all) code paths. Running valgrind is worth doing to see if there is anything wildly amiss: but I don't expect valgrind to be able to spot the missing \0 because of buffer reuse on the stack. There's something screwy on this package that is triggering the flaw (or all packages would be affected equally). Can you spot the root cause in the QtXmlPatterns.spec syntax? If I have some hint what the trigger is, I can likely find/fix the problem very quickly. >> >> What solution is possible if no code can be changed? Dropping the >> Filedigests index is a C-O-N-F-I-G-U-R-A-T-I-O-N change btw. > > The solution is to fix the buffer error which effects can be seen above. > Absolutely: meanwhile the assert failure can be avoided by not generating the Filedigests index. >>> BTW what's going on with rpm5.org? I can't connect to it from anywhere. >> >> Yep @rpm5.org http is busted atm, maybe forever. > > Awww :( > What is the current place of rpm5 now in that case? > Same place as always, just busted (and I have other more important tasks to accomplish) atm. 73 de Jeff > -- > Jan R?korajski | PLD/Linux > SysAdm | http://www.pld-linux.org/ > bagginsmimuw.edu.pl > bagginspld-linux.org > _______________________________________________ > pld-devel-en mailing list > pld-devel-en at lists.pld-linux.org > http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en From n3npq at me.com Tue Oct 2 19:42:24 2012 From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 13:42:24 -0400 Subject: rpm-4.5-69.i686 crash on Qt upgrade In-Reply-To: References: <50681A00.6040608@pld-linux.org> <20121001104729.GS20345@sith.mimuw.edu.pl> <20121001205540.GA1505@home.lan> <20121002053943.GA1514@home.lan> <20719DC8-0D0C-4525-9426-BD052D9A28A8@me.com> <20121002171049.GA1692@home.lan> Message-ID: On Oct 2, 2012, at 1:20 PM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > > On Oct 2, 2012, at 1:10 PM, Jan R?korajski wrote: > >> On Tue, 02 Oct 2012, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> >>> Then examine all the data that is in the rpm header, looking for >>> a file digest that has an odd (as in 1, 3, 5, ?) no. of hex digits >>> in the string. >>> >>> If the assert failure is happening only sometimes, then the >>> root cause, not just the assert failure symptom, needs to >>> be identified. >>> >>> WYSIWYG >>> rpm -qp --yaml foo*.rpm >>> >> >> Diff between package built with rpm-4.5 and rpm5: >> >> --- QtXmlPatterns-4.8.2-8.x86_64.rpm.yaml 2012-10-02 18:58:09.785203104 +0200 >> +++ QtXmlPatterns-4.8.3-6.x86_64.rpm.yaml 2012-10-02 18:58:09.805203104 +0200 >> @@ -53,14 +69,14 @@ >> Filedigests: >> - ~ >> - ~ >> - ~ >> - - ca8235752f514d51cf0ffeb9e341ec9d >> - - b35726f465b533a4406165d9e524d5bf >> - - 829fb2332a1dd35094a626c5610f3f74 >> + - 46b61400c99701b4c11d11d910e028bbdator >> + - 53d8d681212d8e71bba13fe28b7a6faadator >> + - f5ca838ce74266d1803ee0659572e884dator >> Filelinktos: >> - ../lib64/qt4/bin/xmlpatternsvalidator >> - - libQtXmlPatterns.so.4.8.2 >> - - libQtXmlPatterns.so.4.8.2 >> + - libQtXmlPatterns.so.4.8.3 >> + - libQtXmlPatterns.so.4.8.3 >> - ~ >> - ~ >> - ~ >> >> Looks like buffer error. > > Looks like a missing \0 being added on some (but not all) > code paths. > Hmmm ? there's almost enough info there to start digging. There's a missing symlink end-point when built by rpm5. Meanwhile the trailing "?dator" seems to indicate an attempt to read the symlink. readlink(2) also returns strings w/o \0, though Readlink() in rpmio should terminate strings. Lemme see if I can find where the missing \0 (and the missing symlink) went. todo++ 73 de Jeff From baggins at pld-linux.org Tue Oct 2 19:51:28 2012 From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 19:51:28 +0200 Subject: rpm-4.5-69.i686 crash on Qt upgrade In-Reply-To: References: <50681A00.6040608@pld-linux.org> <20121001104729.GS20345@sith.mimuw.edu.pl> <20121001205540.GA1505@home.lan> <20121002053943.GA1514@home.lan> <20719DC8-0D0C-4525-9426-BD052D9A28A8@me.com> <20121002171049.GA1692@home.lan> Message-ID: <20121002175128.GB1692@home.lan> On Tue, 02 Oct 2012, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > > On Oct 2, 2012, at 1:10 PM, Jan R?korajski wrote: > > > On Tue, 02 Oct 2012, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > > > >> Then examine all the data that is in the rpm header, looking for > >> a file digest that has an odd (as in 1, 3, 5, ?) no. of hex digits > >> in the string. > >> > >> If the assert failure is happening only sometimes, then the > >> root cause, not just the assert failure symptom, needs to > >> be identified. > >> > >> WYSIWYG > >> rpm -qp --yaml foo*.rpm > >> > > > > Diff between package built with rpm-4.5 and rpm5: > > > > --- QtXmlPatterns-4.8.2-8.x86_64.rpm.yaml 2012-10-02 18:58:09.785203104 +0200 > > +++ QtXmlPatterns-4.8.3-6.x86_64.rpm.yaml 2012-10-02 18:58:09.805203104 +0200 > > @@ -53,14 +69,14 @@ > > Filedigests: > > - ~ > > - ~ > > - ~ > > - - ca8235752f514d51cf0ffeb9e341ec9d > > - - b35726f465b533a4406165d9e524d5bf > > - - 829fb2332a1dd35094a626c5610f3f74 > > + - 46b61400c99701b4c11d11d910e028bbdator > > + - 53d8d681212d8e71bba13fe28b7a6faadator > > + - f5ca838ce74266d1803ee0659572e884dator > > Filelinktos: > > - ../lib64/qt4/bin/xmlpatternsvalidator > > - - libQtXmlPatterns.so.4.8.2 > > - - libQtXmlPatterns.so.4.8.2 > > + - libQtXmlPatterns.so.4.8.3 > > + - libQtXmlPatterns.so.4.8.3 > > - ~ > > - ~ > > - ~ > > > > Looks like buffer error. > > Looks like a missing \0 being added on some (but not all) > code paths. > > Running valgrind is worth doing to see if there is > anything wildly amiss: but I don't expect valgrind > to be able to spot the missing \0 because of buffer reuse > on the stack. > > There's something screwy on this package that is triggering > the flaw (or all packages would be affected equally). > > Can you spot the root cause in the QtXmlPatterns.spec syntax? > If I have some hint what the trigger is, I can likely find/fix > the problem very quickly. That package is built from the, quite large, qt4.spec so it's hard to spot anything there :( Maybe %files will give a hint? %define _qtdir %{_libdir}/qt4 %files -n QtXmlPatterns %defattr(644,root,root,755) %attr(755,root,root) %{_qtdir}/bin/xmlpatterns %attr(755,root,root) %{_qtdir}/bin/xmlpatternsvalidator %attr(755,root,root) %{_bindir}/xmlpatternsvalidator %attr(755,root,root) %{_libdir}/libQtXmlPatterns.so.*.* %attr(755,root,root) %ghost %{_libdir}/libQtXmlPatterns.so.4 -- Jan R?korajski | PLD/Linux SysAdm | http://www.pld-linux.org/ bagginsmimuw.edu.pl bagginspld-linux.org From n3npq at me.com Tue Oct 2 19:56:24 2012 From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 13:56:24 -0400 Subject: rpm-4.5-69.i686 crash on Qt upgrade In-Reply-To: <20121002175128.GB1692@home.lan> References: <50681A00.6040608@pld-linux.org> <20121001104729.GS20345@sith.mimuw.edu.pl> <20121001205540.GA1505@home.lan> <20121002053943.GA1514@home.lan> <20719DC8-0D0C-4525-9426-BD052D9A28A8@me.com> <20121002171049.GA1692@home.lan> <20121002175128.GB1692@home.lan> Message-ID: On Oct 2, 2012, at 1:51 PM, Jan R?korajski wrote: > > That package is built from the, quite large, qt4.spec so it's hard to > spot anything there :( Yes. I needed some understanding why some but not all packages are affected. > Maybe %files will give a hint? > Yes. I predict that if you move %attr(755,root,root) %{_qtdir}/bin/xmlpatternsvalidator to the end of %files, then the problem will disappear. A real fix is needed still: but its useful to know whether the problem is dependent on path order in %files. > %define _qtdir %{_libdir}/qt4 > > %files -n QtXmlPatterns > %defattr(644,root,root,755) > %attr(755,root,root) %{_qtdir}/bin/xmlpatterns > %attr(755,root,root) %{_qtdir}/bin/xmlpatternsvalidator > %attr(755,root,root) %{_bindir}/xmlpatternsvalidator > %attr(755,root,root) %{_libdir}/libQtXmlPatterns.so.*.* > %attr(755,root,root) %ghost %{_libdir}/libQtXmlPatterns.so.4 > hth 73 de Jeff > -- > Jan R?korajski | PLD/Linux > SysAdm | http://www.pld-linux.org/ > bagginsmimuw.edu.pl > bagginspld-linux.org > _______________________________________________ > pld-devel-en mailing list > pld-devel-en at lists.pld-linux.org > http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en From baggins at pld-linux.org Tue Oct 2 21:37:03 2012 From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 21:37:03 +0200 Subject: rpm-4.5-69.i686 crash on Qt upgrade In-Reply-To: References: <20121001104729.GS20345@sith.mimuw.edu.pl> <20121001205540.GA1505@home.lan> <20121002053943.GA1514@home.lan> <20719DC8-0D0C-4525-9426-BD052D9A28A8@me.com> <20121002171049.GA1692@home.lan> <20121002175128.GB1692@home.lan> Message-ID: <20121002193703.GE1692@home.lan> On Tue, 02 Oct 2012, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > > On Oct 2, 2012, at 1:51 PM, Jan R?korajski wrote: > > > > > That package is built from the, quite large, qt4.spec so it's hard to > > spot anything there :( > > Yes. I needed some understanding why some but not all packages are affected. > > > Maybe %files will give a hint? > > > > Yes. I predict that if you move > %attr(755,root,root) %{_qtdir}/bin/xmlpatternsvalidator > to the end of %files, then the problem will disappear. Just FYI - moving that to the end of %files did not helped at all. I still see poisoned digests. -- Jan R?korajski | PLD/Linux SysAdm | http://www.pld-linux.org/ bagginsmimuw.edu.pl bagginspld-linux.org From n3npq at me.com Tue Oct 2 22:21:44 2012 From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson) Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 16:21:44 -0400 Subject: rpm-4.5-69.i686 crash on Qt upgrade In-Reply-To: <20121002193703.GE1692@home.lan> References: <20121001104729.GS20345@sith.mimuw.edu.pl> <20121001205540.GA1505@home.lan> <20121002053943.GA1514@home.lan> <20719DC8-0D0C-4525-9426-BD052D9A28A8@me.com> <20121002171049.GA1692@home.lan> <20121002175128.GB1692@home.lan> <20121002193703.GE1692@home.lan> Message-ID: On Oct 2, 2012, at 3:37 PM, Jan R?korajski wrote: > On Tue, 02 Oct 2012, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > >> >> On Oct 2, 2012, at 1:51 PM, Jan R?korajski wrote: >> >>> >>> That package is built from the, quite large, qt4.spec so it's hard to >>> spot anything there :( >> >> Yes. I needed some understanding why some but not all packages are affected. >> >>> Maybe %files will give a hint? >>> >> >> Yes. I predict that if you move >> %attr(755,root,root) %{_qtdir}/bin/xmlpatternsvalidator >> to the end of %files, then the problem will disappear. > > Just FYI - moving that to the end of %files did not helped at all. > I still see poisoned digests. > Thanks for checking. This patch SHOULD ensure ascii digest are terminated with a trailing \0 Index: rpmdb/legacy.c =================================================================== RCS file: /v/rpm/cvs/rpm/rpmdb/legacy.c,v retrieving revision 1.44.4.3 diff -p -u -w -r1.44.4.3 legacy.c --- rpmdb/legacy.c 16 Apr 2012 23:43:34 -0000 1.44.4.3 +++ rpmdb/legacy.c 2 Oct 2012 20:17:21 -0000 @@ -282,8 +282,10 @@ int dodigest(int dalgo, const char * fn, exit: if (fsizep) *fsizep = fsize; - if (!rc) + if (!rc) { memcpy(digest, dsum, dlen); + if (asAscii) digest[dlen] = '\0'; + } dsum = _free(dsum); return rc; Is something else needed for the missing symlink end-point entry? 73 de Jeff From baggins at pld-linux.org Tue Oct 2 22:57:25 2012 From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 22:57:25 +0200 Subject: rpm-4.5-69.i686 crash on Qt upgrade In-Reply-To: References: <20121001205540.GA1505@home.lan> <20121002053943.GA1514@home.lan> <20719DC8-0D0C-4525-9426-BD052D9A28A8@me.com> <20121002171049.GA1692@home.lan> <20121002175128.GB1692@home.lan> <20121002193703.GE1692@home.lan> Message-ID: <20121002205725.GF1692@home.lan> On Tue, 02 Oct 2012, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > > On Oct 2, 2012, at 3:37 PM, Jan R?korajski wrote: > > > On Tue, 02 Oct 2012, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > > > >> > >> On Oct 2, 2012, at 1:51 PM, Jan R?korajski wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> That package is built from the, quite large, qt4.spec so it's hard to > >>> spot anything there :( > >> > >> Yes. I needed some understanding why some but not all packages are affected. > >> > >>> Maybe %files will give a hint? > >>> > >> > >> Yes. I predict that if you move > >> %attr(755,root,root) %{_qtdir}/bin/xmlpatternsvalidator > >> to the end of %files, then the problem will disappear. > > > > Just FYI - moving that to the end of %files did not helped at all. > > I still see poisoned digests. > > > > Thanks for checking. > > This patch SHOULD ensure ascii digest are terminated with a trailing \0 Confirmed, works as expected. > Is something else needed for the missing symlink end-point entry? Nothing that I'm aware of. -- Jan R?korajski | PLD/Linux SysAdm | http://www.pld-linux.org/ bagginsmimuw.edu.pl bagginspld-linux.org From baggins at pld-linux.org Fri Oct 5 14:59:23 2012 From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 14:59:23 +0200 Subject: [packages/gnome-control-center] - patch to use heimdal kerberos implementation In-Reply-To: References: <63015fa2bca2f504e9301fad784c97ff399dfe0a_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org> Message-ID: <20121005125923.GB1555@home.lan> You need to generate HAVE_KRB5_GET_INIT_CREDS_OPT_SET_OUT_CCACHE definition in configure, or you may get unpredictable results if you ever build it with MIT ;) On Fri, 05 Oct 2012, kiesiu wrote: > commit e23087188dce0c74833f4c3d480316509a6f819e > Author: ?ukasz Kie? > Date: Fri Oct 5 14:40:24 2012 +0200 > > - patch to use heimdal kerberos implementation > > krb5.patch | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+) > --- > diff --git a/krb5.patch b/krb5.patch > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..260e9aa > --- /dev/null > +++ b/krb5.patch > @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ > +diff -uNr gnome-control-center-3.6.0/panels/user-accounts/um-realm-manager.c gnome-control-center-3.6.0.new/panels/user-accounts/um-realm-manager.c > +--- gnome-control-center-3.6.0/panels/user-accounts/um-realm-manager.c 2012-09-24 17:39:34.000000000 +0200 > ++++ gnome-control-center-3.6.0.new/panels/user-accounts/um-realm-manager.c 2012-10-05 14:30:29.557805038 +0200 > +@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ > + > + #include "um-realm-manager.h" > + > +-#include > ++#include > + > + #include > + #include > +@@ -703,8 +703,10 @@ > + code = krb5_get_init_creds_opt_alloc (k5, &opts); > + g_return_val_if_fail (code == 0, code); > + > ++#ifdef HAVE_KRB5_GET_INIT_CREDS_OPT_SET_OUT_CCACHE > + code = krb5_get_init_creds_opt_set_out_ccache (k5, opts, ccache); > + g_return_val_if_fail (code == 0, code); > ++#endif > + > + code = krb5_get_init_creds_password (k5, &creds, principal, > + (char *)password, > ================================================================ > > ---- gitweb: > > http://git.pld-linux.org/gitweb.cgi/packages/gnome-control-center.git/commitdiff/49c1b881b47743e0c76eaf9158a37fd6532c111f > > _______________________________________________ > pld-cvs-commit mailing list > pld-cvs-commit at lists.pld-linux.org > http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-cvs-commit -- Jan R?korajski | PLD/Linux SysAdm | http://www.pld-linux.org/ bagginsmimuw.edu.pl bagginspld-linux.org From qboosh at pld-linux.org Fri Oct 5 15:49:51 2012 From: qboosh at pld-linux.org (Jakub Bogusz) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 15:49:51 +0200 Subject: git - renaming already existing package In-Reply-To: <20120928154652.GA8391@camk.edu.pl> References: <20120908200836.GA1790@mail> <20120910174512.GA7192@mail> <506069D8.7010304@pld-linux.org> <20120928154652.GA8391@camk.edu.pl> Message-ID: <20121005134951.GA1306@stranger.qboosh.pl> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 05:46:52PM +0200, Kacper Kornet wrote: > On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 05:10:32PM +0300, Elan Ruusam?e wrote: > > On 10.09.2012 20:45, Jakub Bogusz wrote: > > >On Sat, Sep 08, 2012 at 10:08:36PM +0200, Jakub Bogusz wrote: > > >>>What is the procedure to rename already existing (also on ftp) package > > >>>after moving to git? > > > >>>cvs2git howto says "ssh git at ... move ... ..." instead of rename - > > >>>is it appropriate for such case (would old package be accessible using > > >>>old name/auto tag?) - in cvs cp was invoked instead of mv. > > >>>Or should old repo be imported as new under new name? > > >OK, I've checked that "move" clones the repo in fact, > > >and writes ".gitolite.down" file (what does it do?). > > >Should I do something with the old package repo then? (trash?) > > i noticed too, that it clones to new repo and does nothing with old repo > > > i.e the old repo seems to be > > 1) browseable from gitweb > > 2) cloneable from ssh+git url > > 3) cloneable from git url > > 4) fully available in github mirror > > > so it's not working fully? > > It works as intended. The old version is read only. And attempt to push > to it will result in printing the content of .gitolite.down file with > information that the package has been renamed. OK. Is there a way to just copy a repo (without setting the old one r/o)? Plain gitolite has "fork" (or clone? I don't remember exactly atm.) command, but it seems not available in PLD interface. -- Jakub Bogusz http://qboosh.pl/ From draenog at pld-linux.org Fri Oct 5 16:05:16 2012 From: draenog at pld-linux.org (Kacper Kornet) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 16:05:16 +0200 Subject: Large patches in git repositories Message-ID: <20121005140512.GA26291@camk.edu.pl> Recently one email to pld-cvs was blocked due to large size of generated diff. The "offending" file was gcc-branch.diff from crossmingw64-gcc which is 11M. Does this file include and PLD specific changes or is it just a diff between released version and tip of branch in some foreign (not PLD) repository? In latter case maybe it should be kept in the distfiles in compressed form? Right now there are following limits file sizes in git repositories: 1) unlimited - files *.patch, *.diff, *.spec 2) 2000000 bytes - text files 3) 200000 bytes - all other files so very big patches are accepted. However I wonder if it should be the case. Another question is if we decide to move it to distfiles should the git repo be rewritten to not include history of this file and reduce repo size. There are other similar files. Below I include the list of every file larger then 1M which its maximum size in history: 24145161 gcc.git/gcc-branch.diff 22482085 crossmingw64-gcc.git/gcc-branch.diff 18974931 crossppc-gcc.git/gcc-branch.diff 15958604 kdenetwork.git/kdenetwork-branch.diff 8506730 twig.git/twig-php4.patch 5924877 kernel-xen.git/kernel-xen-xen.patch 5924877 kernel.git/kernel-xen-xen.patch 5197379 kernel.git/wanpipe-beta7-2.3.4.patch 4905399 kernel.git/xfs.patch 4620152 kernel.git/patch-2.4.21-pre1 4221290 X11.git/X11-6.8.2-20050205.patch 3952673 kernel.git/linux-2.6-pom-ng-branch.diff 3895669 kdepim.git/kdepim-branch.diff 3737296 X11.git/X11-6.8.2-final.patch 3556968 kernel.git/kernel-grsec_full.patch 3377961 libxml.git/libxml-remake.patch 3356609 kdebase.git/kdebase-branch.diff 3152510 kernel.git/linux-reiser4.patch 2938946 libsidplay2.git/libsidplay2-debian_fixes.patch 2922601 kernel.git/reiser4-2.6.13-mm3.patch 2894615 kernel.git/xen-3.0.4-2.6.19.patch 2759551 kdegraphics.git/kpdf2-kdegraphics-3.5.5.patch 2711506 kernel.git/linux-2.2.18-freeswan-1.8.patch 2701063 kernel.git/reiser4-2.6.12-mm1.patch 2673490 php.git/php-fpm.patch 2541668 kernel.git/linux-2.6-xen.patch 2540400 kernel.git/patch-2.6.0-test4-bk6 2519795 kernel.git/reiser4-for-2.6.24.patch 2514370 kernel-rcd.git/kernel-desktop-reiser4.patch 2514370 kernel-desktop.git/kernel-desktop-reiser4.patch 2495470 X11.git/X11-6.8.2-20050108.patch 2493922 kernel.git/kernel-reiser4.patch 2459257 kernel.git/reiser4-for-2.6.19-2.patch 2457813 kernel.git/reiser4-for-2.6.19-3.patch 2452206 kernel.git/reiser4-for-2.6.22-2.patch 2429860 kernel.git/reiser4-for-2.6.19.patch 2371564 kernel-bare-grsecurity.git/linux-2.6-grsecurity.patch 2358423 kernel.git/xen-3.0-2.6.16.patch 2352883 kernel-bare-vserver.git/linux-2.6.25-sk98lin.patch 2340654 kernel-bare-vserver.git/linux-2.6.24-sk98lin.patch 2340654 kernel-bare-grsecurity.git/linux-2.6.24-sk98lin.patch 2338567 kernel-bare-vserver.git/linux-2.6.22-sk98lin.patch 2296488 kernel.git/linux-2.6.12.3-xen.patch 2185090 kdelibs.git/kdelibs-branch.diff 2148046 kernel.git/linux-2.6-sk98lin.patch 2148046 kernel-bare-grsecurity.git/linux-2.6-sk98lin.patch 2048956 gmime.git/gmime-cvs20020719.patch 2048956 gmime22.git/gmime-cvs20020719.patch 2015328 kernel.git/patch-2.6.0-test4-bk5 1999675 kernel.git/linux-2.6-sk98lin_v10.0.4.3.patch 1926871 vim.git/vim-bonobo-20050909.patch 1876608 kernel.git/linux-2.4.20-rc1-USB.patch 1876079 kernel.git/linux-2.4.20-rc3-USB.patch 1851445 kernel.git/linux-2.6-sk98lin-8.31.2.3.patch 1851445 kernel-desktop.git/linux-2.6-sk98lin-8.31.2.3.patch 1792119 kernel.git/kernel-preempt-rt.patch 1790103 kernel.git/patch-2.6.14-rt22 1766583 kernel-desktop.git/kernel-desktop-preempt-rt.patch 1766562 kernel-rcd.git/kernel-desktop-sk98lin.patch 1766562 kernel.git/linux-2.6-sk98lin_8.41.2.3.patch 1766562 kernel-desktop.git/kernel-desktop-sk98lin.patch 1739872 kdebase.git/kdebase-3.2branch.diff 1735782 kernel.git/patch-2.6.0-test4-bk4 1725239 kernel.git/linux-2.6-sk98lin-8.36.1.3.patch 1676643 glibc.git/glibc-cvs20070210.patch 1644346 yum.git/yum-HEAD.patch 1629384 kernel.git/patch-2.6.14-rt3 1625825 kernel.git/patch-2.6.14-rt2 1623710 kernel.git/patch-2.6.14-rt1 1593049 grub.git/grub-pxe.patch 1573396 kernel.git/patch-2.6.14-rc5-rt3 1554097 kernel.git/patch-2.6.14-rc4-rt1 1545730 kernel.git/patch-2.6.14-rc4-rt6 1527464 lighttpd.git/lighttpd-branch.diff 1524889 emacs.git/emacs-CAN_2005_0100.patch 1520908 gdb.git/gdb-archer.patch 1490794 kernel.git/linux-2.6-adp94xx.patch 1423798 mutt.git/mutt-nntp.patch 1421472 kernel.git/linux-2.6-sk98lin-8.32.2.3.patch 1404382 kernel.git/alsa-1.0.6.patch 1402800 nvi.git/nvi.patch 1398887 agsync.git/agsync-debian.patch 1393540 kdewebdev.git/kdewebdev-branch.diff 1386452 kernel.git/mISDN-2004-11-20.patch 1313600 kernel.git/linux-2.6-sk98lin-8.18.2.2.patch 1313431 kernel.git/kernel-2.6.11.7-sk98lin-8.16.patch 1313099 kernel.git/linux-2.6.13.1-grsec.patch 1309655 kernel.git/linux-2.6-sk98lin-8.16.2.3.patch 1301525 gcc.git/gcc-3.3.1-propolice.patch 1286532 ghostscript-esp.git/ghostscript-esp-svn.patch 1281646 kernel.git/linux-net-2.6.19.patch 1274353 nvi.git/nvi-header.patch 1257631 kernel.git/linux-2.6-sk98lin-8.23.1.3.patch 1253648 kernel.git/ocfs2-2005.06.17.patch 1250887 kernel.git/kernel-vserver-2.3.patch 1246860 busybox.git/busybox-cvs-20050604.patch 1242700 kernel.git/linux-cluster-gfs.patch 1234463 kdebindings.git/kdebindings-am_hack.patch 1222069 kernel.git/patch-2.6.0-test4-bk3 1212801 kernel.git/evms-1.1.0-linux-2.4.patch 1211269 arpscan.git/oui.txt 1206975 grub.git/grub-0.94-diskless-1.patch 1189748 kernel.git/evms-1.2.0-linux-2.4.patch 1174264 kernel.git/acpi-20050729-2.6.12.patch 1173025 kernel.git/linux-2.6-grsec_full.patch 1150480 kde4-kdebase-workspace.git/kde4-kdebase-workspace-branch.diff 1144895 kdelibs.git/kdelibs-kate-syntax.patch 1102945 kernel.git/evms-1.0.1-linux-2.4.patch 1102401 koffice.git/koffice-branch.diff 1099267 lisa.git/lisa-acam.patch 1097742 kernel.git/evms-1.0.0-linux-2.4.patch 1074936 kernel.git/linux-2.6-grsec-full.patch 1057680 webalizer.git/webalizer-debian-23.patch 1039835 kernel.git/linux-xen-2.0.6.patch 1019270 scim-tables.git/CangJie5.txt.in 1018930 kernel.git/grsecurity-2.1.10-2.6.20.6-200704091818.patch 1018406 kernel.git/grsecurity-2.1.10-2.6.20.4-200703271911.patch 1018308 kernel.git/grsecurity-2.1.10-2.6.20.3.patch 1018059 kernel.git/grsecurity-vs-2.1.10-2.6.20.3-200703231034.patch 1018059 kernel.git/grsecurity-2.1.10-2.6.20.3-200703231034.patch 1016669 kernel.git/grsecurity-vs-2.1.10-2.6.20.6-200704091818.patch 1016196 kernel.git/grsecurity-vs-2.1.10-2.6.20.4-200703271911.patch 1010178 kernel.git/evms-0.9.2-linux-2.4.patch 1007973 kernel.git/linux-2.6-grsec-vs-full.patch 1003427 lapack.git/lapack-20010525.patch -- Kacper Kornet From draenog at pld-linux.org Fri Oct 5 16:15:04 2012 From: draenog at pld-linux.org (Kacper Kornet) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 16:15:04 +0200 Subject: git - renaming already existing package In-Reply-To: <20121005134951.GA1306@stranger.qboosh.pl> References: <20120908200836.GA1790@mail> <20120910174512.GA7192@mail> <506069D8.7010304@pld-linux.org> <20120928154652.GA8391@camk.edu.pl> <20121005134951.GA1306@stranger.qboosh.pl> Message-ID: <20121005141459.GB26291@camk.edu.pl> On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 03:49:51PM +0200, Jakub Bogusz wrote: > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 05:46:52PM +0200, Kacper Kornet wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 05:10:32PM +0300, Elan Ruusam?e wrote: > > > On 10.09.2012 20:45, Jakub Bogusz wrote: > > > >On Sat, Sep 08, 2012 at 10:08:36PM +0200, Jakub Bogusz wrote: > > > >>>What is the procedure to rename already existing (also on ftp) package > > > >>>after moving to git? > > > >>>cvs2git howto says "ssh git at ... move ... ..." instead of rename - > > > >>>is it appropriate for such case (would old package be accessible using > > > >>>old name/auto tag?) - in cvs cp was invoked instead of mv. > > > >>>Or should old repo be imported as new under new name? > > > >OK, I've checked that "move" clones the repo in fact, > > > >and writes ".gitolite.down" file (what does it do?). > > > >Should I do something with the old package repo then? (trash?) > > > i noticed too, that it clones to new repo and does nothing with old repo > > > i.e the old repo seems to be > > > 1) browseable from gitweb > > > 2) cloneable from ssh+git url > > > 3) cloneable from git url > > > 4) fully available in github mirror > > > so it's not working fully? > > It works as intended. The old version is read only. And attempt to push > > to it will result in printing the content of .gitolite.down file with > > information that the package has been renamed. > OK. > Is there a way to just copy a repo (without setting the old one r/o)? It can be done by creating a new repository and pushing to it. The only thing which cannot be copied this way are auto- tags and RA- branches. But if there is a demand for full copy I can add such a functionality. I just didn't expect that it would be needed. -- Kacper From pluto at agmk.net Fri Oct 5 17:59:42 2012 From: pluto at agmk.net (=?utf-8?B?UGF3ZcWC?= Sikora) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 17:59:42 +0200 Subject: Large patches in git repositories In-Reply-To: <20121005140512.GA26291@camk.edu.pl> References: <20121005140512.GA26291@camk.edu.pl> Message-ID: <1616611.sKkKLBv5oK@localhost> On Friday 05 of October 2012 16:05:16 Kacper Kornet wrote: > Recently one email to pld-cvs was blocked due to large size of generated > diff. The "offending" file was gcc-branch.diff from crossmingw64-gcc > which is 11M. > > Does this file include and PLD specific changes or is it just a diff > between released version and tip of branch in some foreign (not PLD) > repository? In latter case maybe it should be kept in the distfiles in > compressed form? > > > Right now there are following limits file sizes in git > repositories: > > 1) unlimited - files *.patch, *.diff, *.spec > 2) 2000000 bytes - text files > 3) 200000 bytes - all other files > > so very big patches are accepted. However I wonder if it should be the > case. > > Another question is if we decide to move it to distfiles should the git > repo be rewritten to not include history of this file and reduce repo > size. > > There are other similar files. Below I include the list of every file > larger then 1M which its maximum size in history: > > 24145161 gcc.git/gcc-branch.diff > 22482085 crossmingw64-gcc.git/gcc-branch.diff from branch.diff/pr-XXXX.patch point of view, ideally would be to have an improved %patch macro called %something with support for mirrored source svn/hg/git repositories (similary to distfiles). e.g. in gcc.spec: RepositoryX: svn://gcc... %prep // unpack released tarball %somethingX revision-range-to-apply such construciton should generate patch on the fly (basing on origin repo or mirrored one) and apply it. there's no sense in rolling big stable/branch patches through versioned plain format. one problem i can see is the .src.rpm (generated patch vs. archived .spec). From draenog at pld-linux.org Tue Oct 9 03:52:48 2012 From: draenog at pld-linux.org (Kacper Kornet) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 03:52:48 +0200 Subject: Large patches in git repositories In-Reply-To: <1616611.sKkKLBv5oK@localhost> References: <20121005140512.GA26291@camk.edu.pl> <1616611.sKkKLBv5oK@localhost> Message-ID: <20121009015248.GB18343@camk.edu.pl> On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 05:59:42PM +0200, Pawe? Sikora wrote: > On Friday 05 of October 2012 16:05:16 Kacper Kornet wrote: > > Recently one email to pld-cvs was blocked due to large size of generated > > diff. The "offending" file was gcc-branch.diff from crossmingw64-gcc > > which is 11M. > > Does this file include and PLD specific changes or is it just a diff > > between released version and tip of branch in some foreign (not PLD) > > repository? In latter case maybe it should be kept in the distfiles in > > compressed form? > > Right now there are following limits file sizes in git > > repositories: > > 1) unlimited - files *.patch, *.diff, *.spec > > 2) 2000000 bytes - text files > > 3) 200000 bytes - all other files > > so very big patches are accepted. However I wonder if it should be the > > case. > > Another question is if we decide to move it to distfiles should the git > > repo be rewritten to not include history of this file and reduce repo > > size. > > There are other similar files. Below I include the list of every file > > larger then 1M which its maximum size in history: > > 24145161 gcc.git/gcc-branch.diff > > 22482085 crossmingw64-gcc.git/gcc-branch.diff > from branch.diff/pr-XXXX.patch point of view, ideally would be to have > an improved %patch macro called %something with support for mirrored > source svn/hg/git repositories (similary to distfiles). > e.g. in gcc.spec: > RepositoryX: svn://gcc... > %prep > // unpack released tarball > %somethingX revision-range-to-apply > such construciton should generate patch on the fly (basing on origin repo or mirrored one) > and apply it. there's no sense in rolling big stable/branch patches through versioned plain format. > one problem i can see is the .src.rpm (generated patch vs. archived .spec). Another problem is that if patch was generated on the fly it would broke the building without network connection. And it would be a waste of resources to generate it at every build. In my opinion a better idea is to keep in a package a script that generates the compressed patch,pushes it to dropin and updates # Patch-md5: -- Kacper From adwol at zonk.pl Sun Oct 14 20:51:12 2012 From: adwol at zonk.pl (Adam Osuchowski) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 20:51:12 +0200 Subject: rpm5 package verification and md5sum of config files Message-ID: <20121014185112.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> Package verification by rpm-5.4.10-18 always shows config files as modified (md5sum changed) even though they are not modified. For example: root at pld:~# rpm -q --qf '[%{filemd5s} %{filenames}\n]' systemd-units | grep /etc/systemd/system-preset/default.preset ; md5sum /etc/systemd/system-preset/default.preset e6e4f6387a5dd8161fcb48c51ce85197 /etc/systemd/system-preset/default.preset e6e4f6387a5dd8161fcb48c51ce85197 /etc/systemd/system-preset/default.preset root at pld:~# rpm -V systemd-units ..5..... c /etc/systemd/system-preset/default.preset root at pld:~# rpm -q --qf '[%{filemd5s} %{filenames}\n]' wget | grep /etc/wgetrc ; md5sum /etc/wgetrc 0dbf720f5c9d29cbad8356f758a6a889 /etc/wgetrc 0dbf720f5c9d29cbad8356f758a6a889 /etc/wgetrc root at pld:~# rpm -V wget ..5..... c /etc/wgetrc It occurs probably for every package with configuration file(s). BTW, is there any argument for rpm5 to not show changes of configuration files during -V verification like with rpm4? From n3npq at me.com Sun Oct 14 20:56:14 2012 From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 14:56:14 -0400 Subject: rpm5 package verification and md5sum of config files In-Reply-To: <20121014185112.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> References: <20121014185112.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> Message-ID: On Oct 14, 2012, at 2:51 PM, Adam Osuchowski wrote: > Package verification by rpm-5.4.10-18 always shows config files as modified > (md5sum changed) even though they are not modified. > > For example: > > root at pld:~# rpm -q --qf '[%{filemd5s} %{filenames}\n]' systemd-units | grep /etc/systemd/system-preset/default.preset ; md5sum /etc/systemd/system-preset/default.preset > e6e4f6387a5dd8161fcb48c51ce85197 /etc/systemd/system-preset/default.preset > e6e4f6387a5dd8161fcb48c51ce85197 /etc/systemd/system-preset/default.preset > root at pld:~# rpm -V systemd-units > ..5..... c /etc/systemd/system-preset/default.preset > root at pld:~# rpm -q --qf '[%{filemd5s} %{filenames}\n]' wget | grep /etc/wgetrc ; md5sum /etc/wgetrc > 0dbf720f5c9d29cbad8356f758a6a889 /etc/wgetrc > 0dbf720f5c9d29cbad8356f758a6a889 /etc/wgetrc > root at pld:~# rpm -V wget > ..5..... c /etc/wgetrc > > It occurs probably for every package with configuration file(s). > The comparison is against the file on disk (and includes check of mtime) md5sum /etc/wgetrc (or whatever digest you are using: the '5' is mostly hysterical these days) > BTW, is there any argument for rpm5 to not show changes of configuration > files during -V verification like with rpm4? Nope: 2 lines of logic somewhere, all that is hard is choosing all the bleeping option long/short (and enabler/disabler) names. Just as simple to use grep -v ob the spewage imho. 73 de Jeff From adwol at zonk.pl Sun Oct 14 21:28:08 2012 From: adwol at zonk.pl (Adam Osuchowski) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 21:28:08 +0200 Subject: rpm5 package verification and md5sum of config files In-Reply-To: References: <20121014185112.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> Message-ID: <20121014192808.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > The comparison is against the file on disk (and includes check of mtime) > md5sum /etc/wgetrc > (or whatever digest you are using: the '5' is mostly hysterical these days) Ok, I know that comparison is against the file on disk but that's what it's all about. Why rpm -V shows differences in files md5 sums (no matter how hysterical md5 is, it is better than nothing) since these md5 sums in rpm database are exactly the same as md5 sums of files on disk? Even if I specify --nomd5 option, rpm tells that all files has changed md5 sums: root at pld:~# rpm -V --nomd5 wget ..5..... c /etc/wgetrc ..5..... d /usr/share/doc/wget-1.14/NEWS.gz ..5..... /usr/share/locale/hr/LC_MESSAGES/wget.mo ..5..... /usr/share/locale/nl/LC_MESSAGES/wget.mo ..5..... /usr/bin/rmold ..5..... d /usr/share/doc/wget-1.14/README.gz ..5..... /usr/share/locale/cs/LC_MESSAGES/wget.mo [...] >From my point of view it is a bug. rpm4 behaviour is more logical in this situation. From n3npq at me.com Mon Oct 15 01:22:34 2012 From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 19:22:34 -0400 Subject: rpm5 package verification and md5sum of config files In-Reply-To: <20121014192808.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> References: <20121014185112.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <20121014192808.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> Message-ID: <6C90E309-1CA4-4E44-9559-8BD04C2A4864@me.com> On Oct 14, 2012, at 3:28 PM, Adam Osuchowski wrote: > Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> The comparison is against the file on disk (and includes check of mtime) >> md5sum /etc/wgetrc >> (or whatever digest you are using: the '5' is mostly hysterical these days) > > Ok, I know that comparison is against the file on disk but that's what > it's all about. Why rpm -V shows differences in files md5 sums (no matter > how hysterical md5 is, it is better than nothing) since these md5 sums in > rpm database are exactly the same as md5 sums of files on disk? Even if I > specify --nomd5 option, rpm tells that all files has changed md5 sums: > FYI: the --nomd5 option changed to --nofdigests like 4-5y ago. If there is still "legacy compatibility" for --nomd5, then its time to rip it out imho: I see no reason to maintain myriad confusing alternative invocations for changes made years ago. > root at pld:~# rpm -V --nomd5 wget > ..5..... c /etc/wgetrc > ..5..... d /usr/share/doc/wget-1.14/NEWS.gz > ..5..... /usr/share/locale/hr/LC_MESSAGES/wget.mo > ..5..... /usr/share/locale/nl/LC_MESSAGES/wget.mo > ..5..... /usr/bin/rmold > ..5..... d /usr/share/doc/wget-1.14/README.gz > ..5..... /usr/share/locale/cs/LC_MESSAGES/wget.mo > [?] What are you showing me? I can't tell what rpm version, and I have no comparison to be able to tell what you consider a "bug" from the above display. I have no idea what/how rpm is patched in PLD, assuming that is the OS being used. I also cannot tell what the output SHOULD look like without knowing more details. > > From my point of view it is a bug. rpm4 behaviour is more logical in > this situation. You are entirely entitled to hold whatever point of view and opinion you wish. But if you are seriously interested in a change in RPM, then post a bug (launchpad/rpm preferred) with sufficient information to analyze, not just POV/opinion. 73 de Jeff > _______________________________________________ > pld-devel-en mailing list > pld-devel-en at lists.pld-linux.org > http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en From baggins at pld-linux.org Mon Oct 15 17:31:46 2012 From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 17:31:46 +0200 Subject: Borken gnome packages Message-ID: <20121015153146.GN24925@sith.mimuw.edu.pl> Hi, There is a number of gnome-dependant packages that has broken deps after release of gnome 3.6. If you don't want them removed from ftp then please take care of them. Here the list: bug-buddy.spec (obsoleted by abrt.spec, so direct your energy there) amsn.spec ekiga.spec gnome-mail-notification.spec tracker.spec gossip.spec gtkpod.spec libopensync-plugin-evolution.spec muffin.spec pidgin.spec planner.spec rhythmbox.spec silgraphite.spec tasks.spec -- Jan R?korajski | PLD/Linux SysAdm | http://www.pld-linux.org/ bagginsmimuw.edu.pl bagginspld-linux.org From glen at pld-linux.org Mon Oct 15 23:21:03 2012 From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?B?RWxhbiBSdXVzYW3DpGU=?=) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 00:21:03 +0300 Subject: Large patches in git repositories In-Reply-To: <20121009015248.GB18343@camk.edu.pl> References: <20121005140512.GA26291@camk.edu.pl> <1616611.sKkKLBv5oK@localhost> <20121009015248.GB18343@camk.edu.pl> Message-ID: <507C7E3F.6070603@pld-linux.org> On 09/10/12 04:52, Kacper Kornet wrote: > In my opinion a better idea is to keep in a package a script that > generates the compressed patch,pushes it to dropin and updates > # Patch-md5: go on with this, and block huge patches from now on. if possible point to this mail thread as there are no actual objections, just some other ideas and as since then nothing has changed, and such branch diffs are updated in our git still with addtional change, that move them to distfiles when you're done -- glen From adwol at zonk.pl Tue Oct 16 00:47:57 2012 From: adwol at zonk.pl (Adam Osuchowski) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 00:47:57 +0200 Subject: rpm5 package verification and md5sum of config files In-Reply-To: <6C90E309-1CA4-4E44-9559-8BD04C2A4864@me.com> References: <20121014185112.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <20121014192808.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <6C90E309-1CA4-4E44-9559-8BD04C2A4864@me.com> Message-ID: <20121015224757.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > FYI: the --nomd5 option changed to --nofdigests like 4-5y ago. > If there is still "legacy compatibility" for --nomd5, then its time > to rip it out imho: I see no reason to maintain myriad > confusing alternative invocations for changes made years ago. What's the difference... With --nofdigests bahaviour is the same. > What are you showing me? I'm showing you invalid output of rpm. Tell me sincerely, is it normal that rpm with option --nomd5/--nofdigests shows that ALL files in package are modified even though they aren't? > I can't tell what rpm version, and > I have no comparison to be able to tell what you consider > a "bug" from the above display. I have no idea what/how > rpm is patched in PLD, assuming that is the OS being used. I wrote version I checked in my first mail, but I can repeat: rpm-5.4.10-18 from PLD distro (I report it on pld-devel mailing list, so it should be obvious). Anyway, it doesn't matter because vanilla rpm5 behaves in the same way. > I also cannot tell what the output SHOULD look like > without knowing more details. Run rpm4 and you can see it yourself. Hint: there should be empty output, because no files were modified, so `rpm -V' should print nothing. BTW, why there is no information in documentation about --nohmacs option which tell rpm to not show this faked information? > You are entirely entitled to hold whatever point of view and > opinion you wish. Should I understand you think that situation I report is quite normal and rpm5 will always show that md5 digest of file is changed even if content is not modified? Interesting... > But if you are seriously interested in a change in RPM, then post > a bug (launchpad/rpm preferred) with sufficient information to analyze, > not just POV/opinion. I don't have time and don't feel like creating launchpad account, so I report here. The problem is: rpm5 keeps md5 digests of files in its database, but when veryfing files marked in specfile like this (in PLD most of config files have this mark): %verify(not md5) it compares these md5 digests with hmac-md5 of current files on disk what of course leads to differences (rpmvfVerify() in lib/verify.c:265). Changing this to: %verify(not hmac) helps, but I think it is not good solution. Rather, there should be consistency in digest types (plain vs. hmac): since md5 digests are stored in database, -V should check md5 not hmac-md5. So, I propose change like in my mail attachment (btw, I really don't have any idea what this line is for). Make what do you want with this knowledge. I only would like rpm5 works not worse than rpm4 and I hope you now understand where the problem lies. -------------- next part -------------- --- rpm-5.4.10.orig/build/files.c 2012-10-15 23:29:13.601832730 +0200 +++ rpm-5.4.10/build/files.c 2012-10-15 23:29:50.264308164 +0200 @@ -393,7 +393,6 @@ if (strcmp(p, vfa->attribute)) /*@innercontinue@*/ continue; verifyFlags |= vfa->flag; - verifyFlags &= ~RPMVERIFY_FDIGEST; /*@innerbreak@*/ break; } if (vfa->attribute) From n3npq at me.com Tue Oct 16 01:23:27 2012 From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 19:23:27 -0400 Subject: rpm5 package verification and md5sum of config files In-Reply-To: <20121015224757.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> References: <20121014185112.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <20121014192808.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <6C90E309-1CA4-4E44-9559-8BD04C2A4864@me.com> <20121015224757.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> Message-ID: <5400BEC8-7862-4340-AB8E-BF649C1D085C@me.com> On Oct 15, 2012, at 6:47 PM, Adam Osuchowski wrote: > Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> FYI: the --nomd5 option changed to --nofdigests like 4-5y ago. >> If there is still "legacy compatibility" for --nomd5, then its time >> to rip it out imho: I see no reason to maintain myriad >> confusing alternative invocations for changes made years ago. > > What's the difference... With --nofdigests bahaviour is the same. > Good: so the "legacy retrofit" is identical. >> What are you showing me? > > I'm showing you invalid output of rpm. Tell me sincerely, is it normal > that rpm with option --nomd5/--nofdigests shows that ALL files in > package are modified even though they aren't? > Good: so rpm5 output (quite broken, non-intentional). E.g. the '5' is being reported on directories in the wget package: there is no intent to verify content digests on directories in RPM *EVER*. Translatiuon: something is seriously FUBR and WORKSFORME. >> I can't tell what rpm version, and >> I have no comparison to be able to tell what you consider >> a "bug" from the above display. I have no idea what/how >> rpm is patched in PLD, assuming that is the OS being used. > > I wrote version I checked in my first mail, but I can repeat: > rpm-5.4.10-18 from PLD distro (I report it on pld-devel mailing list, > so it should be obvious). Anyway, it doesn't matter because vanilla > rpm5 behaves in the same way. > I use rpm5, but I have no idea what "features" are enabled, nor what patches are applied, nor do I use PLD daily. IMHO, something is seriously screwed, nothing whatsoever to do with POV or opinion or @rpm.org !- @rpm5.org (contrary to your report). >> I also cannot tell what the output SHOULD look like >> without knowing more details. > > Run rpm4 and you can see it yourself. Hint: there should be empty > output, because no files were modified, so `rpm -V' should print > nothing. > WTF should I run rpm-4.5.x for? This is a PLD problem, not anything iontended. If you give me enough details, I'll sort the issue for you. Meanwhile I don't use PLD/rpm-4.5/wget(as built by PLD) at all. > BTW, why there is no information in documentation about --nohmacs > option which tell rpm to not show this faked information? > *shrug* I f you want to use HMAC's (PLD is still using MD5), then you need to talk to me. WORKSFORME (but what I do with RPM has almost nothing to do with what you do with RPM) >> You are entirely entitled to hold whatever point of view and >> opinion you wish. > > Should I understand you think that situation I report is quite normal > and rpm5 will always show that md5 digest of file is changed even if > content is not modified? Interesting? > No: displaying '5' on directories is totally broken and I have no idea why. >> But if you are seriously interested in a change in RPM, then post >> a bug (launchpad/rpm preferred) with sufficient information to analyze, >> not just POV/opinion. > > I don't have time and don't feel like creating launchpad account, so > I report here. > *me too* > The problem is: rpm5 keeps md5 digests of files in its database, but > when veryfing files marked in specfile like this (in PLD most of config > files have this mark): > > %verify(not md5) > > it compares these md5 digests with hmac-md5 of current files on disk > what of course leads to differences (rpmvfVerify() in lib/verify.c:265). > Changing this to: > > %verify(not hmac) > > helps, but I think it is not good solution. Rather, there should be > consistency in digest types (plain vs. hmac): since md5 digests are > stored in database, -V should check md5 not hmac-md5. So, I propose > change like in my mail attachment (btw, I really don't have any idea > what this line is for). > Are you trying to use HMAC's? Where did HMAC-MD5 come from (it wasn't in the original report). > Make what do you want with this knowledge. I only would like rpm5 works > not worse than rpm4 and I hope you now understand where the problem lies. I need sufficient details to sort your problem: after that I don't really whether you thing the problem is a difference between rpm-4.5 != rpm-5.4.10 or not. IMHO you have a bug, not anything else. 73 de Jeff From baggins at pld-linux.org Tue Oct 16 08:14:13 2012 From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 08:14:13 +0200 Subject: rpm5 package verification and md5sum of config files In-Reply-To: <5400BEC8-7862-4340-AB8E-BF649C1D085C@me.com> References: <20121014185112.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <20121014192808.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <6C90E309-1CA4-4E44-9559-8BD04C2A4864@me.com> <20121015224757.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <5400BEC8-7862-4340-AB8E-BF649C1D085C@me.com> Message-ID: <20121016061413.GA1601@home.lan> As simple as possible: $ rpm -V wget ..5..... c /etc/wgetrc - rpm reports /etc/wgetrc on disk has different digest than in package md5 of /etc/wgetrc in package: $ rpm -qf --qf '%{FILEDIGESTS}\n' /etc/wgetrc 0dbf720f5c9d29cbad8356f758a6a889 md5 of /etc/wgetrc on disk: $ md5sum /etc/wgetrc 0dbf720f5c9d29cbad8356f758a6a889 /etc/wgetrc once again: $ rpm -V wget ..5..... c /etc/wgetrc So, file is unchanged, yet rpm reports it as changed, and as Adam reported this happens for any file marked as %config(), even despite %verify(not md5). This is clearly a bug in rpm5. -- Jan R?korajski | PLD/Linux SysAdm | http://www.pld-linux.org/ bagginsmimuw.edu.pl bagginspld-linux.org From n3npq at me.com Tue Oct 16 08:23:48 2012 From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 02:23:48 -0400 Subject: rpm5 package verification and md5sum of config files In-Reply-To: <20121016061413.GA1601@home.lan> References: <20121014185112.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <20121014192808.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <6C90E309-1CA4-4E44-9559-8BD04C2A4864@me.com> <20121015224757.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <5400BEC8-7862-4340-AB8E-BF649C1D085C@me.com> <20121016061413.GA1601@home.lan> Message-ID: <23E03C60-269A-4315-B37D-F66D24860E2D@me.com> On Oct 16, 2012, at 2:14 AM, Jan R?korajski wrote: > As simple as possible: > > $ rpm -V wget > ..5..... c /etc/wgetrc > > - rpm reports /etc/wgetrc on disk has different digest than in package > > md5 of /etc/wgetrc in package: > > $ rpm -qf --qf '%{FILEDIGESTS}\n' /etc/wgetrc > 0dbf720f5c9d29cbad8356f758a6a889 > > md5 of /etc/wgetrc on disk: > > $ md5sum /etc/wgetrc > 0dbf720f5c9d29cbad8356f758a6a889 /etc/wgetrc > > once again: > > $ rpm -V wget > ..5..... c /etc/wgetrc > > So, file is unchanged, yet rpm reports it as changed, and as Adam > reported this happens for any file marked as %config(), even despite > %verify(not md5). This is clearly a bug in rpm5. > Yes likely (without checking). It's also likely a 1-liner fix, and perhaps caused by the previous patch to add a trailing '\0' (the same code is traversed). The --Va code is also multi-threaded, leading to (iirc) about a 1.5x speedup, and the behavior may change depending on how rpm is built. This report is different than the original, which claimed that '5' was being displayed for all files (including directories which indicates some seriously different breakage if affecting all files, not just %config files. It most definitely is _NOT_ an intended change in behavior from rpm4 -> rpm5. 73 de Jeff > -- > Jan R?korajski | PLD/Linux > SysAdm | http://www.pld-linux.org/ > bagginsmimuw.edu.pl > bagginspld-linux.org > _______________________________________________ > pld-devel-en mailing list > pld-devel-en at lists.pld-linux.org > http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en From baggins at pld-linux.org Tue Oct 16 08:37:17 2012 From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 08:37:17 +0200 Subject: rpm5 package verification and md5sum of config files In-Reply-To: <23E03C60-269A-4315-B37D-F66D24860E2D@me.com> References: <20121014185112.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <20121014192808.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <6C90E309-1CA4-4E44-9559-8BD04C2A4864@me.com> <20121015224757.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <5400BEC8-7862-4340-AB8E-BF649C1D085C@me.com> <20121016061413.GA1601@home.lan> <23E03C60-269A-4315-B37D-F66D24860E2D@me.com> Message-ID: <20121016063717.GB1601@home.lan> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > > On Oct 16, 2012, at 2:14 AM, Jan R?korajski wrote: > > > As simple as possible: > > > > $ rpm -V wget > > ..5..... c /etc/wgetrc > > > > - rpm reports /etc/wgetrc on disk has different digest than in package > > > > md5 of /etc/wgetrc in package: > > > > $ rpm -qf --qf '%{FILEDIGESTS}\n' /etc/wgetrc > > 0dbf720f5c9d29cbad8356f758a6a889 > > > > md5 of /etc/wgetrc on disk: > > > > $ md5sum /etc/wgetrc > > 0dbf720f5c9d29cbad8356f758a6a889 /etc/wgetrc > > > > once again: > > > > $ rpm -V wget > > ..5..... c /etc/wgetrc > > > > So, file is unchanged, yet rpm reports it as changed, and as Adam > > reported this happens for any file marked as %config(), even despite > > %verify(not md5). This is clearly a bug in rpm5. > > > > Yes likely (without checking). It's also likely a 1-liner fix, > and perhaps caused by the previous patch to add a trailing '\0' > (the same code is traversed). > > The --Va code is also multi-threaded, leading to (iirc) about > a 1.5x speedup, and the behavior may change depending on how > rpm is built. We build rpm with -fopenmp. > This report is different than the original, which > claimed that '5' was being displayed for all files (including > directories which indicates some seriously different breakage > if affecting all files, not just %config files. The confusion here is because Adam found a second bug during duscussion here, so it happened to be two reports mixed, the one above and the '--nofdigests' option breakage - if you add this option then rpm5 reports _all_ files as having bad digest. Adam, which bug is fixed by your 1-liner? -- Jan R?korajski | PLD/Linux SysAdm | http://www.pld-linux.org/ bagginsmimuw.edu.pl bagginspld-linux.org From n3npq at me.com Tue Oct 16 08:55:07 2012 From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 02:55:07 -0400 Subject: rpm5 package verification and md5sum of config files In-Reply-To: <20121016063717.GB1601@home.lan> References: <20121014185112.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <20121014192808.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <6C90E309-1CA4-4E44-9559-8BD04C2A4864@me.com> <20121015224757.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <5400BEC8-7862-4340-AB8E-BF649C1D085C@me.com> <20121016061413.GA1601@home.lan> <23E03C60-269A-4315-B37D-F66D24860E2D@me.com> <20121016063717.GB1601@home.lan> Message-ID: <0DD0F99F-2800-44B8-AE26-8FC722DF233C@me.com> On Oct 16, 2012, at 2:37 AM, Jan R?korajski wrote: > > Adam, which bug is fixed by your 1-liner? > Eeek! I missed the patch. Apologies for being obnoxious: I haven't heard a bug report on this code in years (but PLD is always first to find my RPM flaws ;-). Hmmmm ? here is cvs annotate: 1.71 (jbj 25-Nov-98): { VFA_t *vfa; 1.71 (jbj 25-Nov-98): for (vfa = verifyAttrs; vfa->attribute != NULL; vfa++) { 1.71 (jbj 25-Nov-98): if (strcmp(p, vfa->attribute)) 1.174 (jbj 13-Oct-01): /*@innercontinue@*/ continue; 1.71 (jbj 25-Nov-98): verifyFlags |= vfa->flag; 1.361 (jbj 29-Aug-09): verifyFlags &= ~RPMVERIFY_FDIGEST; 1.164 (jbj 05-Jun-01): /*@innerbreak@*/ break; 1.71 (jbj 25-Nov-98): } 1.71 (jbj 25-Nov-98): if (vfa->attribute) 1.71 (jbj 25-Nov-98): continue; 1.71 (jbj 25-Nov-98): } I now understand how HMAC entered this discussion (the 1.361 29-Aug-09 check-in was adding support for HMAC). I screwed the check-in: the patch is definitely in the right direction (and the flawed indentation indicates my mistake. I'm usually anal about indentation). There _MAY_ be a reason to disab;e FDIGEST checking automagically when an HMAC is in use: its plausible (from the indentation) that a specific if test may have been dropped. So perhaps the code should be if (verifyFlags & RPMVERIFY_HMAC) verifyFlags &= ~RPMVERIFY_FDIGEST; (but unnoticed because noon but me has ever used HMAC digests). Checking (but not testing) ? my guess is yes, there's an if dropped by looking at other code in the same check-in. (aside) HMAC-MD5 has different (and fewer afaik) exploits than MD5 itself because of the recursion/padding involved generating an HMAC. You might consider using HMAC-MD5 instead of plain MD5 to increase security w/o using SHA256 etc (which are *MUCH* slower than MD5 (or afaik w/o measuring) HMAC-MD5). Note that the HMAC hasn't been used by anyone except me since being implemented. The HMAC code was passing test vectors when implemented: other breakage may exist. Again: apologies for not paying sufficient attention to the bug report and missing the patch. 73 de Jeffe > -- > Jan R?korajski | PLD/Linux > SysAdm | http://www.pld-linux.org/ > bagginsmimuw.edu.pl > bagginspld-linux.org > _______________________________________________ > pld-devel-en mailing list > pld-devel-en at lists.pld-linux.org > http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en From adwol at zonk.pl Tue Oct 16 08:57:08 2012 From: adwol at zonk.pl (Adam Osuchowski) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 08:57:08 +0200 Subject: rpm5 package verification and md5sum of config files In-Reply-To: <20121016063717.GB1601@home.lan> References: <20121014185112.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <20121014192808.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <6C90E309-1CA4-4E44-9559-8BD04C2A4864@me.com> <20121015224757.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <5400BEC8-7862-4340-AB8E-BF649C1D085C@me.com> <20121016061413.GA1601@home.lan> <23E03C60-269A-4315-B37D-F66D24860E2D@me.com> <20121016063717.GB1601@home.lan> Message-ID: <20121016065708.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> Jan R?korajski wrote: > Adam, which bug is fixed by your 1-liner? The original one: rpm shows bad md5 digest of files marked as `%verify(no md5)' (config files) although they are not modified. Second case (--nomd5 shows that all files are modified) was only a proof that there may be a general bug in rpm5 verification, so probably it is needed to neatly recheck the source code. FYI, I don't claim that my 1-liner is the best solution for first case. I only find it helps. Maybe there is more suitable one. From n3npq at me.com Tue Oct 16 09:38:30 2012 From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 03:38:30 -0400 Subject: rpm5 package verification and md5sum of config files In-Reply-To: <20121016065708.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> References: <20121014185112.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <20121014192808.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <6C90E309-1CA4-4E44-9559-8BD04C2A4864@me.com> <20121015224757.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <5400BEC8-7862-4340-AB8E-BF649C1D085C@me.com> <20121016061413.GA1601@home.lan> <23E03C60-269A-4315-B37D-F66D24860E2D@me.com> <20121016063717.GB1601@home.lan> <20121016065708.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> Message-ID: <189E637F-9562-46EB-9A97-1B64D94EF2B2@me.com> On Oct 16, 2012, at 2:57 AM, Adam Osuchowski wrote: > > FYI, I don't claim that my 1-liner is the best solution for first case. > I only find it helps. Maybe there is more suitable one. Actually your 1-liner deletion *is* the best patch. (aside) I dimly remember having to debug this issue. Because of negation, my original attempt was flawed, and needed to be handled more carefully, outside of the parsing loop. I managed to delete the if but not what followed. BTW, another goal adding HMAC support was a packaging means to support FIPS 140-2: I dislike fipscheck using an HMAC stored next to crypto libraries. The salt used in the HMAC is likely exactly what was in use by fipscheck in RHEL/Fedora back in 2009. Checking ? rpmdb/legacy.c has this from (almost certainly) RedHat fipscheck and NIST certification: static const char hmackey[] = "orboDeJITITejsirpADONivirpUkvarP"; That string may need a macro value to configure for non- (or later) RedHat NIST certification. hth 73 de Jeff > _______________________________________________ > pld-devel-en mailing list > pld-devel-en at lists.pld-linux.org > http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en From n3npq at me.com Tue Oct 16 10:30:28 2012 From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 04:30:28 -0400 Subject: rpm5 package verification and md5sum of config files In-Reply-To: <20121016063717.GB1601@home.lan> References: <20121014185112.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <20121014192808.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <6C90E309-1CA4-4E44-9559-8BD04C2A4864@me.com> <20121015224757.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <5400BEC8-7862-4340-AB8E-BF649C1D085C@me.com> <20121016061413.GA1601@home.lan> <23E03C60-269A-4315-B37D-F66D24860E2D@me.com> <20121016063717.GB1601@home.lan> Message-ID: <21B0C48E-E058-4FA0-BB07-439B587D4D99@me.com> On Oct 16, 2012, at 2:37 AM, Jan R?korajski wrote: > > The confusion here is because Adam found a second bug during duscussion > here, so it happened to be two reports mixed, the one above > and the '--nofdigests' option breakage - if you add this > option then rpm5 reports _all_ files as having bad digest. > Good: an explanation. Hmmmm ? what to display with --nofdigests is rather arbitrary. There *is* a --verify convention to display '?' when a value cannot be computed (e.g. because permissions prevent digest computation) that might be more sensibly displayed with --nofdigests than '5'. OTOH, I'm not sure a "fix" is worth the effort, --nofdigests (and --verify disablers in general) are rather obscure/undocumented RPM functionality. What tends to happen is that ancient documentation starts to disagree with "fixed" RPM behavior, and its much harder to change the documentation than rpm itself. 73 de Jeff From baggins at pld-linux.org Tue Oct 16 12:37:07 2012 From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 12:37:07 +0200 Subject: rpm5 package verification and md5sum of config files In-Reply-To: <20121016065708.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> References: <20121014185112.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <20121014192808.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <6C90E309-1CA4-4E44-9559-8BD04C2A4864@me.com> <20121015224757.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <5400BEC8-7862-4340-AB8E-BF649C1D085C@me.com> <20121016061413.GA1601@home.lan> <23E03C60-269A-4315-B37D-F66D24860E2D@me.com> <20121016063717.GB1601@home.lan> <20121016065708.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> Message-ID: <20121016103707.GS24925@sith.mimuw.edu.pl> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012, Adam Osuchowski wrote: > Jan R?korajski wrote: > > Adam, which bug is fixed by your 1-liner? > > The original one: rpm shows bad md5 digest of files marked as > `%verify(no md5)' (config files) although they are not modified. I'm afraid your patch doesn't work for me, I'm still getting bad md5 for config files: $ rpm -V wget ..5..... c /etc/wgetrc Am I missing something? -- Jan R?korajski | PLD/Linux SysAdm | http://www.pld-linux.org/ bagginsmimuw.edu.pl bagginspld-linux.org From adwol at zonk.pl Tue Oct 16 19:21:59 2012 From: adwol at zonk.pl (Adam Osuchowski) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 19:21:59 +0200 Subject: rpm5 package verification and md5sum of config files In-Reply-To: <20121016103707.GS24925@sith.mimuw.edu.pl> References: <20121014192808.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <6C90E309-1CA4-4E44-9559-8BD04C2A4864@me.com> <20121015224757.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <5400BEC8-7862-4340-AB8E-BF649C1D085C@me.com> <20121016061413.GA1601@home.lan> <23E03C60-269A-4315-B37D-F66D24860E2D@me.com> <20121016063717.GB1601@home.lan> <20121016065708.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <20121016103707.GS24925@sith.mimuw.edu.pl> Message-ID: <20121016172159.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> Jan R?korajski wrote: > I'm afraid your patch doesn't work for me, I'm still getting bad md5 > for config files: > > $ rpm -V wget > ..5..... c /etc/wgetrc > > Am I missing something? Hmmm, I don't know. Maybe I changed something else during debugging and forgot about it. Give me some time, I will check it once again. From draenog at pld-linux.org Wed Oct 17 03:36:40 2012 From: draenog at pld-linux.org (Kacper Kornet) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 03:36:40 +0200 Subject: Large patches in git repositories In-Reply-To: <507C7E3F.6070603@pld-linux.org> References: <20121005140512.GA26291@camk.edu.pl> <1616611.sKkKLBv5oK@localhost> <20121009015248.GB18343@camk.edu.pl> <507C7E3F.6070603@pld-linux.org> Message-ID: <20121017013640.GA26724@camk.edu.pl> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:21:03AM +0300, Elan Ruusam?e wrote: > On 09/10/12 04:52, Kacper Kornet wrote: > >In my opinion a better idea is to keep in a package a script that > >generates the compressed patch,pushes it to dropin and updates > ># Patch-md5: > go on with this, and block huge patches from now on. if possible > point to this mail thread > as there are no actual objections, just some other ideas > and as since then nothing has changed, and such branch diffs are > updated in our git still Since now any commit that modifies patch large then 2000000 bytes will be blocked. There are two exceptions to this rule: 1) The large patch can be removed 2) The large patch can be white listed by putting its name in file .bigfiles in package directory. But please use this feature only when it is really necessary. > with addtional change, that move them to distfiles when you're done Probably it would be best if it was done by developers updating given patch. As they now whether it contains PLD specific changes or not. -- Kacper From glen at pld-linux.org Wed Oct 17 11:02:43 2012 From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?B?RWxhbiBSdXVzYW3DpGU=?=) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 12:02:43 +0300 Subject: Large patches in git repositories In-Reply-To: <20121017013640.GA26724@camk.edu.pl> References: <20121005140512.GA26291@camk.edu.pl> <1616611.sKkKLBv5oK@localhost> <20121009015248.GB18343@camk.edu.pl> <507C7E3F.6070603@pld-linux.org> <20121017013640.GA26724@camk.edu.pl> Message-ID: <507E7433.6000706@pld-linux.org> On 17.10.2012 04:36, Kacper Kornet wrote: >> >with addtional change, that move them to distfiles when you're done > Probably it would be best if it was done by developers updating > given patch. As they now whether it contains PLD specific changes > or not. imho in that case one should create two patches: - one that updates from remote branch, - and the second that applies pld specific changes also question remains: why not just create new tarball? :) -- glen From mike at osdn.org.ua Wed Oct 17 16:16:27 2012 From: mike at osdn.org.ua (Michael Shigorin) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 17:16:27 +0300 Subject: Large patches in git repositories In-Reply-To: <507E7433.6000706@pld-linux.org> References: <20121005140512.GA26291@camk.edu.pl> <1616611.sKkKLBv5oK@localhost> <20121009015248.GB18343@camk.edu.pl> <507C7E3F.6070603@pld-linux.org> <20121017013640.GA26724@camk.edu.pl> <507E7433.6000706@pld-linux.org> Message-ID: <20121017141626.GC8538@osdn.org.ua> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 12:02:43PM +0300, Elan Ruusam??e wrote: > also question remains: why not just create new tarball? :) Might be interesting for those reading in Russian: http://www.altlinux.org/???????????_??_gear (the article looks at several distinct types of package-in-git maintenance) PS: folks, if my references to ALT or pages in Russians hurt anyone's eye please don't hesitate to just tell so; my reason is that some of the pitfalls are known already, and some of them the hard way (it took us ~four years to understand that some RPMs are better maintained as SRPMS even now, for example). -- ---- WBR, Michael Shigorin ------ Linux.Kiev http://www.linux.kiev.ua/ From glen at pld-linux.org Wed Oct 17 22:15:12 2012 From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?B?RWxhbiBSdXVzYW3DpGU=?=) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 23:15:12 +0300 Subject: [packages/gnome-themes-standard] Updated to 3.6.1 In-Reply-To: <478c0e38070321c1493ce5c2d18c0aceee77c4e6_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org> References: <390dfdca623e090288a70d6b8e79689d15537b88_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org> <478c0e38070321c1493ce5c2d18c0aceee77c4e6_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org> Message-ID: <507F11D0.3040106@pld-linux.org> On 10/17/2012 11:04 PM, megabajt wrote: > > %files -f %{name}.lang > %defattr(644,root,root,755) > +%attr(755,root,root) %{_libdir}/gtk-2.0/2.10.0/engines/libadwaita.so > %attr(755,root,root) %{_libdir}/gtk-3.0/3.0.0/theming-engines/libadwaita.so so, gnome3 core requires gtk+2 and gtk+3 at the same time? perhaps add subpackages? as ideally gtk+2 is to be gone in gnome3? -- glen From glen at pld-linux.org Sat Oct 20 15:13:40 2012 From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?B?RWxhbiBSdXVzYW3DpGU=?=) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 16:13:40 +0300 Subject: Fwd: [packages/sgml-common] allow libxml2-progs uninstallation to succeed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5082A384.8010104@pld-linux.org> now that we're linked to upstream again with our rpm package, can discuss old and known bugs, what's wrong there, what's the proper fix? (if this commit already isn't it) that package spec can be viewed online at: http://git.pld-linux.org/gitweb.cgi?p=packages/sgml-common.git;a=tree;h=c19688260eaba5001c47459d30614c1471b97d6a;hb=c19688260eaba5001c47459d30614c1471b97d6a -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [packages/sgml-common] allow libxml2-progs uninstallation to succeed Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 15:10:57 +0200 From: glen Reply-To: pld-devel-en at lists.pld-linux.org, pld-devel-pl at lists.pld-linux.org To: pld-cvs-commit at lists.pld-linux.org commit c19688260eaba5001c47459d30614c1471b97d6a Author: Elan Ruusam?e Date: Sat Oct 20 16:08:16 2012 +0300 allow libxml2-progs uninstallation to succeed currently libxml2-progs and sgml-common are put to transaction, but at the time %preun of sgml-common runs, /usr/bin/xmlcatalog from libxml2-progs is already removed, leaving sgml-common installed with broken deps: mark libxml2-progs-2.9.0-1.i686 Processing dependencies... libxml2-progs-2.9.0-1.i686 marks sgml-common-0.6.3-7.noarch (req /usr/bin/xmlcatalog) There are 2 packages to remove (1 marked by dependencies): R libxml2-progs-2.9.0-1.i686 D sgml-common-0.6.3-7.noarch This operation will free 267.1KB of disk space. Proceed? [N/y] y Running rpm --erase --root / --noorder... install-catalog: can not modify "/etc/sgml/sgml-iso-entities-8879.1986.cat". install-catalog: can not modify "/etc/sgml/xml-iso-entities-8879.1986.cat". /root/tmp/rpm-tmp.68860[6]: /usr/bin/xmlcatalog: not found error: %preun(sgml-common-0.6.3-7.noarch) scriptlet failed, exit status 127 package libxml2-progs is not installed ..5..... c /etc/sgml/sgml.conf Unsatisfied dependencies for sgml-common-0.6.3-7.noarch: Requires: /usr/bin/xmlcatalog Requires: libxml2-progs sgml-common.spec | 10 +++++----- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) --- diff --git a/sgml-common.spec b/sgml-common.spec index 0eabe5e..cf5e0c2 100644 --- a/sgml-common.spec +++ b/sgml-common.spec @@ -2,9 +2,9 @@ Summary: Common SGML catalog and DTD files Summary(pl.UTF-8): Opisane w normie ISO 8879/1986 katalogi i DTD SGML-owe Name: sgml-common Version: 0.6.3 -Release: 7 +Release: 8 +#Copyright: (C) International Organization for Standardization 1986 License: distributable -##Copyright: (C) International Organization for Standardization 1986 URL: http://www.iso.ch/cate/3524030.html Group: Applications/Publishing/SGML Source0: ftp://ftp.kde.org/pub/kde/devel/docbook/SOURCES/%{name}-%{version}.tgz @@ -47,7 +47,6 @@ instalator nowych DTD. %install rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT - %{__make} install \ DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT @@ -56,7 +55,8 @@ rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT install -d $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/sgml/{docbook,html} xmlcatalog --noout --create $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{xml_catalog} -grep PUBLIC $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/sgml/xml-iso-entities-8879.1986/catalog|sed 's/^/xmlcatalog --noout --add /;s/PUBLIC/public/;s=$= '$RPM_BUILD_ROOT'%{xml_catalog}=' |sh +grep PUBLIC $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/sgml/xml-iso-entities-8879.1986/catalog | \ + sed 's/^/xmlcatalog --noout --add /;s/PUBLIC/public/;s=$= '$RPM_BUILD_ROOT'%{xml_catalog}=' | sh rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_prefix}/doc @@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ fi if [ "$1" = "0" ] ; then /usr/bin/install-catalog --remove /etc/sgml/sgml-iso-entities-8879.1986.cat /usr/share/sgml/sgml-iso-entities-8879.1986/catalog > /dev/null /usr/bin/install-catalog --remove /etc/sgml/xml-iso-entities-8879.1986.cat /usr/share/sgml/xml-iso-entities-8879.1986/catalog > /dev/null - /usr/bin/xmlcatalog --noout --del %{xml_catalog} /etc/xml/catalog + [ ! -x /usr/bin/xmlcatalog ] || /usr/bin/xmlcatalog --noout --del %{xml_catalog} /etc/xml/catalog fi %files ================================================================ ---- gitweb: http://git.pld-linux.org/gitweb.cgi/packages/sgml-common.git/commitdiff/c19688260eaba5001c47459d30614c1471b97d6a _______________________________________________ pld-cvs-commit mailing list pld-cvs-commit at lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-cvs-commit From adwol at zonk.pl Sun Oct 21 20:12:03 2012 From: adwol at zonk.pl (Adam Osuchowski) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 20:12:03 +0200 Subject: rpm5 package verification and md5sum of config files In-Reply-To: <20121016103707.GS24925@sith.mimuw.edu.pl> References: <20121014192808.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <6C90E309-1CA4-4E44-9559-8BD04C2A4864@me.com> <20121015224757.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <5400BEC8-7862-4340-AB8E-BF649C1D085C@me.com> <20121016061413.GA1601@home.lan> <23E03C60-269A-4315-B37D-F66D24860E2D@me.com> <20121016063717.GB1601@home.lan> <20121016065708.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <20121016103707.GS24925@sith.mimuw.edu.pl> Message-ID: <20121021181203.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> Jan R?korajski wrote: > I'm afraid your patch doesn't work for me, I'm still getting bad md5 > for config files: > > $ rpm -V wget > ..5..... c /etc/wgetrc > > Am I missing something? Ok, I made investigation one more time and probably know what happened. The patch I sent is against build/files.c file which is part of rpmbuild and fixes the problem by changing verify flags (placed in package file) during package building. Only fresh built (by fixed rpmbuild) package would be verified correctly even on buggy rpm. I forgot to tell about it because I tested various scenarios and they all mixed up. So, once again: patch for build/files.c fixes package building process only and would work if all packages in repo were been rebuilt (I don't think RM will accede to this). In attachment, there is another patch, just for verification process. It disables use of hmac during digest calculation entirely. Since in rpm package files there are included plain md5sums, hmac support is useless. I personally don't know what advantages does hmac digest have over plain digest in case of files integrity verification against package database (especially as the hmac key is constant and hardcoded in rpm sources). So, to sum up: there are two ways to fix problem of reporting false md5sum differences during packages verification: * first, fix the building process and remain with hmac digests, but *ALL* packages in repo should be rebuilt, * second, fix the verification process only, drop hmac support and do it the good old way. IMHO, first method is more elegant but is more difficult and it's not worth it. -------------- next part -------------- --- rpm-5.4.10.orig/lib/verify.c 2012-07-06 17:39:16.000000000 +0200 +++ rpm-5.4.10/lib/verify.c 2012-10-21 19:35:08.610708732 +0200 @@ -261,11 +261,7 @@ unsigned char * fdigest = (unsigned char *) memset(alloca(vf->dlen), 0, vf->dlen); size_t fsize = 0; -#define _mask (RPMVERIFY_FDIGEST|RPMVERIFY_HMAC) - unsigned dflags = (vf->vflags & _mask) == RPMVERIFY_HMAC - ? 0x2 : 0x0; -#undef _mask - int rc = dodigest(vf->dalgo, vf->fn, fdigest, dflags, &fsize); + int rc = dodigest(vf->dalgo, vf->fn, fdigest, 0, &fsize); sb.st_size = fsize; if (rc) { VF_SET(res, READFAIL); From glen at pld-linux.org Sun Oct 21 23:04:24 2012 From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Elan_Ruusam=E4e?=) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 00:04:24 +0300 Subject: rpm-5.4.10-22.i686 loops forever when installing ntpd-4.2.6p5-5.i686.rpm Message-ID: <50846358.8090607@pld-linux.org> Script started on Sun 21 Oct 2012 11:56:39 PM EEST # rpm -Uhv ntpd-4.2.6p5-5.i686.rpm D: pool fd: created size 212 limit -1 flags 0 D: pool iob: created size 24 limit -1 flags 0 D: pool mire: created size 88 limit -1 flags 0 D: pool lua: created size 36 limit -1 flags 0 D: pool ts: created size 724 limit -1 flags 0 D: pool gi: created size 96 limit -1 flags 0 D: pool dig: created size 240 limit -1 flags 0 D: pool h: created size 220 limit -1 flags 0 D: Expected size: 396148 = lead(96)+sigs(356)+pad(4)+data(395692) D: Actual size: 396148 D: pool ds: created size 128 limit -1 flags 0 D: pool tsi: created size 28 limit -1 flags 0 D: pool te: created size 224 limit -1 flags 0 D: pool fi: created size 320 limit -1 flags 0 D: pool al: created size 44 limit -1 flags 0 D: pool bf: created size 28 limit -1 flags 0 D: pool db: created size 188 limit -1 flags 0 D: pool dbi: created size 312 limit -1 flags 0 D: rpmdb: cpus 4 physmem 4051Mb D: opening db environment /var/lib/rpm/Packages thread:lock:log:mpool:txn D: opening db index /var/lib/rpm/Packages thread:rdonly:auto_commit mode=0x0 D: opening db index /var/lib/rpm/Name thread:rdonly:auto_commit mode=0x0 D: pool mi: created size 92 limit -1 flags 0 D: opening db index /var/lib/rpm/Providename thread:rdonly:auto_commit mode=0x0 D: ========== +++ ntpd-4.2.6p5-5.i686 i686/linux 0x1 D: pool ps: created size 24 limit -1 flags 0 D: opening db index /var/lib/rpm/Filepaths thread:rdonly:auto_commit mode=0x0 D: Requires: /bin/id YES (db files) D: Requires: /bin/sh YES (db files) D: Requires: /bin/sh YES (db files) D: Requires: /bin/sh YES (db files) D: Requires: /bin/sh YES (db files) D: Requires: /bin/sh YES (db files) D: Requires: /sbin/chkconfig YES (db files) D: Requires: /usr/bin/getgid YES (db files) D: Requires: /usr/sbin/groupadd YES (db files) D: Requires: /usr/sbin/groupdel YES (db files) D: Requires: /usr/sbin/useradd YES (db files) D: Requires: /usr/sbin/userdel YES (db files) D: Requires: config(ntpd) = 0:4.2.6p5-5 YES (added provide) D: Requires: libc.so.6 YES (db provides) D: Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.11) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.12) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.15) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.7) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libcap.so.2 YES (db provides) D: Requires: libcrypto.so.1.0.0 YES (db provides) D: Requires: libdns_sd.so.1 YES (db provides) D: Requires: libm.so.6 YES (db provides) D: Requires: libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libreadline.so.6 YES (db provides) D: Requires: librt.so.1 YES (db provides) D: Requires: librt.so.1(GLIBC_2.2) YES (db provides) D: Requires: rc-scripts >= 0.4.3.0 YES (db provides) D: Requires: systemd-units >= 38 YES (db provides) D: Requires: systemd-units >= 38 YES (db provides) D: Requires: rpmlib(PayloadIsLzma) <= 4.4.6-1 YES (rpmlib provides) D: Dirs: /etc YES (db files) D: Dirs: /etc/ntp YES (added files) D: Dirs: /etc/rc.d/init.d YES (db files) D: Dirs: /etc/sysconfig YES (db files) D: Dirs: /lib/systemd/system YES (db files) D: Dirs: /usr/sbin YES (db files) D: Dirs: /usr/share/doc YES (db files) D: Dirs: /usr/share/doc/ntpd-4.2.6p5 YES (added files) D: Dirs: /usr/share/man/man1 YES (db files) D: Dirs: /var/lib YES (db files) D: Dirs: /var/lib/ntp YES (added files) D: opening db index /var/lib/rpm/Conflictname thread:rdonly:auto_commit mode=0x0 D: Conflicts: ntp < 4.2.0-3 NO D: Conflicts: ntp < 4.2.0-3 NO D: Conflicts: ntp < 4.2.0-3 NO D: Conflicts: ntp < 4.2.0-3 NO D: Conflicts: ntp < 4.2.0-3 NO D: Conflicts: ntp < 4.2.0-3 NO D: Conflicts: ntp < 4.2.0-3 NO D: Conflicts: ntp < 4.2.0-3 NO D: Conflicts: ntp < 4.2.0-3 NO D: Conflicts: ntp < 4.2.0-3 NO D: Conflicts: ntp < 4.2.0-3 NO D: Conflicts: ntp < 4.2.0-3 NO D: Conflicts: ntp < 4.2.0-3 NO D: Conflicts: ntp < 4.2.0-3 NO D: Conflicts: ntp < 4.2.0-3 NO D: Conflicts: ntp < 4.2.0-3 NO D: Conflicts: ntp < 4.2.0-3 NO ^CD: Exiting on signal(0x2) ... # rpm -q --provides ntp BDB2053 Freeing read locks for locker 0x2ff0: 13720/3067938688 BDB2053 Freeing read locks for locker 0x2ff1: 13720/3067938688 BDB2053 Freeing read locks for locker 0x2ff3: 13720/3067938688 BDB2053 Freeing read locks for locker 0x2ff6: 13720/3067938688 BDB2053 Freeing read locks for locker 0x2ffb: 13720/3067938688 BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13720/0 BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13720/0 BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13720/0 BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13720/0 BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13720/0 BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13720/0 BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13720/0 BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13720/0 BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13720/0 BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13720/0 BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13720/0 BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13720/0 BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13720/0 BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13720/0 BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13720/0 BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13720/0 BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13720/0 package ntp is not installed # rpm -qp ntpd-4.2.6p5-5.i686.rpm config(ntpd) = 0:4.2.6p5-5 group(ntp) ntp = 4.2.6p5-5 ntpdaemon user(ntp) ntpd = 0:4.2.6p5-5 # rpm -q rpm rpm-5.4.10-22.i686 # ^D Script done on Sun 21 Oct 2012 11:57:19 PM EEST -- glen From n3npq at me.com Mon Oct 22 03:33:56 2012 From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 21:33:56 -0400 Subject: rpm5 package verification and md5sum of config files In-Reply-To: <20121021181203.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> References: <20121014192808.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <6C90E309-1CA4-4E44-9559-8BD04C2A4864@me.com> <20121015224757.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <5400BEC8-7862-4340-AB8E-BF649C1D085C@me.com> <20121016061413.GA1601@home.lan> <23E03C60-269A-4315-B37D-F66D24860E2D@me.com> <20121016063717.GB1601@home.lan> <20121016065708.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <20121016103707.GS24925@sith.mimuw.edu.pl> <20121021181203.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> Message-ID: <9093BE5B-4076-469C-917B-B96BA5AADB6E@me.com> On Oct 21, 2012, at 2:12 PM, Adam Osuchowski wrote: > > IMHO, first method is more elegant but is more difficult and it's not > worth it. Ripping out functionality is hardly less difficult. Yes: you need to rebuild packages affected with rpmbuild +PATCH. The symptom -- -Va false positives for ^config -- isn't critically importamt, show stopping, dysfunctionality. But you can do whatever you wish, and have whatever POV or opinion. *shrug* Thanks for finding the b00gered check-in. 73 de Jeff From n3npq at me.com Mon Oct 22 03:46:08 2012 From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 21:46:08 -0400 Subject: rpm-5.4.10-22.i686 loops forever when installing ntpd-4.2.6p5-5.i686.rpm In-Reply-To: <50846358.8090607@pld-linux.org> References: <50846358.8090607@pld-linux.org> Message-ID: <28B6F16A-F9FD-4C72-9FEA-17F7A6C5D91C@me.com> On Oct 21, 2012, at 5:04 PM, Elan Ruusam?e wrote: > NO > D: Conflicts: ntp < 4.2.0-3 NO > ^CD: Exiting on signal(0x2) ? This report does nothing except document the existence. There are too may possible causes to hazard a guess, including a well documented difference in behavior detected by Mancoosi years ago, and also identifying precisely what metadata (and what rpm version was used to build all the packages). Diagnosis starts with adding "debug" to the Conflictname and Packages macro stanzas in /usr/lib/rpm/macro configuration in orde to see exactly what database requests are being performed. FYI: As a member @rpm5.org you *are* expected to know how to diagnose problems with RPM. *shrug* 73 de Jeff From glen at pld-linux.org Mon Oct 22 10:07:41 2012 From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?windows-1252?Q?Elan_Ruusam=E4e?=) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:07:41 +0300 Subject: rpm-5.4.10-22.i686 loops forever when installing ntpd-4.2.6p5-5.i686.rpm In-Reply-To: <28B6F16A-F9FD-4C72-9FEA-17F7A6C5D91C@me.com> References: <50846358.8090607@pld-linux.org> <28B6F16A-F9FD-4C72-9FEA-17F7A6C5D91C@me.com> Message-ID: <5084FECD.4080801@pld-linux.org> On 22.10.2012 04:46, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > On Oct 21, 2012, at 5:04 PM, Elan Ruusam?e wrote: > >> NO >> D: Conflicts: ntp < 4.2.0-3 NO >> ^CD: Exiting on signal(0x2) ? > This report does nothing except document the existence. that's how it starts. i had no other ideas than Conflicting-Itself causes loop, and included that output into the report > There are too may possible causes to hazard a guess, including > a well documented difference in behavior detected by Mancoosi years > ago, and also identifying precisely what metadata (and > what rpm version was used to build all the packages). to supply this information, i must know what to supply, thus somebody should first tell what is needed! rpm that was used to install package, was included in report. how do i figure out rpm version used to build package? guess? or is it in metadata? rpm -qp --yaml, did not give match on "5.4" i've put the exact rpm online: http://carme.pld-linux.org/~glen/ntpd-4.2.6p5-5.i686.rpm or just rebuild with known version and hope it to be fixed by latter patches? ps: i have no idea who is mancoosi, or what he identified, you should had provided link to that, not assume everybody knows your friends > Diagnosis starts with adding "debug" to the Conflictname > and Packages macro stanzas in /usr/lib/rpm/macro configuration > in orde to see exactly what database requests are being performed. there's no exact macro named "Conflictname" or such file, closes i find was this: /usr/lib/rpm/macros:%_dbi_config_3_Conflictname %{_dbi_btconfig} %{?_bt_dupsort} you mean add there word "debug", like this? /usr/lib/rpm/macros:%_dbi_config_3_Conflictname %{_dbi_btconfig} %{?_bt_dupsort} debug > FYI: As a member @rpm5.org you *are* expected to know > how to diagnose problems with RPM. *shrug* and you as a maintainer of @rpm5.org should know, i haven't been active there for some years! -- glen From baggins at pld-linux.org Mon Oct 22 12:44:45 2012 From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:44:45 +0200 Subject: rpm5 package verification and md5sum of config files In-Reply-To: <20121021181203.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> References: <20121014192808.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <6C90E309-1CA4-4E44-9559-8BD04C2A4864@me.com> <20121015224757.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <5400BEC8-7862-4340-AB8E-BF649C1D085C@me.com> <20121016061413.GA1601@home.lan> <23E03C60-269A-4315-B37D-F66D24860E2D@me.com> <20121016063717.GB1601@home.lan> <20121016065708.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <20121016103707.GS24925@sith.mimuw.edu.pl> <20121021181203.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> Message-ID: <20121022104445.GF25784@sith.mimuw.edu.pl> On Sun, 21 Oct 2012, Adam Osuchowski wrote: > Jan R?korajski wrote: > > I'm afraid your patch doesn't work for me, I'm still getting bad md5 > > for config files: > > > > $ rpm -V wget > > ..5..... c /etc/wgetrc > > > > Am I missing something? > > Ok, I made investigation one more time and probably know what happened. > > The patch I sent is against build/files.c file which is part of rpmbuild > and fixes the problem by changing verify flags (placed in package file) > during package building. Only fresh built (by fixed rpmbuild) package > would be verified correctly even on buggy rpm. I forgot to tell about it > because I tested various scenarios and they all mixed up. > > So, once again: patch for build/files.c fixes package building process > only and would work if all packages in repo were been rebuilt (I don't > think RM will accede to this). > > In attachment, there is another patch, just for verification process. > It disables use of hmac during digest calculation entirely. Since in > rpm package files there are included plain md5sums, hmac support is > useless. I personally don't know what advantages does hmac digest have > over plain digest in case of files integrity verification against package > database (especially as the hmac key is constant and hardcoded in rpm > sources). > > So, to sum up: there are two ways to fix problem of reporting false > md5sum differences during packages verification: > * first, fix the building process and remain with hmac digests, but *ALL* > packages in repo should be rebuilt, Rebuilding ~8500 packages is not an option, unfortunately :( > * second, fix the verification process only, drop hmac support and do it > the good old way. Quick question, does passing '--nohmacs' option give the same effect as your patch to lib/verify.c? In that case we could just make it default and add '--hmacs' option. -- Jan R?korajski | PLD/Linux SysAdm | http://www.pld-linux.org/ bagginsmimuw.edu.pl bagginspld-linux.org From adwol at zonk.pl Mon Oct 22 14:45:10 2012 From: adwol at zonk.pl (Adam Osuchowski) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 14:45:10 +0200 Subject: rpm5 package verification and md5sum of config files In-Reply-To: <20121022104445.GF25784@sith.mimuw.edu.pl> References: <6C90E309-1CA4-4E44-9559-8BD04C2A4864@me.com> <20121015224757.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <5400BEC8-7862-4340-AB8E-BF649C1D085C@me.com> <20121016061413.GA1601@home.lan> <23E03C60-269A-4315-B37D-F66D24860E2D@me.com> <20121016063717.GB1601@home.lan> <20121016065708.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <20121016103707.GS24925@sith.mimuw.edu.pl> <20121021181203.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <20121022104445.GF25784@sith.mimuw.edu.pl> Message-ID: <20121022124510.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> Jan R?korajski wrote: > Quick question, does passing '--nohmacs' option give the same effect as > your patch to lib/verify.c? In that case we could just make it default > and add '--hmacs' option. No. --nohmacs option disables checking hmac entirely even for truly modified files (with hmac verify flag set). For example, I have modified my /etc/bashrc file: # rpm -q --qf '[%{filemd5s} %{filenames}\n]' bash | grep /etc/bashrc ; md5sum /etc/bashrc 95bd580c005792a58362fec41c14615a /etc/bashrc 82e47e6fbf2fa5b0d9401e8b989ffb72 /etc/bashrc so `rpm -V' should show this file was modified (and this file only), but: # rpm -V bash ..5..... c /etc/bashrc ..5..... c /etc/skel/.bash_logout ..5..... c /etc/skel/.bash_profile ..5..... c /etc/skel/.bashrc # rpm -V --nohmacs bash # From n3npq at me.com Mon Oct 22 15:37:05 2012 From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 09:37:05 -0400 Subject: rpm5 package verification and md5sum of config files In-Reply-To: <20121022104445.GF25784@sith.mimuw.edu.pl> References: <20121014192808.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <6C90E309-1CA4-4E44-9559-8BD04C2A4864@me.com> <20121015224757.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <5400BEC8-7862-4340-AB8E-BF649C1D085C@me.com> <20121016061413.GA1601@home.lan> <23E03C60-269A-4315-B37D-F66D24860E2D@me.com> <20121016063717.GB1601@home.lan> <20121016065708.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <20121016103707.GS24925@sith.mimuw.edu.pl> <20121021181203.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <20121022104445.GF25784@sith.mimuw.edu.pl> Message-ID: <51823C84-1C3B-438F-A409-8CE3ABF4E524@me.com> On Oct 22, 2012, at 6:44 AM, Jan R?korajski wrote: > > Rebuilding ~8500 packages is not an option, unfortunately :( > Um ? you managed to *build* ~8500 packages using a buggy rpmbuild in rpm-5.4.10. What makes *rebuilding* harder than building? Note that not all 8500 packages are affected (only %config iirc). >> * second, fix the verification process only, drop hmac support and do it >> the good old way. > > Quick question, does passing '--nohmacs' option give the same effect as > your patch to lib/verify.c? In that case we could just make it default > and add '--hmacs' option. > Implementing --nohmac as a disabler was the intent. Meanwhile adding --nohmac, or patching rpm or counting the no of pkgs isn't gointg to repair the headers that do not have the right flag bits. And if you don't fix the metadata soon, then the problem will persist forever, and need to be dealt with again and again, because the affected packages will be deployed and nothing can change except wait 2-3y. 73 de Jeff From baggins at pld-linux.org Mon Oct 22 15:56:52 2012 From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 15:56:52 +0200 Subject: rpm5 package verification and md5sum of config files In-Reply-To: <51823C84-1C3B-438F-A409-8CE3ABF4E524@me.com> References: <20121015224757.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <5400BEC8-7862-4340-AB8E-BF649C1D085C@me.com> <20121016061413.GA1601@home.lan> <23E03C60-269A-4315-B37D-F66D24860E2D@me.com> <20121016063717.GB1601@home.lan> <20121016065708.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <20121016103707.GS24925@sith.mimuw.edu.pl> <20121021181203.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <20121022104445.GF25784@sith.mimuw.edu.pl> <51823C84-1C3B-438F-A409-8CE3ABF4E524@me.com> Message-ID: <20121022135652.GI25784@sith.mimuw.edu.pl> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > > On Oct 22, 2012, at 6:44 AM, Jan R?korajski wrote: > > > > > Rebuilding ~8500 packages is not an option, unfortunately :( > > > > Um ? you managed to *build* ~8500 packages using a buggy > rpmbuild in rpm-5.4.10. > > What makes *rebuilding* harder than building? > > Note that not all 8500 packages are affected (only %config iirc). rpm5 with hmac verification intact (notice package was built with rpm4): $ rpm -q -yaml rc-scripts | grep Rpmversion Rpmversion: 4.5 $ rpm -V --nohmacs rc-scripts .M...... g /var/log/dmesg $ rpm -V rc-scripts ..5..... c /etc/adjtime ..5..... c /etc/sysconfig/cpusets/cpuset-test ..5..... c /etc/sysconfig/hwprof ..5..... c /etc/sysconfig/i18n ..5..... c /etc/sysconfig/init-colors ..5..... c /etc/sysconfig/interfaces/down.d/ppp/logger ..5..... c /etc/sysconfig/interfaces/ifcfg-eth0 ..5..... c /etc/sysconfig/interfaces/up.d/ppp/logger ..5..... c /etc/sysconfig/isapnp/isapnp-kernel.conf ..5..... c /etc/rc.d/rc.local ..5..... c /etc/crypttab ..5..... c /etc/sysconfig/network ..5..... c /etc/sysconfig/static-arp ..5..... c /etc/sysconfig/static-nat ..5..... c /etc/sysconfig/static-routes ..5..... c /etc/sysconfig/static-routes6 ..?..... c /etc/sysconfig/system ..5..... c /etc/init/allowlogin.conf ..5..... c /etc/init/cpusets.conf ..5..... c /etc/init/cryptsetup.conf ..5..... c /etc/init/local.conf ..5..... c /etc/init/modules.conf ..5..... c /etc/init/random.conf ..5..... c /etc/sysctl.conf ..5..... c /etc/init/rc.conf ..5..... c /etc/init/rcS-sulogin.conf ..5..... c /etc/init/rcS.conf ..5..... c /etc/init/sys-chroots.conf ..5..... c /etc/init/udev.conf ..5..... c /etc/initlog.conf ..5..... c /etc/inittab ..5..... c /etc/modules .M...... g /var/log/dmesg rpm5 with Adam's patch applied (i.e. hmac ripped out): $ ./rpm -V rc-scripts ..5..... c /etc/sysconfig/interfaces/ifcfg-eth0 ..5..... c /etc/adjtime ..5..... c /etc/sysconfig/network ..5..... c /etc/sysconfig/static-routes ..5..... c /etc/sysconfig/static-routes6 ..?..... c /etc/sysconfig/system ..5..... c /etc/sysctl.conf ..5..... c /etc/inittab ..5..... c /etc/modules .M...... g /var/log/dmesg ..5..... c /etc/sysconfig/i18n > >> * second, fix the verification process only, drop hmac support and do it > >> the good old way. > > > > Quick question, does passing '--nohmacs' option give the same effect as > > your patch to lib/verify.c? In that case we could just make it default > > and add '--hmacs' option. > > > > Implementing --nohmac as a disabler was the intent. It doesn't work as intended then as it disables file digest verification entirely. > Meanwhile adding --nohmac, or patching rpm or counting the no of pkgs isn't > gointg to repair the headers that do not have the right flag bits. > > And if you don't fix the metadata soon, then the problem will persist forever, > and need to be dealt with again and again, because the affected packages > will be deployed and nothing can change except wait 2-3y. Metadata will fix itself over time. The problem here is broken file digest verification. -- Jan R?korajski | PLD/Linux SysAdm | http://www.pld-linux.org/ bagginsmimuw.edu.pl bagginspld-linux.org From n3npq at me.com Mon Oct 22 16:18:49 2012 From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:18:49 -0400 Subject: rpm5 package verification and md5sum of config files In-Reply-To: <20121022135652.GI25784@sith.mimuw.edu.pl> References: <20121015224757.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <5400BEC8-7862-4340-AB8E-BF649C1D085C@me.com> <20121016061413.GA1601@home.lan> <23E03C60-269A-4315-B37D-F66D24860E2D@me.com> <20121016063717.GB1601@home.lan> <20121016065708.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <20121016103707.GS24925@sith.mimuw.edu.pl> <20121021181203.6b8b4567@zonk.pl> <20121022104445.GF25784@sith.mimuw.edu.pl> <51823C84-1C3B-438F-A409-8CE3ABF4E524@me.com> <20121022135652.GI25784@sith.mimuw.edu.pl> Message-ID: <23262355-6C3F-43AB-88B3-C542AD7833C2@me.com> On Oct 22, 2012, at 9:56 AM, Jan R?korajski wrote: > On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > >> >> On Oct 22, 2012, at 6:44 AM, Jan R?korajski wrote: >> >>> >>> Rebuilding ~8500 packages is not an option, unfortunately :( >>> >> >> Um ? you managed to *build* ~8500 packages using a buggy >> rpmbuild in rpm-5.4.10. >> >> What makes *rebuilding* harder than building? >> >> Note that not all 8500 packages are affected (only %config iirc). > > rpm5 with hmac verification intact (notice package was built with rpm4): > > $ rpm -q -yaml rc-scripts | grep Rpmversion > Rpmversion: 4.5 > > $ rpm -V --nohmacs rc-scripts > .M...... g /var/log/dmesg > > $ rpm -V rc-scripts > ..5..... c /etc/adjtime > ..5..... c /etc/sysconfig/cpusets/cpuset-test > ..5..... c /etc/sysconfig/hwprof > ..5..... c /etc/sysconfig/i18n > ..5..... c /etc/sysconfig/init-colors > ..5..... c /etc/sysconfig/interfaces/down.d/ppp/logger > ..5..... c /etc/sysconfig/interfaces/ifcfg-eth0 > ..5..... c /etc/sysconfig/interfaces/up.d/ppp/logger > ..5..... c /etc/sysconfig/isapnp/isapnp-kernel.conf > ..5..... c /etc/rc.d/rc.local > ..5..... c /etc/crypttab > ..5..... c /etc/sysconfig/network > ..5..... c /etc/sysconfig/static-arp > ..5..... c /etc/sysconfig/static-nat > ..5..... c /etc/sysconfig/static-routes > ..5..... c /etc/sysconfig/static-routes6 > ..?..... c /etc/sysconfig/system > ..5..... c /etc/init/allowlogin.conf > ..5..... c /etc/init/cpusets.conf > ..5..... c /etc/init/cryptsetup.conf > ..5..... c /etc/init/local.conf > ..5..... c /etc/init/modules.conf > ..5..... c /etc/init/random.conf > ..5..... c /etc/sysctl.conf > ..5..... c /etc/init/rc.conf > ..5..... c /etc/init/rcS-sulogin.conf > ..5..... c /etc/init/rcS.conf > ..5..... c /etc/init/sys-chroots.conf > ..5..... c /etc/init/udev.conf > ..5..... c /etc/initlog.conf > ..5..... c /etc/inittab > ..5..... c /etc/modules > .M...... g /var/log/dmesg > > rpm5 with Adam's patch applied (i.e. hmac ripped out): > > $ ./rpm -V rc-scripts > ..5..... c /etc/sysconfig/interfaces/ifcfg-eth0 > ..5..... c /etc/adjtime > ..5..... c /etc/sysconfig/network > ..5..... c /etc/sysconfig/static-routes > ..5..... c /etc/sysconfig/static-routes6 > ..?..... c /etc/sysconfig/system > ..5..... c /etc/sysctl.conf > ..5..... c /etc/inittab > ..5..... c /etc/modules > .M...... g /var/log/dmesg > ..5..... c /etc/sysconfig/i18n > Thanks for details. There are many aspects that need testing for full transparent interoperability as a "fix" is devised. >>>> * second, fix the verification process only, drop hmac support and do it >>>> the good old way. >>> >>> Quick question, does passing '--nohmacs' option give the same effect as >>> your patch to lib/verify.c? In that case we could just make it default >>> and add '--hmacs' option. >>> >> >> Implementing --nohmac as a disabler was the intent. > > It doesn't work as intended then as it disables file digest verification > entirely. > It might be --nohmac or --nohmacs: rghe intent was to have a specific disabler. I'm sure I looked when implementing, but not at the much harder/wider context of interoperability, particularly with rpm-4.5 interoperability. >> Meanwhile adding --nohmac, or patching rpm or counting the no of pkgs isn't >> gointg to repair the headers that do not have the right flag bits. >> >> And if you don't fix the metadata soon, then the problem will persist forever, >> and need to be dealt with again and again, because the affected packages >> will be deployed and nothing can change except wait 2-3y. > > Metadata will fix itself over time. The problem here is broken file > digest verification. > Not quite: Claiming "broken file digest verification" claims a boken digest implementation. The issue is a logic incompatibility testing metadata bit(s), not a broken implementation. The fix for a broken digest implementation is quite different, and much harder. E.g. RPM managed to mis-implement both MD5 and SHA1 way back when and had to carry the broken algorithms around for >5y in order to deploy a fix. Broken flag bits are a simpler matter to fix, particularly in the narrower context of "PLD only" with only a recent change from rpm-4.5 <-> rpm-5.4.10 to handle. Fixing the metadata is usually the best option. This may require a patch to rpm build in rpm-4.5 as the most expedient solution as well. How to deploy a fix isn't fully understood (at least by me) quite yet. 73 de Jeff From glen at pld-linux.org Mon Oct 22 16:21:01 2012 From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?windows-1252?Q?Elan_Ruusam=E4e?=) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 17:21:01 +0300 Subject: rpm-5.4.10-22.i686 loops forever when installing ntpd-4.2.6p5-5.i686.rpm In-Reply-To: <28B6F16A-F9FD-4C72-9FEA-17F7A6C5D91C@me.com> References: <50846358.8090607@pld-linux.org> <28B6F16A-F9FD-4C72-9FEA-17F7A6C5D91C@me.com> Message-ID: <5085564D.8000105@pld-linux.org> On 22.10.2012 04:46, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > There are too may possible causes to hazard a guess, including > a well documented difference in behavior detected by Mancoosi years > ago, and also identifying precisely what metadata (and > what rpm version was used to build all the packages). rpm version used to build the package (http://carme.pld-linux.org/~glen/ntpd-4.2.6p5-5.i686.rpm): # rpm -q --yaml ntpd-4.2.6p5-5.i686.rpm -p | grep Rpmversion Rpmversion: 4.5 that package installs fine on other host. i'm suspecting local db error. anything else to dig from there? $ rpm -Uhv ntpd-4.2.6p5-5.i686.rpm --test -vvv D: pool fd: created size 212 limit -1 flags 0 D: pool iob: created size 24 limit -1 flags 0 D: pool mire: created size 88 limit -1 flags 0 D: pool lua: created size 36 limit -1 flags 0 D: pool ts: created size 724 limit -1 flags 0 D: pool gi: created size 96 limit -1 flags 0 D: pool dig: created size 240 limit -1 flags 0 D: pool h: created size 220 limit -1 flags 0 D: Expected size: 396148 = lead(96)+sigs(356)+pad(4)+data(395692) D: Actual size: 396148 D: pool ds: created size 128 limit -1 flags 0 D: pool tsi: created size 28 limit -1 flags 0 D: pool te: created size 224 limit -1 flags 0 D: pool fi: created size 320 limit -1 flags 0 D: pool al: created size 44 limit -1 flags 0 D: pool bf: created size 28 limit -1 flags 0 D: pool db: created size 188 limit -1 flags 0 D: pool dbi: created size 312 limit -1 flags 0 D: opening db index /var/lib/rpm/Packages thread:rdonly mode=0x0 D: opening db index /var/lib/rpm/Name thread:rdonly mode=0x0 D: pool mi: created size 92 limit -1 flags 0 D: opening db index /var/lib/rpm/Providename thread:rdonly mode=0x0 D: ========== +++ ntpd-4.2.6p5-5.i686 i686/linux 0x1 D: pool ps: created size 24 limit -1 flags 0 D: opening db index /var/lib/rpm/Filepaths thread:rdonly mode=0x0 D: Requires: /bin/id YES (db files) D: Requires: /bin/sh YES (db files) D: Requires: /bin/sh YES (db files) D: Requires: /bin/sh YES (db files) D: Requires: /bin/sh YES (db files) D: Requires: /bin/sh YES (db files) D: Requires: /sbin/chkconfig YES (db files) D: Requires: /usr/bin/getgid YES (db files) D: Requires: /usr/sbin/groupadd YES (db files) D: Requires: /usr/sbin/groupdel YES (db files) D: Requires: /usr/sbin/useradd YES (db files) D: Requires: /usr/sbin/userdel YES (db files) D: Requires: config(ntpd) = 0:4.2.6p5-5 YES (added provide) D: Requires: libc.so.6 YES (db provides) D: Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.11) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.12) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.15) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.7) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libcap.so.2 YES (db provides) D: Requires: libcrypto.so.1.0.0 YES (db provides) D: Requires: libdns_sd.so.1 YES (db provides) D: Requires: libm.so.6 YES (db provides) D: Requires: libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libreadline.so.6 YES (db provides) D: Requires: librt.so.1 YES (db provides) D: Requires: librt.so.1(GLIBC_2.2) YES (db provides) D: Requires: rc-scripts >= 0.4.3.0 YES (db provides) D: Requires: systemd-units >= 38 YES (db provides) D: Requires: systemd-units >= 38 YES (db provides) D: Requires: rpmlib(PayloadIsLzma) <= 4.4.6-1 YES (rpmlib provides) D: Dirs: /etc YES (db files) D: Dirs: /etc/ntp YES (added files) D: Dirs: /etc/rc.d/init.d YES (db files) D: Dirs: /etc/sysconfig YES (db files) D: Dirs: /lib/systemd/system YES (db files) D: Dirs: /usr/sbin YES (db files) D: Dirs: /usr/share/doc YES (db files) D: Dirs: /usr/share/doc/ntpd-4.2.6p5 YES (added files) D: Dirs: /usr/share/man/man1 YES (db files) D: Dirs: /var/lib YES (db files) D: Dirs: /var/lib/ntp YES (added files) D: opening db index /var/lib/rpm/Conflictname thread:rdonly mode=0x0 D: ========== recording tsort relations D: ========== tsorting packages (order, #predecessors, #succesors, tree, Ldepth, Rbreadth) D: 0 0 0 1 0 0 +ntpd-4.2.6p5-5.i686 D: mounted filesystems: D: i dev bsize bavail iavail mount point D: 0 0x0000fd00 4096 8771952 141477858 rw / D: 1 0x0000fd00 4096 8771952 141477858 rw / D: 2 0x00000003 4096 1 -1 rw /proc D: 3 0x0000001f 4096 131071 763865 rw /tmp D: 4 0x0000000a 4096 1 -1 rw /dev/pts D: 5 0x0000fd00 4096 8771952 141477858 rw /home/users D: sanity checking 1 elements D: opening db index /var/lib/rpm/Nvra thread:rdonly mode=0x0 D: computing 32 file fingerprints D: pool ht: created size 36 limit -1 flags 0 Preparing... D: computing file dispositions D: opening db index /var/lib/rpm/Basenames thread:rdonly mode=0x0 ########################################### [100%] D: pool psm: created size 472 limit -1 flags 0 D: ========== +++ ntpd-4.2.6p5-5.i686 i686-linux 0x1 D: Expected size: 396148 = lead(96)+sigs(356)+pad(4)+data(395692) D: Actual size: 396148 D: install: ntpd-4.2.6p5-5.i686 has 32 files, test = 1 D: opening db index /var/lib/rpm/Sha1header thread:rdonly mode=0x0 D: closed db index /var/lib/rpm/Filepaths D: closed db index /var/lib/rpm/Nvra D: closed db index /var/lib/rpm/Sha1header D: closed db index /var/lib/rpm/Conflictname D: closed db index /var/lib/rpm/Providename D: closed db index /var/lib/rpm/Basenames D: closed db index /var/lib/rpm/Name D: closed db index /var/lib/rpm/Packages D: pool gi: reused 0, alloc'd 1, free'd 1 items. D: pool mi: reused 88, alloc'd 1, free'd 1 items. D: pool psm: reused 0, alloc'd 1, free'd 1 items. D: pool tsi: reused 23, alloc'd 1, free'd 1 items. D: pool ts: reused 0, alloc'd 1, free'd 1 items. D: pool te: reused 0, alloc'd 1, free'd 1 items. D: pool ps: reused 1, alloc'd 1, free'd 1 items. D: pool al: reused 0, alloc'd 1, free'd 1 items. D: pool ds: reused 27, alloc'd 10, free'd 10 items. D: pool fi: reused 1, alloc'd 1, free'd 1 items. D: pool db: reused 0, alloc'd 1, free'd 1 items. D: pool dbi: reused 0, alloc'd 8, free'd 8 items. D: pool h: reused 646, alloc'd 2, free'd 2 items. D: pool lua: reused 0, alloc'd 1, free'd 1 items. D: pool mire: reused 49, alloc'd 3, free'd 3 items. D: pool bf: reused 0, alloc'd 2, free'd 2 items. D: pool ht: reused 0, alloc'd 3, free'd 3 items. D: pool iob: reused 0, alloc'd 1, free'd 1 items. D: pool dig: reused 1, alloc'd 1, free'd 1 items. D: pool fd: reused 31, alloc'd 2, free'd 2 items. D: exit code: 0 $ rpm -q rpm rpm-5.4.10-22.i686 -- glen From n3npq at me.com Mon Oct 22 16:58:05 2012 From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:58:05 -0400 Subject: rpm-5.4.10-22.i686 loops forever when installing ntpd-4.2.6p5-5.i686.rpm In-Reply-To: <5085564D.8000105@pld-linux.org> References: <50846358.8090607@pld-linux.org> <28B6F16A-F9FD-4C72-9FEA-17F7A6C5D91C@me.com> <5085564D.8000105@pld-linux.org> Message-ID: <7C5529A8-3C03-47D5-89D7-7068DF9B98B6@me.com> On Oct 22, 2012, at 10:21 AM, Elan Ruusam?e wrote: > On 22.10.2012 04:46, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> There are too may possible causes to hazard a guess, including >> a well documented difference in behavior detected by Mancoosi years >> ago, and also identifying precisely what metadata (and >> what rpm version was used to build all the packages). > > rpm version used to build the package (http://carme.pld-linux.org/~glen/ntpd-4.2.6p5-5.i686.rpm): > > # rpm -q --yaml ntpd-4.2.6p5-5.i686.rpm -p | grep Rpmversion > Rpmversion: 4.5 > > that package installs fine on other host. i'm suspecting local db error. anything else to dig from there? > If rpm/os software are identical, and *.rpm input is the same, then I would suspect the local db as well. One does have to ensure that the installed package manifests are "sufficiently similar" (and that might mean "identical manifest" for a database retrieval loop error). For a suspected database error in the Conflictname index, then comparing the outputs with /usr/lib/rpm/macros:%_dbi_config_3_Conflictname %{_dbi_btconfig} %{?_bt_dupsort} debug may be informative. The access patterns SHOULD be similar. 73 de Jeff From n3npq at me.com Mon Oct 22 17:07:24 2012 From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:07:24 -0400 Subject: rpm-5.4.10-22.i686 loops forever when installing ntpd-4.2.6p5-5.i686.rpm In-Reply-To: <5084FECD.4080801@pld-linux.org> References: <50846358.8090607@pld-linux.org> <28B6F16A-F9FD-4C72-9FEA-17F7A6C5D91C@me.com> <5084FECD.4080801@pld-linux.org> Message-ID: <361A392B-0FBA-46B7-B935-41FC6DCA80B1@me.com> On Oct 22, 2012, at 4:07 AM, Elan Ruusam?e wrote: > > ps: i have no idea who is mancoosi, or what he identified, you should had provided link to that, not assume everybody knows your friends ;-) Mancoosi was a 3y EU funded research project http://mancoosi.org One of the differences between rpm-4.5 <-> rpm-5.4.10 behavior fixes Conflict: matching with missing/unspecified release. This bug was in rpm since rpm-3.0.2, and will surely show up in PLD eventually as a difference in behavior. The bug is tracked here https://bugs.launchpad.net/rpm/+bug/633208 and is tracked (or at least attempted) into PLD bugs as well. Meanwhile that specific bug applies off the Provides: matched by the Conflict: has missing/unspecified Release: etc. >> Diagnosis starts with adding "debug" to the Conflictname >> and Packages macro stanzas in /usr/lib/rpm/macro configuration >> in orde to see exactly what database requests are being performed. > there's no exact macro named "Conflictname" or such file, closes i find was this: > > /usr/lib/rpm/macros:%_dbi_config_3_Conflictname %{_dbi_btconfig} %{?_bt_dupsort} > > you mean add there word "debug", like this? > > /usr/lib/rpm/macros:%_dbi_config_3_Conflictname %{_dbi_btconfig} %{?_bt_dupsort} debug > yes 73 de Jeff From glen at pld-linux.org Mon Oct 22 20:57:41 2012 From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Elan_Ruusam=E4e?=) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 21:57:41 +0300 Subject: rpm-5.4.10-22.i686 loops forever when installing ntpd-4.2.6p5-5.i686.rpm In-Reply-To: <7C5529A8-3C03-47D5-89D7-7068DF9B98B6@me.com> References: <50846358.8090607@pld-linux.org> <28B6F16A-F9FD-4C72-9FEA-17F7A6C5D91C@me.com> <5085564D.8000105@pld-linux.org> <7C5529A8-3C03-47D5-89D7-7068DF9B98B6@me.com> Message-ID: <50859725.9090602@pld-linux.org> On 10/22/2012 05:58 PM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > For a suspected database error in the Conflictname index, > then comparing the outputs with > > /usr/lib/rpm/macros:%_dbi_config_3_Conflictname %{_dbi_btconfig} %{?_bt_dupsort} debug > > may be informative. The access patterns SHOULD be similar. first one that loops, second one that finishes fine $ rpm -D '_dbi_config_3_Conflictname %{_dbi_btconfig} %{?_bt_dupsort} debug' -ihv ntpd-4.2.6p5-5.i686.rpm --test 2>ntpd-conflictdb-debug-morpheus.txt ^C -> 6.3M http://carme.pld-linux.org/~glen/ntpd-conflictdb-debug-morpheus.txt $ rpm -D '_dbi_config_3_Conflictname %{_dbi_btconfig} %{?_bt_dupsort} debug' -ihv ntpd-4.2.6p5-5.i686.rpm --test 2>ntpd-conflictdb-debug-carme.txt Preparing... ########################################### [100%] $ -> 19K http://carme.pld-linux.org/~glen/ntpd-conflictdb-debug-carme.txt anyway, assuming local db problem, what are my next steps? i heard rpm --rebuilddb is big no in rpm5, so what do i do to recover? -- glen From n3npq at me.com Mon Oct 22 22:01:23 2012 From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 16:01:23 -0400 Subject: rpm-5.4.10-22.i686 loops forever when installing ntpd-4.2.6p5-5.i686.rpm In-Reply-To: <50859725.9090602@pld-linux.org> References: <50846358.8090607@pld-linux.org> <28B6F16A-F9FD-4C72-9FEA-17F7A6C5D91C@me.com> <5085564D.8000105@pld-linux.org> <7C5529A8-3C03-47D5-89D7-7068DF9B98B6@me.com> <50859725.9090602@pld-linux.org> Message-ID: <64D6AD86-B40C-428E-AB83-480EB95C42C6@me.com> On Oct 22, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Elan Ruusam?e wrote: > On 10/22/2012 05:58 PM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> For a suspected database error in the Conflictname index, >> then comparing the outputs with >> >> /usr/lib/rpm/macros:%_dbi_config_3_Conflictname %{_dbi_btconfig} %{?_bt_dupsort} debug >> >> may be informative. The access patterns SHOULD be similar. > first one that loops, second one that finishes fine > > $ rpm -D '_dbi_config_3_Conflictname %{_dbi_btconfig} %{?_bt_dupsort} debug' -ihv ntpd-4.2.6p5-5.i686.rpm --test 2>ntpd-conflictdb-debug-morpheus.txt > ^C > > -> 6.3M > http://carme.pld-linux.org/~glen/ntpd-conflictdb-debug-morpheus.txt > > $ rpm -D '_dbi_config_3_Conflictname %{_dbi_btconfig} %{?_bt_dupsort} debug' -ihv ntpd-4.2.6p5-5.i686.rpm --test 2>ntpd-conflictdb-debug-carme.txt > Preparing... ########################################### [100%] > $ > > -> 19K > http://carme.pld-linux.org/~glen/ntpd-conflictdb-debug-carme.txt > Thank you for details, I will study carefully. What I see in 2minutes of looking is that RPM is _NOT_ proceeding to file path resolutions in the looping/erroneous sewage (but I've just scanned through the top of the 6.3M file: I will study in a moment). > anyway, assuming local db problem, what are my next steps? The next practical steps are: 1) run dbXY_recover -v (which destroys __db* files as well as replaying logs). Then do dbXY_recover -ev (XY == 53 for PLD iirc) 2) rebuild just the Conflictname index. This SHOULD work (but untested). cd /var/lib/rpm mv Conflictname Conflictname-SAVE rpm -qa --qf '%{CONFLICTS}\n" ls -al Con* 3) rebuild all the indices. Easiest is likely to remove the LSN log sequence numbers) and copy Packages DB_CONFIG to new /var/lib/rpm (you will also need ./log and ./tmp subdirs if mentioned in DB_CONFIG) You remove the log indices using (yes, obscurely, talk to Sunacle, not me) cd /var/lib/rpm dbXY_ load -r lsn Packages before copying Packages to another directory. *THEN* you run rpm -vv --rebuilddb to regenerate the indices. Note the above process is quite useful if/when preparing livecd's. Go find mdawkins on IRC who has produced one of the better/smaller lived images for Unity Linux (starting with Mandriva bloaty packages). Its the same procecss to produce a small livecd image as it is to re-create an rpmdb. The next level is bisection of the packages in the rpmdb, removing (with --justdb) entries until the upgrade "works", and then re-adding (with --justdb) packages until the problem re-occurs (which probably won't happen: lots of heisenbugs associated with local rpmdb issues whose root cause is data/state dependent). The next level after that is point me at a tar ball of the _ENTIRE_ (including logs etc), which will be moderately large, and I'll try to do forensics (on a RHEL machine which is rather hard to explain and may not lead to any valid diagnosis/repair). But I haven't seen an rpmdb that I couldn't "fix" though the results often involve catastrophic data loss. > i heard rpm --rebuilddb is big no in rpm5, so what do i do to recover? > Not a big no, just everyone is used to --rebuildb as a cure-all for any/every possible issue rather than actually trying to understand the root causes. The --rebuilddb option has _ALWAYS_ rebuilt indices. And @rpm5.org with ACID logs can actually repair damage that --rebuilddb (and rebuilding indices) never could touch. Short answer (if you are not hearing what I am saying): Yes --rebuilddb is a "? big no in rpm5." Seldom helps and there are a few pathological cases where --rebuilddb actually hurts (and this has _ALWAYS_ been true, this isn't anything new @rpm5.org). Mail privately if you want, its silly to fix an rpmdb issue on a public mailing list, always has been tedious and boring, and archives aren't much help to others because one really needs to look at the details carefully. > -- > glen > > _______________________________________________ > pld-devel-en mailing list > pld-devel-en at lists.pld-linux.org > http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en From n3npq at me.com Mon Oct 22 22:22:10 2012 From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 16:22:10 -0400 Subject: rpm-5.4.10-22.i686 loops forever when installing ntpd-4.2.6p5-5.i686.rpm In-Reply-To: <64D6AD86-B40C-428E-AB83-480EB95C42C6@me.com> References: <50846358.8090607@pld-linux.org> <28B6F16A-F9FD-4C72-9FEA-17F7A6C5D91C@me.com> <5085564D.8000105@pld-linux.org> <7C5529A8-3C03-47D5-89D7-7068DF9B98B6@me.com> <50859725.9090602@pld-linux.org> <64D6AD86-B40C-428E-AB83-480EB95C42C6@me.com> Message-ID: <4D7B29F7-838D-487A-8A37-AC922DF0AC26@me.com> On Oct 22, 2012, at 4:01 PM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > > On Oct 22, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Elan Ruusam?e wrote: > >> On 10/22/2012 05:58 PM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >>> For a suspected database error in the Conflictname index, >>> then comparing the outputs with >>> >>> /usr/lib/rpm/macros:%_dbi_config_3_Conflictname %{_dbi_btconfig} %{?_bt_dupsort} debug >>> >>> may be informative. The access patterns SHOULD be similar. >> first one that loops, second one that finishes fine >> >> $ rpm -D '_dbi_config_3_Conflictname %{_dbi_btconfig} %{?_bt_dupsort} debug' -ihv ntpd-4.2.6p5-5.i686.rpm --test 2>ntpd-conflictdb-debug-morpheus.txt >> ^C >> >> -> 6.3M >> http://carme.pld-linux.org/~glen/ntpd-conflictdb-debug-morpheus.txt >> And here is the different/broken behavior (see the DB_NEXT_DUP): <-- db3open(0x9694568,Conflictname,0xbffaad3c) dbi 0x969cb20 rc 0 flags: 0x500 <-- db3associate(0x9694c00(Packages),0x969cb20(Conflictname),0xb75ffe89,0x0) rc 0 flags: 0x0 --> rpmmiInit(0x9694568, Conflictname, 0x969b3a0[0]="config(ntpd)") dbi 0x969cb20 mi 0x9699ce8 --> rpmmiNext(0x9699ce8) dbi 0x969cb20(Conflictname) <-- db3copen(0x969cb20,(nil),0x9699d04,0x0) dbc 0x969d570 0x0 rc 0 <-- db3cget(0x969cb20,0x969d570,0xbffaad48,0xbffaad80,0x1a) rc -30988 flags: DB_SET key: 0x969ccc8[12] 0x0 "config(ntpd)" data: (nil)[0] 0x800 <-- rpmmiGet(0x969cb20(Conflictname),0x969d570,0xbffaad48,0xbffaad80,0x1a) rc -30988 --> rpmmiInit(0x9694568, Conflictname, 0x969ab40[0]="ntp") dbi 0x969cb20 mi 0x9699ce8 --> rpmmiNext(0x9699ce8) dbi 0x969cb20(Conflictname) <-- db3copen(0x969cb20,(nil),0x9699d04,0x0) dbc 0x969d8b0 0x0 rc 0 <-- db3cget(0x969cb20,0x969d8b0,0xbffaad48,0xbffaad80,0x1a) rc -30999 flags: DB_SET key: 0x969d888[3] 0x0 "ntp" data: (nil)[10316] 0x800 <-- db3cpget(0x969cb20,0x969d8b0,0xbffaad48,0xbffaad64,0xbffaad80,0x1a) rc 0 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This line SHOULD have returned "? rc -30988" (aka DB_NOTFOUND) if machines were "identical". ============================================================================ flags: DB_SET key: 0x969d888[3] 0x0 "ntp" pkey: 0x969d898[4] 0x0 0x000001ab data: 0xb76f3000[10316] 0x800 <-- rpmmiGet(0x969cb20(Conflictname),0x969d8b0,0xbffaad48,0xbffaad80,0x1a) rc 0 --> rpmmiNext(0x9699ce8) dbi 0x969cb20(Conflictname) <-- db3cget(0x969cb20,0x969d8b0,0xbffaad48,0xbffaad80,0x11) rc -30988 flags: DB_NEXT_DUP key: (nil)[0] 0x0 data: (nil)[0] 0x800 <-- rpmmiGet(0x969cb20(Conflictname),0x969d8b0,0xbffaad48,0xbffaad80,0x11) rc -30988 This may be a slightly different manifestation of the DB_BUFFER_SMALL issue in this thread (and in archives) but that's just a guess: http://rpm5.org/community/rpm-devel/5390.html While bisecting, you need to find the "other" package that has Provides: ntp and removing (or otherwise "fixing") will (I claim) provide you with 2 "working" (and "sufficiently similar") machines. That isn't a "fix" per se, but does stop the clock on repairing your machine(s). (aside) I'm perfectly prepared to drill out the db-5.3.x DB_BUFFER_SMALL issue if/when I can actually capture a reproducer on some machine. It will take about a weekend of adding printf's to find and understand the change in behavior in db-5.3.x (which isn't very hard, just rather tedious). The band-aid in use in PLD (and @windriver and in Mandriva/ROSA) is kinda creepy (imho). 73 de Jeff "I can't fix what I can't see." no matter what From draenog at pld-linux.org Thu Oct 25 08:13:45 2012 From: draenog at pld-linux.org (Kacper Kornet) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 08:13:45 +0200 Subject: Developers info: pushing in git-core-1.8.0 Message-ID: <20121025061345.GA25800@camk.edu.pl> After upgrade to git-core-1.8.0 git push can start to complain with message about unset push.default value. My suggestion is to set push.default to "simple": git config --global push.default simple It can prevent from pushing some unwanted branches. ----------- Git w wersji 1.8.0 mo?e zacz?? si? uskar?a? o nie ustawion? zmienn? konfiguracyjn? push.default. Sugerowa?bym, ?eby developerzy poustawiali j? sobie na simple: git config --global push.default simple Na celu ma to zapobie?enie wypchni?cia na serwer niezamierzonych ga??zi. -- Kacper From jajcus at jajcus.net Sat Oct 27 22:56:54 2012 From: jajcus at jajcus.net (Jacek Konieczny) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 22:56:54 +0200 Subject: GRUB2 changes, introducing EFI Message-ID: <20121027205654.GA2382@lolek.nigdzie> Hello, I wanted to boot my servers natively, from UEFI, instead of BIOS compatibility mode. I wanted to use GRUB for that, but found out GRUB2 in PLD lacks EFI support. First I have updated out grub2.spec from version 1.99 to 2.00, then I have started adding EFI support. For that I have removed some patches that were moving grub installed files from /boot/grub/${platform} to /lib. That was IMHO wrong because: 1. only one platform could be installed (PC in this case, so no place for EFI) 2. the /boot partition would be cluttered with GRUB modules even if the GRUB bootloader was not actually installed (via grub-install). I have finally managed to boot my server from this new grub2 package, both in legacy BIOS mode and via UEFI, but the changes I have introduced could potentially break some existing installations. Anybody using GRUB2, please test the new grub2-2.00-0.1 package. Please note: now the 'grub2' package does not contain any platform files. You have to install grub2-pc (or grub2-efi) too. Greets, Jacek P.S. I have installed the new grub2 on my laptop too? I hope it will boot tomorrow ;) From blues at pld-linux.org Sun Oct 28 12:23:16 2012 From: blues at pld-linux.org (=?ISO-8859-2?Q?Pawe=B3_Go=B3aszewski?=) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 12:23:16 +0100 (CET) Subject: GRUB2 changes, introducing EFI In-Reply-To: <20121027205654.GA2382@lolek.nigdzie> References: <20121027205654.GA2382@lolek.nigdzie> Message-ID: On Sat, 27 Oct 2012, Jacek Konieczny wrote: > Please note: now the 'grub2' package does not contain any platform > files. You have to install grub2-pc (or grub2-efi) too. virtual provides "grub2-platform" in each platform package and "requires: grub2-platform" in main package will do that job. Better safe than sorry. > P.S. I have installed the new grub2 on my laptop too? I hope it will > boot tomorrow ;) Let us know :) -- pozdr. Pawe? Go?aszewski jid:bluesjabbergdapl -------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you think of MS-DOS as mono, and Windows as stereo, then Linux is Dolby Pro-Logic Surround Sound with Bass Boost and all the music is free. From jajcus at jajcus.net Sun Oct 28 12:34:30 2012 From: jajcus at jajcus.net (Jacek Konieczny) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 12:34:30 +0100 Subject: GRUB2 changes, introducing EFI In-Reply-To: References: <20121027205654.GA2382@lolek.nigdzie> Message-ID: <20121028113430.GB2269@lolek.nigdzie> On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 12:23:16PM +0100, Pawe? Go?aszewski wrote: > On Sat, 27 Oct 2012, Jacek Konieczny wrote: > > Please note: now the 'grub2' package does not contain any platform > > files. You have to install grub2-pc (or grub2-efi) too. > > virtual provides "grub2-platform" in each platform package and "requires: > grub2-platform" in main package will do that job. > > Better safe than sorry. You are right. I am so happy to have 'Suggests', so I forgot about Requires with virtual provides ;) > > P.S. I have installed the new grub2 on my laptop too? I hope it will > > boot tomorrow ;) > > Let us know :) Booted without problems :) Greets, Jacek From pluto at agmk.net Sun Oct 28 13:39:54 2012 From: pluto at agmk.net (=?utf-8?B?UGF3ZcWC?= Sikora) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 13:39:54 +0100 Subject: GRUB2 changes, introducing EFI In-Reply-To: <20121028113430.GB2269@lolek.nigdzie> References: <20121027205654.GA2382@lolek.nigdzie> <20121028113430.GB2269@lolek.nigdzie> Message-ID: <1635095.HiBBC2cIfB@localhost> On Sunday 28 of October 2012 12:34:30 Jacek Konieczny wrote: > On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 12:23:16PM +0100, Pawe? Go?aszewski wrote: > > On Sat, 27 Oct 2012, Jacek Konieczny wrote: > > > Please note: now the 'grub2' package does not contain any platform > > > files. You have to install grub2-pc (or grub2-efi) too. > > > > virtual provides "grub2-platform" in each platform package and "requires: > > grub2-platform" in main package will do that job. > > > > Better safe than sorry. > > You are right. I am so happy to have 'Suggests', so I forgot about > Requires with virtual provides ;) > > > > P.S. I have installed the new grub2 on my laptop too? I hope it will > > > boot tomorrow ;) > > > > Let us know :) > > Booted without problems :) so, can you wraite a mini-howto for migrating from grub-legacy to grub2-eufi for machines with "/" on lvm on raid ? :) From jajcus at jajcus.net Sun Oct 28 14:56:25 2012 From: jajcus at jajcus.net (Jacek Konieczny) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 14:56:25 +0100 Subject: GRUB2 changes, introducing EFI In-Reply-To: <1635095.HiBBC2cIfB@localhost> References: <20121027205654.GA2382@lolek.nigdzie> <20121028113430.GB2269@lolek.nigdzie> <1635095.HiBBC2cIfB@localhost> Message-ID: <20121028135625.GB31565@lolek.nigdzie> On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 01:39:54PM +0100, Pawe? Sikora wrote: > > Booted without problems :) > > so, can you wraite a mini-howto for migrating from grub-legacy to grub2-eufi > for machines with "/" on lvm on raid ? :) I don't have EFI on my laptop. And no RAID, but Luks. Migrating from grub-legacy to grub2+grub2-platform-pc for a machine with / on LVM on Luks: poldek> uninstall grub poldek> install grub2 grub2-platform-pc poldek> ^D # vim /boot/grub/grub.cfg :new /boot/grub/menu.lst.rpmsave tutaj sobie skopiowa? swoje ustawienia ze starego gruba do sk?adni nowego :wq # /sbin/grub-install --no-floppy '(hd0)' Earlier, for some experience, I have converted my HDD partitions from MBR to GPT, but it is another story, not needed for GRUB2/PC. Migrating a server with / on LVM on hardware RAID from GRUB-legacy/BIOS to GRUB2/EFI was much more complicated? ? first I had to get GPT partitioning? but there was not even place for GPT, because someone (or 'parted' rather) have put the first partition on the first sector after MBR ? then I had to recompile kernel a few times until it worked (I don't use PLD kernel there, most features were disabled) ? I have Xen there ? it made things both easier (Xen 4.2 boots from EFI with no problems and no extra configuration) and harder ? Linux started under Xen does not see EFI ? efibootmgr won't work and grub won't install itself as the default boot loader ('cp /boot/efi/EFI/grub/grubx64.efi /boot/efi/EFI/BOOT/BOOTX64.EFI' helps). But the short tutorial would be (I have no idea if the software RAID needs special handling here): 1. Make sure your disk has GPT and an EFI system partition. In the simplest case running 'gdisk' and adding the EFI system partition should do. But in real life things are more complicated. I managed to resize and move both /boot and LVM partitions with gdisk/e2resizefs/pvmove/etc with no data loss (by removing them, recreating smaller, creating temporary partitions behind them, moving data, removing and recreating target partitions in the right places, moving data gain). But it was a test system that could be destroyed. I would not dare that on a production system ;) You may also want to add a 'BIOS boot partition' somewhere at the beginning of the disk too, to install grub2 for BIOS booting. 2. Install grub2 and grub2-platform-efi and 'efibootmgr' 3. mount the EFI partition at /boot/efi 4. 'grub-install --target=x86_64-efi --efi-directory=/boot/efi' 4a. optionally: 'grub-install --no-floppy --target=i386-pc (hd0)' to have the system bootable via BIOS too. 5. 'cp /boot/efi/EFI/grub/grubx64.efi /boot/efi/EFI/BOOT/BOOTX64.EFI' 6. edit /boot/grub/grub.cfg it may be good idea to add (otherwise grub complains 'the OS won't have console' or something like that): -- cut -- insmod efi_gop insmod efi_uga insmod font if loadfont dejavu then insmod gfxterm set gfxmode=auto set gfxpayload=keep terminal_output serial gfxterm fi -- cut -- and: mkdir -p /boot/grub/fonts grub-mkfont -o /boot/grub/fonts/dejavu.pf2 /usr/share/fonts/TTF/DejaVuSans.ttf 7. Reboot, the system should boot via EFI/GRUB2 8. make the proper EFI boot loader entry: - modprobe efivars - grub-install --target=x86_64-efi --efi-directory=/boot/efi ? rm /boot/efi/EFI/BOOT/BOOTX64.EFI 9. reboot again Greets, Jacek From mike at osdn.org.ua Sun Oct 28 17:09:30 2012 From: mike at osdn.org.ua (Michael Shigorin) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 18:09:30 +0200 Subject: GRUB2 changes, introducing EFI In-Reply-To: <20121028135625.GB31565@lolek.nigdzie> References: <20121027205654.GA2382@lolek.nigdzie> <20121028113430.GB2269@lolek.nigdzie> <1635095.HiBBC2cIfB@localhost> <20121028135625.GB31565@lolek.nigdzie> Message-ID: <20121028160930.GY2035@osdn.org.ua> On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 02:56:25PM +0100, Jacek Konieczny wrote: > Migrating a server with / on LVM on hardware RAID from > GRUB-legacy/BIOS to GRUB2/EFI was much more complicated Just in case, I've got an AMD C60 based board for UEFI testing and would be glad to help out PLD if that's needed. Thanks for the walkthrough! -- ---- WBR, Michael Shigorin ------ Linux.Kiev http://www.linux.kiev.ua/ From jajcus at jajcus.net Sun Oct 28 18:19:58 2012 From: jajcus at jajcus.net (Jacek Konieczny) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 18:19:58 +0100 Subject: GRUB2 changes, introducing EFI In-Reply-To: <20121028160930.GY2035@osdn.org.ua> References: <20121027205654.GA2382@lolek.nigdzie> <20121028113430.GB2269@lolek.nigdzie> <1635095.HiBBC2cIfB@localhost> <20121028135625.GB31565@lolek.nigdzie> <20121028160930.GY2035@osdn.org.ua> Message-ID: <20121028171958.GA2031@lolek.nigdzie> On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 06:09:30PM +0200, Michael Shigorin wrote: > On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 02:56:25PM +0100, Jacek Konieczny wrote: > > Migrating a server with / on LVM on hardware RAID from > > GRUB-legacy/BIOS to GRUB2/EFI was much more complicated > > Just in case, I've got an AMD C60 based board for UEFI testing > and would be glad to help out PLD if that's needed. Can you test the GRUB/EFI installation with standard PLD kernel? My test were not on 'vanilla PLD', especially the kernel package was quite different. I assume PLD kernel does have everything enabled, but I have not verified that. Greets, Jacek From mike at osdn.org.ua Sun Oct 28 18:27:26 2012 From: mike at osdn.org.ua (Michael Shigorin) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 19:27:26 +0200 Subject: GRUB2 changes, introducing EFI In-Reply-To: <20121028171958.GA2031@lolek.nigdzie> References: <20121027205654.GA2382@lolek.nigdzie> <20121028113430.GB2269@lolek.nigdzie> <1635095.HiBBC2cIfB@localhost> <20121028135625.GB31565@lolek.nigdzie> <20121028160930.GY2035@osdn.org.ua> <20121028171958.GA2031@lolek.nigdzie> Message-ID: <20121028172726.GY24578@osdn.org.ua> On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 06:19:58PM +0100, Jacek Konieczny wrote: > Can you test the GRUB/EFI installation with standard PLD kernel? What ISO should I burn for the starters? -- ---- WBR, Michael Shigorin ------ Linux.Kiev http://www.linux.kiev.ua/ From jajcus at jajcus.net Sun Oct 28 18:48:59 2012 From: jajcus at jajcus.net (Jacek Konieczny) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 18:48:59 +0100 Subject: GRUB2 changes, introducing EFI In-Reply-To: <20121028172726.GY24578@osdn.org.ua> References: <20121027205654.GA2382@lolek.nigdzie> <20121028113430.GB2269@lolek.nigdzie> <1635095.HiBBC2cIfB@localhost> <20121028135625.GB31565@lolek.nigdzie> <20121028160930.GY2035@osdn.org.ua> <20121028171958.GA2031@lolek.nigdzie> <20121028172726.GY24578@osdn.org.ua> Message-ID: <20121028174859.GC2031@lolek.nigdzie> On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 07:27:26PM +0200, Michael Shigorin wrote: > On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 06:19:58PM +0100, Jacek Konieczny wrote: > > Can you test the GRUB/EFI installation with standard PLD kernel? > > What ISO should I burn for the starters? Oops? that is not that easy ;) I have assumed you are familiar with PLD Linux? We don't have any 'installation' or 'Live' ISO images, the system is usually installed via chroot from already running system. If you really want to try, you may start with: http://rescuecd.pld-linux.org/ Then chroot install of current PLD Th packages, installation of the newest grub2 from th-test and the rest as I wrote in previous mails. But if you are not familiar with PLD Linux yet? then I guess you should start with installing some plain PLD first. Then, if you still are eager to help (most people run away at this point), you can try the EFI testing or anything. Greets, Jacek From mike at osdn.org.ua Sun Oct 28 19:06:28 2012 From: mike at osdn.org.ua (Michael Shigorin) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 20:06:28 +0200 Subject: GRUB2 changes, introducing EFI In-Reply-To: <20121028174859.GC2031@lolek.nigdzie> References: <20121027205654.GA2382@lolek.nigdzie> <20121028113430.GB2269@lolek.nigdzie> <1635095.HiBBC2cIfB@localhost> <20121028135625.GB31565@lolek.nigdzie> <20121028160930.GY2035@osdn.org.ua> <20121028171958.GA2031@lolek.nigdzie> <20121028172726.GY24578@osdn.org.ua> <20121028174859.GC2031@lolek.nigdzie> Message-ID: <20121028180628.GA2035@osdn.org.ua> On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 06:48:59PM +0100, Jacek Konieczny wrote: > > What ISO should I burn for the starters? > Oops... that is not that easy ;) I have assumed you are familiar with PLD Linux... Rather theoretically, I st^H^Hborrowed a *lot* of PLD specs and patches into ALT Linux packages over the years and I like your approach very much :) (hence my lurking here, actually) > We don't have any 'installation' or 'Live' ISO images, the > system is usually installed via chroot from already running > system. > > If you really want to try, you may start with: http://rescuecd.pld-linux.org/ > Then chroot install of current PLD Th packages, installation of the > newest grub2 from th-test and the rest as I wrote in previous mails. > > But if you are not familiar with PLD Linux yet... then I guess > you should start with installing some plain PLD first. Then, if > you still are eager to help (most people run away at this > point), you can try the EFI testing or anything. I can fall into swap in addition to simply running away :( The PLD Rescue CD is also one of the most liked parts so far, so maybe there's a chance of getting through. Thank you for the hints, and if you get around to some kind of more or less pristine chroot tarball it might help (I'm also willing to discuss installers as that's what I'm hacking on at times but that's pretty much another topic). -- ---- WBR, Michael Shigorin ------ Linux.Kiev http://www.linux.kiev.ua/ From gzohop at gmail.com Sun Oct 28 20:12:29 2012 From: gzohop at gmail.com (Grzesiek) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 20:12:29 +0100 Subject: GRUB2 changes, introducing EFI In-Reply-To: <20121027205654.GA2382@lolek.nigdzie> References: <20121027205654.GA2382@lolek.nigdzie> Message-ID: <508D839D.5030205@gmail.com> W dniu 27.10.2012 22:56, Jacek Konieczny pisze: > Hello, > > I wanted to boot my servers natively, from UEFI, instead of BIOS > compatibility mode. I wanted to use GRUB for that, but found out GRUB2 > in PLD lacks EFI support. > > First I have updated out grub2.spec from version 1.99 to 2.00, then > I have started adding EFI support. For that I have removed some patches > that were moving grub installed files from /boot/grub/${platform} to /lib. > That was IMHO wrong because: > 1. only one platform could be installed (PC in this case, so no place > for EFI) > 2. the /boot partition would be cluttered with GRUB modules even if the > GRUB bootloader was not actually installed (via grub-install). > > I have finally managed to boot my server from this new grub2 package, > both in legacy BIOS mode and via UEFI, but the changes I have introduced > could potentially break some existing installations. > > Anybody using GRUB2, please test the new grub2-2.00-0.1 package. > I'm using grub2 but some old version from RCD because new packages from TH won't fit into my MBR. I have compared grub2-2.00-3 and Ubuntu grub-2.0 and almost all modules in PLD are bigger: module,PLD,Ubuntu ext2.mod,7608bytes,5784bytes lvm.mod,6760bytes,6296bytes msdospart,2956bytes,2412bytes Anyone have idea why? From jajcus at jajcus.net Sun Oct 28 20:46:45 2012 From: jajcus at jajcus.net (Jacek Konieczny) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 20:46:45 +0100 Subject: GRUB2 changes, introducing EFI In-Reply-To: <508D839D.5030205@gmail.com> References: <20121027205654.GA2382@lolek.nigdzie> <508D839D.5030205@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20121028194645.GD2031@lolek.nigdzie> On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 08:12:29PM +0100, Grzesiek wrote: > I'm using grub2 but some old version from RCD because new packages from > TH won't fit into my MBR. Why do you want grub installed in MBR? I don't think any GRUB would fit into 446 bytes. I guess you mean one of the options often used with legacy grub: 1. the space between MBR and the first partition 2. the unused space at the beginning of a ext[234] file system Which one? And how much space do you have there? I was playing with GUID Partition Table on both my laptop and the EFI server and used a dedicated BIOS Boot Partition to hold grub in both cases. > I have compared grub2-2.00-3 and Ubuntu grub-2.0 and almost all modules > in PLD are bigger: > > module,PLD,Ubuntu > ext2.mod,7608bytes,5784bytes > lvm.mod,6760bytes,6296bytes > msdospart,2956bytes,2412bytes > > Anyone have idea why? Probably just an optimisation issue. And optimisation is the thing to do last, when everything else is working. Unless your case is a very common one. Greets, Jacek From gzohop at gmail.com Sun Oct 28 21:27:29 2012 From: gzohop at gmail.com (Grzesiek) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 21:27:29 +0100 Subject: GRUB2 changes, introducing EFI In-Reply-To: <20121028194645.GD2031@lolek.nigdzie> References: <20121027205654.GA2382@lolek.nigdzie> <508D839D.5030205@gmail.com> <20121028194645.GD2031@lolek.nigdzie> Message-ID: <508D9531.1060908@gmail.com> W dniu 28.10.2012 20:46, Jacek Konieczny pisze: > On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 08:12:29PM +0100, Grzesiek wrote: >> I'm using grub2 but some old version from RCD because new packages from >> TH won't fit into my MBR. > Why do you want grub installed in MBR? I don't think any GRUB would fit into 446 bytes. > > I guess you mean one of the options often used with legacy grub: > 1. the space between MBR and the first partition > 2. the unused space at the beginning of a ext[234] file system > > Which one? And how much space do you have there? The first one, first partition starts on 32256B > > I was playing with GUID Partition Table on both my laptop and the EFI > server and used a dedicated BIOS Boot Partition to hold grub in both > cases. > > Probably just an optimisation issue. And optimisation is the thing to > do last, when everything else is working. Unless your case is a very > common one. I'm using ext4 partition on lvm on one disk. Numer Pocz?tek Koniec Rozmiar Typ System plik?w Flaga 1 32256B 30005821439B 30005789184B primary ntfs ?adowalna 2 30005821440B 999782783999B 969776962560B primary 3 999782784000B 1000202273279B 419489280B primary linux-swap(v1) I'm trying to install grub by "grub-install /dev/sda" and it fails because core.img is to big, is there any other way to install grub in this configuration? From jajcus at jajcus.net Sun Oct 28 21:42:33 2012 From: jajcus at jajcus.net (Jacek Konieczny) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 21:42:33 +0100 Subject: GRUB2 changes, introducing EFI In-Reply-To: <508D9531.1060908@gmail.com> References: <20121027205654.GA2382@lolek.nigdzie> <508D839D.5030205@gmail.com> <20121028194645.GD2031@lolek.nigdzie> <508D9531.1060908@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20121028204232.GE2031@lolek.nigdzie> On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 09:27:29PM +0100, Grzesiek wrote: > > I guess you mean one of the options often used with legacy grub: > > 1. the space between MBR and the first partition > > 2. the unused space at the beginning of a ext[234] file system > > > > Which one? And how much space do you have there? > The first one, first partition starts on 32256B > > I'm using ext4 partition on lvm on one disk. So you cannot write grub into ext4 partition and you need the LVM module in the base grub image, right? This may be tricky, indeed. > Numer Pocz?tek Koniec Rozmiar Typ System plik?w Flaga > 1 32256B 30005821439B 30005789184B primary ntfs ?adowalna > 2 30005821440B 999782783999B 969776962560B primary > 3 999782784000B 1000202273279B 419489280B primary linux-swap(v1) > > I'm trying to install grub by "grub-install /dev/sda" and it fails > because core.img is to big, is there any other way to install grub in > this configuration? You could try to create a dedicated /boot partition ? putting it at the end of the disk should be doable, provided you still have some space in your LVM PV. In such case the lvm grub module would not be needed and the image would be smaller. But it is probably not a solution you are looking for. I am looking for a ways to make the modules smaller too? Hmm? $ file /lib/grub/i386-pc/normal.mod /lib/grub/i386-pc/normal.mod: ELF 32-bit LSB relocatable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), not stripped So there are some debug symbols there? I wonder if grub needs them? Can you try stripping all those modules (backup, 'strip /lib/grub/*/*.mod'), re-install grub (make sure the copies in /boot are also updated) and see if it helps? I don't feel like testing this at my machine at this moment. Greets, Jacek From jajcus at jajcus.net Sun Oct 28 22:03:52 2012 From: jajcus at jajcus.net (Jacek Konieczny) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 22:03:52 +0100 Subject: GRUB2 upgrade trigger Message-ID: <20121028210352.GA1878@lolek.nigdzie> There is this piece of code in grub2.spec: > %triggerpostun -- %{name} < %{version}-0 > if [ $1 -le 1 ]; then > exit 0 > fi > echo "Grub was upgraded, trying to setup it to boot sector" > /sbin/grub-install '(hd0)' || : And I don't like it. Having grub installed does not mean one wants it installed to the MBR of the first HDD. Some cases when it is not what one wants: ? system booted from a different drive than the first HDD - EFI-booted system. MBR is not used then. And GRUB may have no place to write its MBR bootloader. grub-install invocation is different in this case ? grub2 installed on a partition not on a disk (e.g. (hd0,1) instead of (hd0)) ? grub installed for booting remote systems via PXE ? grub installed for building system images, not to boot the host etc. In most of this cases writing grub to disk is JUST WRONG and may destroy other data (some other specialized bootloader may be needed for this machine). Any idea what to use instead? Maybe an option in /etc/sysconfig/grub? Would this be ok: in /etc/sysconfig/grub: GRUB_INSTALL=/sbin/grub-install '(hd0)' in grub.spec: %triggerpostun -- %{name} < %{version}-0 if [ $1 -le 1 ]; then exit 0 fi GRUB_INSTALL="" if [ -f /etc/sysconfig/grub ] ; then . /etc/sysconfig/grub || : fi if [ -n "$GRUB_INSTALL" ] ; then echo "Grub was upgraded, trying to setup it to boot sector" echo "running: $GRUB_INSTALL" $GRUB_INSTALL || : else echo "Grub was upgraded, GRUB_INSTALL not set in /etc/sysconfig/grub," echo "not the updating boot-loader." fi Greets, Jacek From glen at pld-linux.org Mon Oct 29 09:16:59 2012 From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?B?RWxhbiBSdXVzYW3DpGU=?=) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:16:59 +0200 Subject: GRUB2 changes, introducing EFI In-Reply-To: References: <20121027205654.GA2382@lolek.nigdzie> Message-ID: <508E3B7B.4050504@pld-linux.org> On 28.10.2012 13:23, Pawe? Go?aszewski wrote: > On Sat, 27 Oct 2012, Jacek Konieczny wrote: >> Please note: now the 'grub2' package does not contain any platform >> files. You have to install grub2-pc (or grub2-efi) too. > virtual provides "grub2-platform" in each platform package and "requires: > grub2-platform" in main package will do that job. > > Better safe than sorry. you also need to call 'grub-install' to get the files in /boot back but afaik currently it does that anyway after version change, otoh, it probably does it too early, before subpackage with the files gets installed... -- glen From gzohop at gmail.com Mon Oct 29 09:20:10 2012 From: gzohop at gmail.com (Grzesiek) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:20:10 +0100 Subject: GRUB2 changes, introducing EFI In-Reply-To: <20121028204232.GE2031@lolek.nigdzie> References: <20121027205654.GA2382@lolek.nigdzie> <508D839D.5030205@gmail.com> <20121028194645.GD2031@lolek.nigdzie> <508D9531.1060908@gmail.com> <20121028204232.GE2031@lolek.nigdzie> Message-ID: <508E3C3A.1060401@gmail.com> W dniu 28.10.2012 21:42, Jacek Konieczny pisze: > On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 09:27:29PM +0100, Grzesiek wrote: >>> I guess you mean one of the options often used with legacy grub: >>> 1. the space between MBR and the first partition >>> 2. the unused space at the beginning of a ext[234] file system >>> >>> Which one? And how much space do you have there? >> The first one, first partition starts on 32256B >> >> I'm using ext4 partition on lvm on one disk. > So you cannot write grub into ext4 partition and you > need the LVM module in the base grub image, right? > This may be tricky, indeed. > >> Numer Pocz?tek Koniec Rozmiar Typ System plik?w Flaga >> 1 32256B 30005821439B 30005789184B primary ntfs ?adowalna >> 2 30005821440B 999782783999B 969776962560B primary >> 3 999782784000B 1000202273279B 419489280B primary linux-swap(v1) >> >> I'm trying to install grub by "grub-install /dev/sda" and it fails >> because core.img is to big, is there any other way to install grub in >> this configuration? > You could try to create a dedicated /boot partition ? putting it at the > end of the disk should be doable, provided you still have some space in > your LVM PV. In such case the lvm grub module would not be needed and > the image would be smaller. But it is probably not a solution you are > looking for. > > I am looking for a ways to make the modules smaller too? > > Hmm? > > $ file /lib/grub/i386-pc/normal.mod > /lib/grub/i386-pc/normal.mod: ELF 32-bit LSB relocatable, Intel 80386, > version 1 (SYSV), not stripped > > So there are some debug symbols there? I wonder if grub needs them? Can > you try stripping all those modules (backup, 'strip /lib/grub/*/*.mod'), > re-install grub (make sure the copies in /boot are also updated) and see > if it helps? > > I don't feel like testing this at my machine at this moment. > I will try to strip modules and see if it helps, but ubuntu modules are smaller without stripping. From glen at pld-linux.org Mon Oct 29 09:27:15 2012 From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Elan_Ruusam=E4e?=) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:27:15 +0200 Subject: GRUB2 changes, introducing EFI In-Reply-To: <20121028180628.GA2035@osdn.org.ua> References: <20121027205654.GA2382@lolek.nigdzie> <20121028113430.GB2269@lolek.nigdzie> <1635095.HiBBC2cIfB@localhost> <20121028135625.GB31565@lolek.nigdzie> <20121028160930.GY2035@osdn.org.ua> <20121028171958.GA2031@lolek.nigdzie> <20121028172726.GY24578@osdn.org.ua> <20121028174859.GC2031@lolek.nigdzie> <20121028180628.GA2035@osdn.org.ua> Message-ID: <508E3DE3.3050804@pld-linux.org> On 28.10.2012 20:06, Michael Shigorin wrote: > > I can fall into swap in addition to simply running away :( > The PLD Rescue CD is also one of the most liked parts so far, > so maybe there's a chance of getting through. > > Thank you for the hints, and if you get around to some kind > of more or less pristine chroot tarball it might help (I'm also > willing to discuss installers as that's what I'm hacking on at > times but that's pretty much another topic). i have created minimal VBox images with pld on them, perhaps these could help: https://www.pld-linux.org/people/glen#pld_linux_virtualbox_images -- glen From glen at pld-linux.org Mon Oct 29 09:32:53 2012 From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?B?RWxhbiBSdXVzYW3DpGU=?=) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:32:53 +0200 Subject: GRUB2 upgrade trigger In-Reply-To: <20121028210352.GA1878@lolek.nigdzie> References: <20121028210352.GA1878@lolek.nigdzie> Message-ID: <508E3F35.20607@pld-linux.org> On 28.10.2012 23:03, Jacek Konieczny wrote: > There is this piece of code in grub2.spec: > >> ># Note this on version upgrade >> >%triggerpostun -- %{name} < %{version}-0 >> # don't do anything on --downgrade >> >if [ $1 -le 1 ]; then >> > exit 0 >> >fi >> >echo "Grub was upgraded, trying to setup it to boot sector" >> >/sbin/grub-install '(hd0)' || : > And I don't like it. would you run git blame first on it? https://github.com/pld-linux/grub2/blame/master/grub2.spec https://github.com/pld-linux/grub2/commit/9290450558f93b57e0319a7c13c360b693564b90 it's there because files on /boot got upgraded via rpm, and that confuses grub. but this is no longer the case, you removed this part -- glen From glen at pld-linux.org Mon Oct 29 09:36:36 2012 From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?B?RWxhbiBSdXVzYW3DpGU=?=) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:36:36 +0200 Subject: GRUB2 upgrade trigger In-Reply-To: <20121028210352.GA1878@lolek.nigdzie> References: <20121028210352.GA1878@lolek.nigdzie> Message-ID: <508E4014.4060008@pld-linux.org> On 28.10.2012 23:03, Jacek Konieczny wrote: > Any idea what to use instead? > Maybe an option in /etc/sysconfig/grub? > > Would this be ok: > > in /etc/sysconfig/grub: > GRUB_INSTALL=/sbin/grub-install '(hd0)' that would do, if you want to upgrade grub automatically on upgrade, maybe just leave sysadmin deal with it when he has time? as this time /boot and MBR, EFI, etc is not upgraded (not even partially) when rpm package is updated. as if your system boots, you don't usually want to touch it. grub maybe upgraded on system (as rpm), and that you're not having that exact version in boot partition, is not exactly a disaster, or is it? (i assume after grub-install i can rm -rf /boot and system is still bootable (except menu config is missing :) ? )) -- glen From gotar at polanet.pl Mon Oct 29 10:31:56 2012 From: gotar at polanet.pl (Tomasz Pala) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:31:56 +0100 Subject: GRUB2 upgrade trigger In-Reply-To: <508E4014.4060008@pld-linux.org> References: <20121028210352.GA1878@lolek.nigdzie> <508E4014.4060008@pld-linux.org> Message-ID: <20121029093156.GA5610@polanet.pl> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:36:36 +0200, Elan Ruusam?e wrote: > version in boot partition, is not exactly a disaster, or is it? (i > assume after grub-install i can rm -rf /boot and system is still > bootable (except menu config is missing :) ? )) Until you overwrite reclaimed space;) -- Tomasz Pala From jajcus at jajcus.net Mon Oct 29 10:43:55 2012 From: jajcus at jajcus.net (Jacek Konieczny) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:43:55 +0100 Subject: GRUB2 upgrade trigger In-Reply-To: <508E3F35.20607@pld-linux.org> References: <20121028210352.GA1878@lolek.nigdzie> <508E3F35.20607@pld-linux.org> Message-ID: <20121029094354.GB8415@jajo.eggsoft> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:32:53AM +0200, Elan Ruusam?e wrote: > >> >/sbin/grub-install '(hd0)' || : > > And I don't like it. > would you run git blame first on it? > > https://github.com/pld-linux/grub2/blame/master/grub2.spec > https://github.com/pld-linux/grub2/commit/9290450558f93b57e0319a7c13c360b693564b90 > > it's there because files on /boot got upgraded via rpm, and that > confuses grub. but this is no longer the case, you removed this part I did not thought about that. You are right. Now, when files in /boot/grub are not touched by RPM there is no need for such trigger at all. Greets, Jacek From jajcus at jajcus.net Mon Oct 29 10:48:39 2012 From: jajcus at jajcus.net (Jacek Konieczny) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:48:39 +0100 Subject: GRUB2 upgrade trigger In-Reply-To: <508E4014.4060008@pld-linux.org> References: <20121028210352.GA1878@lolek.nigdzie> <508E4014.4060008@pld-linux.org> Message-ID: <20121029094838.GC8415@jajo.eggsoft> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:36:36AM +0200, Elan Ruusam?e wrote: > that would do, if you want to upgrade grub automatically on upgrade, > maybe just leave sysadmin deal with it when he has time? Yes, that is the right way. > as if your system boots, you don't usually want to touch it. grub maybe > upgraded on system (as rpm), and that you're not having that exact > version in boot partition, is not exactly a disaster, or is it? It is not. > (i assume after grub-install i can rm -rf /boot and system is still > bootable (except menu config is missing :) ? )) No. The system won't boot, you would get a GRUB rescue mode prompt, as grub won't be able to read its modules from /boot/grub grub-install installs the core image in the bootloader area (between MBR and first part, on the dedicated BIOS boot partition, on the EFI system partition, etc.). The core image contains only the modules needed to access the /boot partition, and everything else (not only the menu configuration) is loaded from the /boot partition (or the / partition if there is no dedicated /boot). Greets, Jacek From jajcus at jajcus.net Mon Oct 29 13:50:39 2012 From: jajcus at jajcus.net (Jacek Konieczny) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 13:50:39 +0100 Subject: RFC: EFI System partition and native EFI binaries (xen.efi, vmlinuz.efi, etc) Message-ID: <20121029125039.GG8415@jajo.eggsoft> Hi, It seems I was too fast with my 'Xen boots from GRUB2 on EFI without problems' statement? It seems Xen booted this way has some big problems (only one CPU visible, invalid IRQ mapping, no ACPI, etc.)? It seems, the right way to boot Xen is to compile Xen as an EFI binary and run that directly from the UEFI firmware? I will try that, but this already makes me wonder? How should we handle such EFI binaries and EFI bootloader options in PLD? It is not only Xen. Linux kernel can also be compiled into an EFI binary and could be booted without GRUB. All is needed is to write it to the EFI system partition and make a bootloader entry with efibootmgr utility or the UEFI firmware configuration interface? The straight-forward way to do that would be to have the EFI system partition mounted at /boot/efi and creat xen-efi and kernel-efi packages which would put their files into /boot/efi/EFI/pld-linux/ directory and update bootloader entries in %post? but? 1. how can we ensure the EFI system partition is mounted at /boot/efi when the packages are installed? And the right one, in case multiple disks with such partition are installed. 2. the EFI system partition is FAT32? that means case insensitive? Will the EFI directory be /boot/efi/EFI, /boot/efi/Efi, /boot/efi/efi? Can RPM handle such variations? 3. what if someone want to manage the bootloader entries manually? The other option is to package the files in some other location (/lib/efi?) and then copy them to the EFI partitions. It would be similar to what GRUB does, but we probably want that unified somehow for all packages that need that. Create an efi-update script, that would copy the files from /lib/efi and update the bootloader configuration? But I don't want to create another monster like the infamous rc-boot? Any thoughts? Does anybody know how other distros solve this problem? Greets, Jacek From qboosh at pld-linux.org Mon Oct 29 17:35:18 2012 From: qboosh at pld-linux.org (Jakub Bogusz) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:35:18 +0100 Subject: systemd unit options [[packages/corosync] make sysconfig/corosync-notifyd usable for systemd] In-Reply-To: References: <9c0f7a6e7d1349446f09273cc3272f77863bcf7c_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org> Message-ID: <20121029163518.GA9794@mail> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 04:23:56PM +0100, jajcus wrote: > commit ac647687b5d8c7bfb01cd7fc24ef36c23b10cc23 > Author: Jacek Konieczny > Date: Mon Oct 29 16:22:10 2012 +0100 > > make sysconfig/corosync-notifyd usable for systemd > > The sysconfig file used by our init script would not be usable for > the sytemd unit got upstream. > --- a/corosync-notifyd.sysconfig > +++ b/corosync-notifyd.sysconfig > @@ -1,12 +1,3 @@ > > -# Send SNMP traps on all events. > -SEND_SNMP_TRAPS=no > - > -# SNMP Manager IP address (defaults to localhost). > -#SNMP_MANAGER= > - > -# Send DBUS signals on all events. > -SEND_DBUS_SIGNALS=yes > - > -# Log all events. > -LOG_ALL_EVENTS=no > +# log and signal over DBus all events > +OPTIONS=-l -d So systemd is so great everyone must learn all daemon options again, like it was before SysV scripts/sysconfig were invented? There are no upstream solutions? -- Jakub Bogusz http://qboosh.pl/ From glen at pld-linux.org Mon Oct 29 18:37:27 2012 From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?windows-1252?Q?Elan_Ruusam=E4e?=) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 19:37:27 +0200 Subject: rpm4/rpm5 incompat: rpm5 firing on provides Message-ID: <508EBED7.7050700@pld-linux.org> # rpm -q rpm rpm-5.4.10-18.x86_64 # rpm -q rc-scripts initscripts rc-scripts-0.4.3.3-3.x86_64 rc-scripts-0.4.5.4-2.x86_64 package initscripts is not installed # rpm -q --whatprovides initscripts rc-scripts-0.4.3.3-3.x86_64 rc-scripts-0.4.5.4-2.x86_64 # rpm -e rc-scripts-0.4.3.3-3.x86_64 mv: cannot stat ?/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-*?: No such file or directory error: %trigger(rc-scripts-0.4.3.3-3.x86_64) scriptlet failed, exit status 1 mv: cannot stat ?/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-*?: No such file or directory error: %trigger(rc-scripts-0.4.3.3-3.x86_64) scriptlet failed, exit status 1 # rpm -q --triggers rc-scripts-0.4.3.3-3.x86_64 triggerpostun scriptlet (using /bin/sh) -- initscripts mv -f /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-* /etc/sysconfig/interfaces -- glen From jajcus at jajcus.net Mon Oct 29 19:42:02 2012 From: jajcus at jajcus.net (Jacek Konieczny) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 19:42:02 +0100 Subject: systemd unit options [[packages/corosync] make sysconfig/corosync-notifyd usable for systemd] In-Reply-To: <20121029163518.GA9794@mail> References: <9c0f7a6e7d1349446f09273cc3272f77863bcf7c_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org> <20121029163518.GA9794@mail> Message-ID: <20121029184202.GB4421@lolek.nigdzie> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 05:35:18PM +0100, Jakub Bogusz wrote: [...] > > -# Send DBUS signals on all events. > > -SEND_DBUS_SIGNALS=yes > > - > > -# Log all events. > > -LOG_ALL_EVENTS=no > > +# log and signal over DBus all events > > +OPTIONS=-l -d > > So systemd is so great everyone must learn all daemon options again, > like it was before SysV scripts/sysconfig were invented? If daemon is configured by command-line option - than that is a flaw of the daemon, not to be fixed in a bunch of distribution shell scripts. What we can do here is to better document (suggest) the available options in the sysconfig file. And systemd is good at starting services and keeping them alive ? that is its job, it was not designed as a mean of convenient service configuration. rc-scripts (and other monsters like rc-inetd, rc-boot) tried to improve service configuration too? and often it didn't work that well? > There are no upstream solutions? That is the 'upstream solution' ? to use one the one "$OPTIONS" variable. All those verbose options I removed were my own invention (for the init.d script), which never got to Th anyway, so there is nothing lost. Greets, Jacek From baggins at pld-linux.org Tue Oct 30 08:40:23 2012 From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 08:40:23 +0100 Subject: systemd unit options [[packages/corosync] make sysconfig/corosync-notifyd usable for systemd] In-Reply-To: <20121029163518.GA9794@mail> References: <9c0f7a6e7d1349446f09273cc3272f77863bcf7c_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org> <20121029163518.GA9794@mail> Message-ID: <20121030074023.GA1826@home.lan> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012, Jakub Bogusz wrote: > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 04:23:56PM +0100, jajcus wrote: > > commit ac647687b5d8c7bfb01cd7fc24ef36c23b10cc23 > > Author: Jacek Konieczny > > Date: Mon Oct 29 16:22:10 2012 +0100 > > > > make sysconfig/corosync-notifyd usable for systemd > > > > The sysconfig file used by our init script would not be usable for > > the sytemd unit got upstream. > > > --- a/corosync-notifyd.sysconfig > > +++ b/corosync-notifyd.sysconfig > > @@ -1,12 +1,3 @@ > > > > -# Send SNMP traps on all events. > > -SEND_SNMP_TRAPS=no > > - > > -# SNMP Manager IP address (defaults to localhost). > > -#SNMP_MANAGER= > > - > > -# Send DBUS signals on all events. > > -SEND_DBUS_SIGNALS=yes > > - > > -# Log all events. > > -LOG_ALL_EVENTS=no > > +# log and signal over DBus all events > > +OPTIONS=-l -d > > So systemd is so great everyone must learn all daemon options again, > like it was before SysV scripts/sysconfig were invented? > > There are no upstream solutions? Only simple environment variables usage. IMO it's not that big of a problem as often our sysconfig definitions contain only a random subset of daemon options forcing to mess with init script. With systemd it's at least clear - one have to read the manual if (s)he wants some special options. What we can do in this case is to document the most usefull options in the sysconfig files. -- Jan R?korajski | PLD/Linux SysAdm | http://www.pld-linux.org/ bagginsmimuw.edu.pl bagginspld-linux.org From baggins at pld-linux.org Tue Oct 30 08:59:38 2012 From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 08:59:38 +0100 Subject: rpm4/rpm5 incompat: rpm5 firing on provides In-Reply-To: <508EBED7.7050700@pld-linux.org> References: <508EBED7.7050700@pld-linux.org> Message-ID: <20121030075937.GB1826@home.lan> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012, Elan Ruusam?e wrote: > # rpm -q rpm > rpm-5.4.10-18.x86_64 > > # rpm -q rc-scripts initscripts > rc-scripts-0.4.3.3-3.x86_64 > rc-scripts-0.4.5.4-2.x86_64 > package initscripts is not installed > > # rpm -q --whatprovides initscripts > rc-scripts-0.4.3.3-3.x86_64 > rc-scripts-0.4.5.4-2.x86_64 > > # rpm -e rc-scripts-0.4.3.3-3.x86_64 > mv: cannot stat ?/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-*?: No such file > or directory > error: %trigger(rc-scripts-0.4.3.3-3.x86_64) scriptlet failed, exit status 1 > mv: cannot stat ?/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-*?: No such file > or directory > error: %trigger(rc-scripts-0.4.3.3-3.x86_64) scriptlet failed, exit status 1 > > # rpm -q --triggers rc-scripts-0.4.3.3-3.x86_64 > triggerpostun scriptlet (using /bin/sh) -- initscripts > mv -f /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-* /etc/sysconfig/interfaces Can you provide output of 'rpm -vvv' on rpm4 and rpm5? Jeff, will changing: rpmdsNew(sourceH, RPMTAG_PROVIDENAME, 0); to: rpmdsNew(sourceH, RPMTAG_NVRA, 0); in handleOneTrigger in lib/psm.c:~1338, give the old behaviour? -- Jan R?korajski | PLD/Linux SysAdm | http://www.pld-linux.org/ bagginsmimuw.edu.pl bagginspld-linux.org From n3npq at me.com Tue Oct 30 11:07:07 2012 From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 06:07:07 -0400 Subject: rpm4/rpm5 incompat: rpm5 firing on provides In-Reply-To: <20121030075937.GB1826@home.lan> References: <508EBED7.7050700@pld-linux.org> <20121030075937.GB1826@home.lan> Message-ID: On Oct 30, 2012, at 3:59 AM, Jan R?korajski wrote: > On Mon, 29 Oct 2012, Elan Ruusam?e wrote: > >> # rpm -q rpm >> rpm-5.4.10-18.x86_64 >> >> # rpm -q rc-scripts initscripts >> rc-scripts-0.4.3.3-3.x86_64 >> rc-scripts-0.4.5.4-2.x86_64 >> package initscripts is not installed >> >> # rpm -q --whatprovides initscripts >> rc-scripts-0.4.3.3-3.x86_64 >> rc-scripts-0.4.5.4-2.x86_64 >> >> # rpm -e rc-scripts-0.4.3.3-3.x86_64 >> mv: cannot stat ?/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-*?: No such file >> or directory >> error: %trigger(rc-scripts-0.4.3.3-3.x86_64) scriptlet failed, exit status 1 >> mv: cannot stat ?/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-*?: No such file >> or directory >> error: %trigger(rc-scripts-0.4.3.3-3.x86_64) scriptlet failed, exit status 1 >> >> # rpm -q --triggers rc-scripts-0.4.3.3-3.x86_64 >> triggerpostun scriptlet (using /bin/sh) -- initscripts >> mv -f /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-* /etc/sysconfig/interfaces > > Can you provide output of 'rpm -vvv' on rpm4 and rpm5? > Before we even get to -vv output, I have these questions: 1) You have 2 versions of rd-scripts installed: Is that "normal" or already buggy? 2) The packages are cross-triggering on provided "initscripts" Is that "normal" or just ancient hysteria that noon wants to fix? 3) A triggerpostun runs after package removal Is there really any surprise why the triggerpostun is failing? What isn't triggerpreun (or hardening of the triggerpostun script) being attempted? > Jeff, will changing: > rpmdsNew(sourceH, RPMTAG_PROVIDENAME, 0); > to: > rpmdsNew(sourceH, RPMTAG_NVRA, 0); > > in handleOneTrigger in lib/psm.c:~1338, give the old behavior? I'm not sure what "old behavior" means here: I don't use PLD. (aside) At some point I also lose interest in helping revert to changes made in RPM 5+ years ago: you could in fact just continue running same old rpm-4.5 forevermore rather than screwing around with rpm-5.x.y behavior to conform to your expectations (and making it much harder to "support" all the patched/reverted/altered behaviors. But sure s/PROVIDENAME/NVRA/ is a start towards using package names rather than provide names for triggers. I believe you will find other surprises ? 73 de Jeff > > -- > Jan R?korajski | PLD/Linux > SysAdm | http://www.pld-linux.org/ > bagginsmimuw.edu.pl > bagginspld-linux.org > _______________________________________________ > pld-devel-en mailing list > pld-devel-en at lists.pld-linux.org > http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en From glen at pld-linux.org Tue Oct 30 15:50:50 2012 From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?B?RWxhbiBSdXVzYW3DpGU=?=) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 16:50:50 +0200 Subject: rpm4/rpm5 incompat: rpm5 firing on provides In-Reply-To: References: <508EBED7.7050700@pld-linux.org> <20121030075937.GB1826@home.lan> Message-ID: <508FE94A.4030102@pld-linux.org> On 30.10.2012 12:07, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > 1) You have 2 versions of rd-scripts installed: > Is that "normal" or already buggy? it's because old package can't be removed due the trigger being fired which fails with error exit code so, it's already side effect of the uwanted trigger. indeed, the trigger could be fixed not to give error on missing files it tries to move -- glen From glen at pld-linux.org Tue Oct 30 15:56:05 2012 From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Elan_Ruusam=E4e?=) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 16:56:05 +0200 Subject: [packages/corosync] Better documentation for corosync-notifyd.sysconfig In-Reply-To: <568476e5a29a5ff52569a66744cba630cfd3466c_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org> References: <568476e5a29a5ff52569a66744cba630cfd3466c_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org> Message-ID: <508FEA85.3000704@pld-linux.org> On 30.10.2012 14:24, jajcus wrote: > index a268cf5..40c39f5 100644 > --- a/corosync-notifyd.sysconfig > +++ b/corosync-notifyd.sysconfig > @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@ > > -# log and signal over DBus all events > +# Options for the corosync-notifyd daemon > +# see `man corosync-notifyd` for details > OPTIONS=-l -d this code is not valid shell script, you need to quote the value. does systemd parse this differently? -- glen From n3npq at me.com Tue Oct 30 15:58:21 2012 From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 10:58:21 -0400 Subject: rpm4/rpm5 incompat: rpm5 firing on provides In-Reply-To: <508FE94A.4030102@pld-linux.org> References: <508EBED7.7050700@pld-linux.org> <20121030075937.GB1826@home.lan> <508FE94A.4030102@pld-linux.org> Message-ID: <6FE82C23-9031-4190-B921-8C3643A40A61@me.com> On Oct 30, 2012, at 10:50 AM, Elan Ruusam?e wrote: > On 30.10.2012 12:07, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> 1) You have 2 versions of rd-scripts installed: >> Is that "normal" or already buggy? > it's because old package can't be removed due the trigger being fired which fails with error exit code > FYI: there are both --notriggers and --notriggerpostun disabler options There are also other means to remove a header from an rpmdb. > so, it's already side effect of the uwanted trigger. indeed, the trigger could be fixed not to give error on missing files it tries to move > You might state what you expect to happen instead of just listing certain commands under the pretense rpm4/rpm5 incompatibilities in the future. You have two packages installed and you do not know how to "fix" that condition. And so you start claiming incompatibilities as if that were the root cause of your woes (which it isn't afaict). Yes there are differences in trigger behavior in rpm-5.4.10, been that way for years, nothing new: that isn't your problem here. 73 de Jeff From glen at pld-linux.org Tue Oct 30 16:07:10 2012 From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Elan_Ruusam=E4e?=) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:07:10 +0200 Subject: rpm4/rpm5 incompat: rpm5 firing on provides In-Reply-To: <6FE82C23-9031-4190-B921-8C3643A40A61@me.com> References: <508EBED7.7050700@pld-linux.org> <20121030075937.GB1826@home.lan> <508FE94A.4030102@pld-linux.org> <6FE82C23-9031-4190-B921-8C3643A40A61@me.com> Message-ID: <508FED1E.2040900@pld-linux.org> On 30.10.2012 16:58, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > On Oct 30, 2012, at 10:50 AM, Elan Ruusam?e wrote: > >> >On 30.10.2012 12:07, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >>> >>1) You have 2 versions of rd-scripts installed: >>> >> Is that "normal" or already buggy? >> >it's because old package can't be removed due the trigger being fired which fails with error exit code >> > > FYI: there are both --notriggers and --notriggerpostun disabler options > > There are also other means to remove a header from an rpmdb. > yes of course, just did not want to remove package until clear that the state is no longer needed for debugging purposes. -- glen From glen at pld-linux.org Tue Oct 30 16:14:47 2012 From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Elan_Ruusam=E4e?=) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:14:47 +0200 Subject: rpm4/rpm5 incompat: rpm5 firing on provides In-Reply-To: <6FE82C23-9031-4190-B921-8C3643A40A61@me.com> References: <508EBED7.7050700@pld-linux.org> <20121030075937.GB1826@home.lan> <508FE94A.4030102@pld-linux.org> <6FE82C23-9031-4190-B921-8C3643A40A61@me.com> Message-ID: <508FEEE7.8050805@pld-linux.org> On 30.10.2012 16:58, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> >so, it's already side effect of the uwanted trigger. indeed, the trigger could be fixed not to give error on missing files it tries to move >> > > You might state what you expect to happen instead of just listing > certain commands under the pretense rpm4/rpm5 incompatibilities > in the future. i am not sure what to expect, is the direction to fix all packages (how to find them), or keep legacy behaviour for some time. that's why i wrote to list > You have two packages installed and you do not know how to "fix" that > condition. And so you start claiming incompatibilities as if that were > the root cause of your woes (which it isn't afaict). never said i can't fix *that* problem. -- glen From n3npq at me.com Tue Oct 30 16:17:52 2012 From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:17:52 -0400 Subject: rpm4/rpm5 incompat: rpm5 firing on provides In-Reply-To: <508FED1E.2040900@pld-linux.org> References: <508EBED7.7050700@pld-linux.org> <20121030075937.GB1826@home.lan> <508FE94A.4030102@pld-linux.org> <6FE82C23-9031-4190-B921-8C3643A40A61@me.com> <508FED1E.2040900@pld-linux.org> Message-ID: On Oct 30, 2012, at 11:07 AM, Elan Ruusam?e wrote: >> > yes of course, just did not want to remove package until clear that the state is no longer needed for debugging purposes. > The 1st step of debugging is _ALWAYS_ to supply rpm -vv output somehow. But even before supplying rpm -vv output, one needs to state what problem needs solving. There is nothing in the entire 1st message that indicates what you wish (except for the Subject: which incorrectly assumes incompat firing on provides). 73 de Jeff ==================================== # rpm -q rpm rpm-5.4.10-18.x86_64 # rpm -q rc-scripts initscripts rc-scripts-0.4.3.3-3.x86_64 rc-scripts-0.4.5.4-2.x86_64 package initscripts is not installed # rpm -q --whatprovides initscripts rc-scripts-0.4.3.3-3.x86_64 rc-scripts-0.4.5.4-2.x86_64 # rpm -e rc-scripts-0.4.3.3-3.x86_64 mv: cannot stat ?/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-*?: No such file or directory error: %trigger(rc-scripts-0.4.3.3-3.x86_64) scriptlet failed, exit status 1 mv: cannot stat ?/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-*?: No such file or directory error: %trigger(rc-scripts-0.4.3.3-3.x86_64) scriptlet failed, exit status 1 # rpm -q --triggers rc-scripts-0.4.3.3-3.x86_64 triggerpostun scriptlet (using /bin/sh) -- initscripts mv -f /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-* /etc/sysconfig/interfaces 73 de Jeff From n3npq at me.com Tue Oct 30 16:22:41 2012 From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:22:41 -0400 Subject: rpm4/rpm5 incompat: rpm5 firing on provides In-Reply-To: <508FEEE7.8050805@pld-linux.org> References: <508EBED7.7050700@pld-linux.org> <20121030075937.GB1826@home.lan> <508FE94A.4030102@pld-linux.org> <6FE82C23-9031-4190-B921-8C3643A40A61@me.com> <508FEEE7.8050805@pld-linux.org> Message-ID: <60C36C51-43C4-44B0-A186-A8804B946226@me.com> On Oct 30, 2012, at 11:14 AM, Elan Ruusam?e wrote: > On 30.10.2012 16:58, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >>> >so, it's already side effect of the uwanted trigger. indeed, the trigger could be fixed not to give error on missing files it tries to move >>> > >> You might state what you expect to happen instead of just listing >> certain commands under the pretense rpm4/rpm5 incompatibilities >> in the future. > i am not sure what to expect, is the direction to fix all packages (how to find them), or keep legacy behaviour for some time. that's why i wrote to list There is no known need "to fix all packages". Virtual packages (which are nothing more than Provides: will never work correctly with triggers if you change from using Providename -> NVRA (which was suggested). >> You have two packages installed and you do not know how to "fix" that >> condition. And so you start claiming incompatibilities as if that were >> the root cause of your woes (which it isn't afaict). > never said i can't fix *that* problem. > You never asked what the incompatibilities might be either, or even if "different" might be a better vocabulary than incompatible with ?. *what* (your expectations at a minimum). From jajcus at jajcus.net Tue Oct 30 16:25:06 2012 From: jajcus at jajcus.net (Jacek Konieczny) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 16:25:06 +0100 Subject: [packages/corosync] Better documentation for corosync-notifyd.sysconfig In-Reply-To: <508FEA85.3000704@pld-linux.org> References: <568476e5a29a5ff52569a66744cba630cfd3466c_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org> <508FEA85.3000704@pld-linux.org> Message-ID: <20121030152505.GD16659@jajo.eggsoft> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 04:56:05PM +0200, Elan Ruusam?e wrote: > On 30.10.2012 14:24, jajcus wrote: > > index a268cf5..40c39f5 100644 > > --- a/corosync-notifyd.sysconfig > > +++ b/corosync-notifyd.sysconfig > > @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@ > > > > -# log and signal over DBus all events > > +# Options for the corosync-notifyd daemon > > +# see `man corosync-notifyd` for details > > OPTIONS=-l -d > this code is not valid shell script, you need to quote the value. Ooops? It is a pity no one noticed that earlier, even though so many people looked there? > does systemd parse this differently? Yes, but it can handle double-quoted values too and it is only my mistake, that this is not quoted. Greets, Jacek From glen at pld-linux.org Tue Oct 30 16:34:35 2012 From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?windows-1252?Q?Elan_Ruusam=E4e?=) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:34:35 +0200 Subject: rpm4/rpm5 incompat: rpm5 firing on provides In-Reply-To: References: <508EBED7.7050700@pld-linux.org> <20121030075937.GB1826@home.lan> <508FE94A.4030102@pld-linux.org> <6FE82C23-9031-4190-B921-8C3643A40A61@me.com> <508FED1E.2040900@pld-linux.org> Message-ID: <508FF38B.6030201@pld-linux.org> On 30.10.2012 17:17, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > > The 1st step of debugging is _ALWAYS_ to supply rpm -vv output somehow. > > But even before supplying rpm -vv output, one needs to state what problem needs solving. > > There is nothing in the entire 1st message that indicates what you wish (except for the Subject: > which incorrectly assumes incompat firing on provides). ok, i start again. here's some incompatibility i found. as a result of rpm5 upgrade, rc-scripts can no longer be upgraded, during rc-scripts upgrade, removal of old package fails, because it fires trigger, which exits with error and that aborts the package removal the "provides"-based trigger was not fired in rpm 4.5, therefore the problem did not exist in rpm4.5 what's our goal? find & fix packages that have triggers on names that are also provided? or patch rpm5 to keep legacy behaviour not to fire triggers on Providenames? here's some extra info: > > # rpm -q rpm > rpm-5.4.10-18.x86_64 > > # rpm -q rc-scripts initscripts > rc-scripts-0.4.3.3-3.x86_64 > rc-scripts-0.4.5.4-2.x86_64 > package initscripts is not installed > > # rpm -q --whatprovides initscripts > rc-scripts-0.4.3.3-3.x86_64 > rc-scripts-0.4.5.4-2.x86_64 > > # 16:30:05 root[load: 0.00]@pldac-atlas users/builderac# rpm -e rc-scripts-0.4.3.3-3.x86_64 -vv D: pool fd: created size 392 limit -1 flags 0 D: pool iob: created size 48 limit -1 flags 0 D: pool mire: created size 136 limit -1 flags 0 D: pool lua: created size 64 limit -1 flags 0 D: pool ts: created size 1200 limit -1 flags 0 D: pool db: created size 328 limit -1 flags 0 D: pool dbi: created size 472 limit -1 flags 0 D: rpmdb: cpus 8 physmem 3957Mb D: opening db environment /var/lib/rpm/Packages thread:lock:log:mpool:txn D: opening db index /var/lib/rpm/Packages thread:rdonly:auto_commit mode=0x0 D: opening db index /var/lib/rpm/Nvra thread:rdonly:auto_commit mode=0x0 D: pool mi: created size 152 limit -1 flags 0 D: pool h: created size 360 limit -1 flags 0 D: pool bf: created size 56 limit -1 flags 0 D: pool te: created size 368 limit -1 flags 0 D: pool ds: created size 232 limit -1 flags 0 D: pool fi: created size 560 limit -1 flags 0 D: pool tsi: created size 48 limit -1 flags 0 D: ========== --- rc-scripts-0.4.3.3-3.x86_64 x86_64/linux 0x2 D: opening db index /var/lib/rpm/Requirename thread:rdonly:auto_commit mode=0x0 D: pool ps: created size 40 limit -1 flags 0 D: opening db index /var/lib/rpm/Providename thread:rdonly:auto_commit mode=0x0 D: Requires: config(rc-scripts) = 0:0.4.5.4-2 YES (db provides) D: Requires: rc-scripts >= 0.2.0 YES (db provides) D: Requires: rc-scripts YES (db provides) D: Requires: rc-scripts YES (db provides) D: Requires: rc-scripts >= 0.4.3.0 YES (db provides) D: Requires: rc-scripts >= 0.4.3.0 YES (db provides) D: Requires: rc-scripts >= 0.4.3.0 YES (db provides) D: Requires: rc-scripts >= 0.4.3.0 YES (db provides) D: Requires: rc-scripts >= 0.4.3.0 YES (db provides) D: Requires: rc-scripts YES (db provides) D: opening db index /var/lib/rpm/Filepaths thread:rdonly:auto_commit mode=0x0 D: Requires: /bin/run-parts YES (db files) D: pool al: created size 64 limit -1 flags 0 D: ========== recording tsort relations D: ========== tsorting packages (order, #predecessors, #succesors, tree, Ldepth, Rbreadth) D: 0 0 0 1 0 0 -rc-scripts-0.4.3.3-3.x86_64 D: closed db index /var/lib/rpm/Filepaths D: closed db index /var/lib/rpm/Nvra D: closed db index /var/lib/rpm/Requirename D: closed db index /var/lib/rpm/Providename D: closed db index /var/lib/rpm/Packages D: closed db environment /var/lib/rpm/Packages D: opening db environment /var/lib/rpm/Packages thread:lock:log:mpool:txn D: opening db index /var/lib/rpm/Packages create:thread:auto_commit mode=0x42 D: mounted filesystems: D: i dev bsize bavail iavail mount point D: 0 0x0000fe00 4096 33441627 207893218 rw / D: 1 0x0000fe00 4096 33441627 207893218 rw / D: 2 0x00000003 4096 1 -1 rw /proc D: 3 0x00000003 4096 1 -1 rw /home/users/builderac/chroots/chroot-ac-amd64/proc D: 4 0x00000003 4096 1 -1 rw /home/users/builderac/chroots/chroot-ac-i386/proc D: 5 0x00000003 4096 1 -1 rw /home/users/builderac/chroots/chroot-ac-i586/proc D: 6 0x00000003 4096 1 -1 rw /home/users/builderac/chroots/chroot-ac-i686/proc D: 7 0x00000003 4096 1 -1 rw /home/users/builderac/chroots/chroot-ac-athlon/proc D: 8 0x00000003 4096 1 -1 rw /home/users/builderti/chroots/chroot-ti-x86_64/proc D: 9 0x0000001c 4096 131071 506611 rw /tmp D: 10 0x0000000a 4096 1 -1 rw /dev/pts D: sanity checking 1 elements D: running pre-transaction scripts D: computing 245 file fingerprints D: pool ht: created size 72 limit -1 flags 0 D: computing file dispositions D: opening db index /var/lib/rpm/Basenames create:thread:auto_commit mode=0x42 D: pool psm: created size 608 limit -1 flags 0 D: ========== --- rc-scripts-0.4.3.3-3.x86_64 x86_64-linux 0x2 D: erase: rc-scripts-0.4.3.3-3.x86_64 has 245 files, test = 0 D: opening db index /var/lib/rpm/Name create:thread:auto_commit mode=0x42 D: opening db index /var/lib/rpm/Triggername create:thread:auto_commit mode=0x42 D: fini 040750 2 ( 0, 0) 6 /var/run/netreport skip D: fini 100640 1 ( 0, 0) 0 /var/log/dmesg skip D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 276 /var/cache/rc-scripts/msg.cache skip D: fini 040755 2 ( 0, 0) 22 /var/cache/rc-scripts skip D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /usr/share/man/sv/man8/start-stop-daemon.8.gz unknown D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 3076 /usr/share/man/ru/man8/start-stop-daemon.8.gz skip D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 683 /usr/share/man/man8/usernetctl.8.gz skip D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 2695 /usr/share/man/man8/start-stop-daemon.8.gz skip D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 420 /usr/share/man/man8/ppp-watch.8.gz skip D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 826 /usr/share/man/man8/fstab-decode.8.gz skip D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 1708 /usr/share/man/man5/crypttab.5.gz skip D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 564 /usr/share/man/man1/usleep.1.gz skip D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 414 /usr/share/man/man1/netreport.1.gz skip D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 862 /usr/share/man/man1/ipcalc.1.gz skip D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 963 /usr/share/man/man1/initlog.1.gz skip D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 1135 /usr/share/man/man1/getkey.1.gz skip D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 203 /usr/share/man/man1/genhostid.1.gz skip D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 284 /usr/share/man/man1/doexec.1.gz skip D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 418 /usr/share/man/man1/consoletype.1.gz skip D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /usr/share/man/ja/man8/start-stop-daemon.8.gz unknown D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /usr/share/man/fr/man8/start-stop-daemon.8.gz unknown D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /usr/share/man/es/man8/start-stop-daemon.8.gz unknown D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /usr/share/man/de/man8/start-stop-daemon.8.gz unknown D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/upstart.txt.gz D: erase: unlink of /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/upstart.txt.gz failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/tnlcfg-icm.gz D: erase: unlink of /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/tnlcfg-icm.gz failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/tnlcfg-description.gz D: erase: unlink of /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/tnlcfg-description.gz failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/template.init.gz D: erase: unlink of /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/template.init.gz failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/sysvinitfiles.gz D: erase: unlink of /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/sysvinitfiles.gz failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/sysconfig.txt.gz D: erase: unlink of /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/sysconfig.txt.gz failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/net-scripts.txt.gz D: erase: unlink of /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/net-scripts.txt.gz failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/init-colors.gz D: erase: unlink of /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/init-colors.gz failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/init-colors.gentoo.gz D: erase: unlink of /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/init-colors.gentoo.gz failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/ifcfg-sl0.gz D: erase: unlink of /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/ifcfg-sl0.gz failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/ifcfg-ppp0.ueagle4-neostrada.gz D: erase: unlink of /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/ifcfg-ppp0.ueagle4-neostrada.gz failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/ifcfg-ppp0.ueagle-neostrada.gz D: erase: unlink of /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/ifcfg-ppp0.ueagle-neostrada.gz failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/ifcfg-ppp0.tpsa.gz D: erase: unlink of /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/ifcfg-ppp0.tpsa.gz failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/ifcfg-ppp0.speedtouch-neostrada.gz D: erase: unlink of /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/ifcfg-ppp0.speedtouch-neostrada.gz failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/ifcfg-ppp0.leased2.gz D: erase: unlink of /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/ifcfg-ppp0.leased2.gz failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/ifcfg-ppp0.leased1.gz D: erase: unlink of /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/ifcfg-ppp0.leased1.gz failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/ifcfg-ppp0.kou.gz D: erase: unlink of /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/ifcfg-ppp0.kou.gz failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/ifcfg-ppp0.gprs-plusgsm.gz D: erase: unlink of /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/ifcfg-ppp0.gprs-plusgsm.gz failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/ifcfg-ppp0.gprs-idea.gz D: erase: unlink of /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/ifcfg-ppp0.gprs-idea.gz failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/ifcfg-ppp0.eagle-usb-neostrada.gz D: erase: unlink of /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/ifcfg-ppp0.eagle-usb-neostrada.gz failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/ifcfg-ppp0.callback.gz D: erase: unlink of /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/ifcfg-ppp0.callback.gz failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/ifcfg-irlan0.gz D: erase: unlink of /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/ifcfg-irlan0.gz failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/ifcfg-irda0.gz D: erase: unlink of /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/ifcfg-irda0.gz failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/ifcfg-eth0.gz D: erase: unlink of /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/ifcfg-eth0.gz failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/ifcfg-eth0.1.gz D: erase: unlink of /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/ifcfg-eth0.1.gz failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/ifcfg-description.gz D: erase: unlink of /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/ifcfg-description.gz failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/ifcfg-br0.gz D: erase: unlink of /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/ifcfg-br0.gz failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/chat-ppp0.tpsa.gz D: erase: unlink of /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/chat-ppp0.tpsa.gz failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/chat-ppp0.leased1.gz D: erase: unlink of /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/chat-ppp0.leased1.gz failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/chat-ppp0.kou.gz D: erase: unlink of /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/chat-ppp0.kou.gz failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/chat-ppp0.kou-disconnect.gz D: erase: unlink of /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/chat-ppp0.kou-disconnect.gz failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/chat-ppp0.gprs-plusgsm.gz D: erase: unlink of /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/chat-ppp0.gprs-plusgsm.gz failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/chat-ppp0.callback.gz D: erase: unlink of /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/chat-ppp0.callback.gz failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/ChangeLog.gz D: erase: unlink of /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3/ChangeLog.gz failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000755 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3 D: erase: unlink of /usr/share/doc/rc-scripts-0.4.3.3 failed: No such file or directory D: fini 104755 1 ( 0, 0) 10400 /sbin/usernetctl skip D: fini 100755 1 ( 0, 0) 3492 /sbin/tnlup skip D: fini 100755 1 ( 0, 0) 2026 /sbin/tnldown skip D: fini 100755 1 ( 0, 0) 23752 /sbin/start-stop-daemon skip D: fini 100755 1 ( 0, 0) 10280 /sbin/setuidgid skip D: fini 100755 1 ( 0, 0) 1342 /sbin/setsysfont skip D: fini 100755 1 ( 0, 0) 4434 /sbin/service skip D: fini 100755 1 ( 0, 0) 241960 /sbin/ppp-watch skip D: fini 100755 1 ( 0, 0) 6152 /sbin/netreport skip D: fini 100755 1 ( 0, 0) 10384 /sbin/minilogd skip D: fini 100755 1 ( 0, 0) 6120 /sbin/loglevel skip D: fini 100755 1 ( 0, 0) 23552 /sbin/initlog skip D: fini 100755 1 ( 0, 0) 7308 /sbin/ifup skip D: fini 100755 1 ( 0, 0) 3347 /sbin/ifdown skip D: fini 100755 1 ( 0, 0) 7468 /sbin/hwprofile skip D: fini 100755 1 ( 0, 0) 10336 /sbin/getkey skip D: fini 100755 1 ( 0, 0) 6144 /sbin/genhostid skip D: fini 100755 1 ( 0, 0) 6128 /sbin/fstab-decode skip D: fini 100755 1 ( 0, 0) 6104 /sbin/consoletype skip D: fini 100755 1 ( 0, 0) 586 /lib/firmware/firmware-loader.sh skip D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 8010 /etc/sysctl.conf skip D: fini 100640 1 ( 0, 0) 3252 /etc/sysconfig/system skip D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /etc/sysconfig/static-rules D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 313 /etc/sysconfig/static-routes skip D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 98 /etc/sysconfig/static-nat skip D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 119 /etc/sysconfig/static-arp skip D: fini 000755 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifup-vlan D: erase: unlink of /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifup-vlan failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000755 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifup-sl D: erase: unlink of /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifup-sl failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifup-routes D: erase: unlink of /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifup-routes failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000755 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifup-ppp D: erase: unlink of /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifup-ppp failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000755 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifup-post D: erase: unlink of /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifup-post failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000755 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifup-plusb D: erase: unlink of /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifup-plusb failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000755 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifup-plip D: erase: unlink of /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifup-plip failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifup-neigh D: erase: unlink of /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifup-neigh failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000755 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifup-iucv D: erase: unlink of /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifup-iucv failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000755 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifup-irda D: erase: unlink of /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifup-irda failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000755 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifup-ipx D: erase: unlink of /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifup-ipx failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000755 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifup-br D: erase: unlink of /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifup-br failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifup-aliases D: erase: unlink of /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifup-aliases failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000755 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifdown-vlan D: erase: unlink of /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifdown-vlan failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000755 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifdown-sl D: erase: unlink of /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifdown-sl failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000755 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifdown-ppp D: erase: unlink of /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifdown-ppp failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000755 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifdown-post D: erase: unlink of /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifdown-post failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000755 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifdown-irda D: erase: unlink of /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifdown-irda failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000755 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifdown-br D: erase: unlink of /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifdown-br failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/functions.network D: erase: unlink of /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/functions.network failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000755 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts D: erase: unlink of /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts failed: No such file or directory D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 1417 /etc/sysconfig/network skip D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /etc/sysconfig/locale/pl/LC_MESSAGES/rc-scripts.mo D: erase: unlink of /etc/sysconfig/locale/pl/LC_MESSAGES/rc-scripts.mo failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000755 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /etc/sysconfig/locale/pl/LC_MESSAGES D: erase: unlink of /etc/sysconfig/locale/pl/LC_MESSAGES failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000755 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /etc/sysconfig/locale/pl D: erase: unlink of /etc/sysconfig/locale/pl failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /etc/sysconfig/locale/de/LC_MESSAGES/rc-scripts.mo unknown D: fini 000755 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /etc/sysconfig/locale/de/LC_MESSAGES unknown D: fini 000755 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /etc/sysconfig/locale/de unknown D: fini 000755 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /etc/sysconfig/locale D: erase: unlink of /etc/sysconfig/locale failed: No such file or directory D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 391 /etc/sysconfig/isapnp/isapnp-kernel.conf skip D: fini 040755 2 ( 0, 0) 31 /etc/sysconfig/isapnp skip D: fini 000755 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /etc/sysconfig/interfaces/up.d/tnl D: erase: unlink of /etc/sysconfig/interfaces/up.d/tnl failed: No such file or directory D: fini 100755 1 ( 0, 0) 273 /etc/sysconfig/interfaces/up.d/ppp/logger skip D: fini 040755 2 ( 0, 0) 19 /etc/sysconfig/interfaces/up.d/ppp skip D: fini 000755 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /etc/sysconfig/interfaces/up.d/ipx D: erase: unlink of /etc/sysconfig/interfaces/up.d/ipx failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000755 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /etc/sysconfig/interfaces/up.d/ip D: erase: unlink of /etc/sysconfig/interfaces/up.d/ip failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000755 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /etc/sysconfig/interfaces/up.d/all D: erase: unlink of /etc/sysconfig/interfaces/up.d/all failed: No such file or directory D: fini 040755 3 ( 0, 0) 16 /etc/sysconfig/interfaces/up.d skip D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 845 /etc/sysconfig/interfaces/ifcfg-eth0 skip D: fini 000755 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /etc/sysconfig/interfaces/down.d/tnl D: erase: unlink of /etc/sysconfig/interfaces/down.d/tnl failed: No such file or directory D: fini 100755 1 ( 0, 0) 276 /etc/sysconfig/interfaces/down.d/ppp/logger skip D: fini 040755 2 ( 0, 0) 19 /etc/sysconfig/interfaces/down.d/ppp skip D: fini 000755 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /etc/sysconfig/interfaces/down.d/ipx D: erase: unlink of /etc/sysconfig/interfaces/down.d/ipx failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000755 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /etc/sysconfig/interfaces/down.d/ip D: erase: unlink of /etc/sysconfig/interfaces/down.d/ip failed: No such file or directory D: fini 000755 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /etc/sysconfig/interfaces/down.d/all D: erase: unlink of /etc/sysconfig/interfaces/down.d/all failed: No such file or directory D: fini 040755 3 ( 0, 0) 16 /etc/sysconfig/interfaces/down.d skip D: fini 040755 2 ( 0, 0) 6 /etc/sysconfig/interfaces/data skip D: fini 040755 5 ( 0, 0) 58 /etc/sysconfig/interfaces skip D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 548 /etc/sysconfig/init-colors skip D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 342 /etc/sysconfig/i18n skip D: fini 040755 2 ( 0, 0) 6 /etc/sysconfig/hwprofiles skip D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 127 /etc/sysconfig/hwprof skip D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 443 /etc/sysconfig/cpusets/cpuset-test skip D: fini 040755 2 ( 0, 0) 24 /etc/sysconfig/cpusets skip D: fini 000644 0 ( 0, 0) 0 /etc/sysconfig/clock D: erase: unlink of /etc/sysconfig/clock failed: No such file or directory D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 17 /etc/rc.d/rc6.d/K99cpusets skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 17 /etc/rc.d/rc6.d/K90network skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 17 /etc/rc.d/rc6.d/K90killall skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 16 /etc/rc.d/rc6.d/K80random skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 21 /etc/rc.d/rc6.d/K01sys-chroots skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 15 /etc/rc.d/rc6.d/K01local skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 20 /etc/rc.d/rc6.d/K01allowlogin skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 16 /etc/rc.d/rc6.d/K00single skip D: fini 040755 2 ( 0, 0) 4096 /etc/rc.d/rc6.d skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 21 /etc/rc.d/rc5.d/S99sys-chroots skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 15 /etc/rc.d/rc5.d/S99local skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 20 /etc/rc.d/rc5.d/S99allowlogin skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 16 /etc/rc.d/rc5.d/S20random skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 17 /etc/rc.d/rc5.d/S10network skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 17 /etc/rc.d/rc5.d/S01cpusets skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 17 /etc/rc.d/rc5.d/S00killall skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 16 /etc/rc.d/rc5.d/K00single skip D: fini 040755 2 ( 0, 0) 4096 /etc/rc.d/rc5.d skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 21 /etc/rc.d/rc4.d/S99sys-chroots skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 15 /etc/rc.d/rc4.d/S99local skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 20 /etc/rc.d/rc4.d/S99allowlogin skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 16 /etc/rc.d/rc4.d/S20random skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 17 /etc/rc.d/rc4.d/S10network skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 17 /etc/rc.d/rc4.d/S01cpusets skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 17 /etc/rc.d/rc4.d/S00killall skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 16 /etc/rc.d/rc4.d/K00single skip D: fini 040755 2 ( 0, 0) 4096 /etc/rc.d/rc4.d skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 21 /etc/rc.d/rc3.d/S99sys-chroots skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 15 /etc/rc.d/rc3.d/S99local skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 20 /etc/rc.d/rc3.d/S99allowlogin skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 16 /etc/rc.d/rc3.d/S20random skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 17 /etc/rc.d/rc3.d/S10network skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 17 /etc/rc.d/rc3.d/S01cpusets skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 17 /etc/rc.d/rc3.d/S00killall skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 16 /etc/rc.d/rc3.d/K00single skip D: fini 040755 2 ( 0, 0) 4096 /etc/rc.d/rc3.d skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 21 /etc/rc.d/rc2.d/S99sys-chroots skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 15 /etc/rc.d/rc2.d/S99local skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 20 /etc/rc.d/rc2.d/S99allowlogin skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 16 /etc/rc.d/rc2.d/S20random skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 17 /etc/rc.d/rc2.d/S10network skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 17 /etc/rc.d/rc2.d/S01cpusets skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 17 /etc/rc.d/rc2.d/S00killall skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 16 /etc/rc.d/rc2.d/K00single skip D: fini 040755 2 ( 0, 0) 4096 /etc/rc.d/rc2.d skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 16 /etc/rc.d/rc1.d/S20random skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 17 /etc/rc.d/rc1.d/S01cpusets skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 16 /etc/rc.d/rc1.d/S00single skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 17 /etc/rc.d/rc1.d/S00killall skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 17 /etc/rc.d/rc1.d/K90network skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 21 /etc/rc.d/rc1.d/K01sys-chroots skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 15 /etc/rc.d/rc1.d/K01local skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 20 /etc/rc.d/rc1.d/K01allowlogin skip D: fini 040755 2 ( 0, 0) 4096 /etc/rc.d/rc1.d skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 17 /etc/rc.d/rc0.d/K99cpusets skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 17 /etc/rc.d/rc0.d/K90network skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 17 /etc/rc.d/rc0.d/K90killall skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 16 /etc/rc.d/rc0.d/K80random skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 21 /etc/rc.d/rc0.d/K01sys-chroots skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 15 /etc/rc.d/rc0.d/K01local skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 20 /etc/rc.d/rc0.d/K01allowlogin skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 16 /etc/rc.d/rc0.d/K00single skip D: fini 040755 2 ( 0, 0) 4096 /etc/rc.d/rc0.d skip D: fini 100754 1 ( 0, 0) 30825 /etc/rc.d/rc.sysinit skip D: fini 100754 1 ( 0, 0) 5457 /etc/rc.d/rc.shutdown skip D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 231 /etc/rc.d/rc.local skip D: fini 100754 1 ( 0, 0) 1021 /etc/rc.d/rc.init skip D: fini 100754 1 ( 0, 0) 7236 /etc/rc.d/rc skip D: fini 100754 1 ( 0, 0) 4253 /etc/rc.d/init.d/sys-chroots skip D: fini 100754 1 ( 0, 0) 1549 /etc/rc.d/init.d/single skip D: fini 100754 1 ( 0, 0) 1846 /etc/rc.d/init.d/random skip D: fini 100754 1 ( 0, 0) 9405 /etc/rc.d/init.d/network skip D: fini 100754 1 ( 0, 0) 790 /etc/rc.d/init.d/local skip D: fini 100754 1 ( 0, 0) 757 /etc/rc.d/init.d/killall skip D: fini 120644 1 ( 0, 0) 25 /etc/rc.d/init.d/functions skip D: fini 100754 1 ( 0, 0) 4355 /etc/rc.d/init.d/cryptsetup skip D: fini 100754 1 ( 0, 0) 3897 /etc/rc.d/init.d/cpusets skip D: fini 100754 1 ( 0, 0) 1303 /etc/rc.d/init.d/allowlogin skip D: fini 040755 2 ( 0, 0) 4096 /etc/rc.d/init.d skip D: fini 040755 10 ( 0, 0) 4096 /etc/rc.d skip D: fini 100755 1 ( 0, 0) 2592 /etc/profile.d/lang.sh skip D: fini 100755 1 ( 0, 0) 517 /etc/profile.d/lang.csh skip D: fini 100754 1 ( 0, 0) 1941 /etc/ppp/ipx-up skip D: fini 100754 1 ( 0, 0) 1655 /etc/ppp/ipx-down skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 5 /etc/ppp/ipv6-up skip D: fini 120754 1 ( 0, 0) 7 /etc/ppp/ipv6-down skip D: fini 100754 1 ( 0, 0) 1300 /etc/ppp/ip-up skip D: fini 100754 1 ( 0, 0) 1315 /etc/ppp/ip-down skip D: fini 100754 1 ( 0, 0) 1039 /etc/ppp/auth-up skip D: fini 100754 1 ( 0, 0) 1051 /etc/ppp/auth-down skip D: fini 040755 2 ( 0, 0) 120 /etc/ppp skip D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 564 /etc/modules skip D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 2239 /etc/inittab skip D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 658 /etc/initlog.conf skip D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 870 /etc/init/rcS.conf skip D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 588 /etc/init/rcS-sulogin.conf skip D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 573 /etc/init/rc.conf skip D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 706 /etc/init/random.conf skip D: fini 120644 1 ( 0, 0) 11 /etc/init.d skip D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 185 /etc/crypttab skip D: fini 100644 1 ( 0, 0) 12 /etc/adjtime skip D: fini 100755 1 ( 0, 0) 6152 /bin/usleep skip D: fini 100755 1 ( 0, 0) 1570 /bin/run-parts skip D: fini 100755 1 ( 0, 0) 6112 /bin/resolvesymlink skip D: fini 100755 1 ( 0, 0) 10336 /bin/ipcalc skip D: fini 100755 1 ( 0, 0) 6088 /bin/doexec skip D: erase: %postun(rc-scripts-0.4.3.3-3.x86_64) asynchronous scriptlet start D: erase: %trigger(rc-scripts-0.4.3.3-3.x86_64) execv(/bin/sh) pid 8832 + mv -f /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-* /etc/sysconfig/interfaces mv: cannot stat ?/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-*?: No such file or directory D: erase: waitpid(8832) rc 8832 status 100 secs 0.003 error: %trigger(rc-scripts-0.4.3.3-3.x86_64) scriptlet failed, exit status 1 D: erase: %postun(rc-scripts-0.4.3.3-3.x86_64) asynchronous scriptlet start D: erase: %trigger(rc-scripts-0.4.3.3-3.x86_64) execv(/bin/sh) pid 8836 + mv -f /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-* /etc/sysconfig/interfaces mv: cannot stat ?/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-*?: No such file or directory D: erase: waitpid(8836) rc 8836 status 100 secs 0.003 error: %trigger(rc-scripts-0.4.3.3-3.x86_64) scriptlet failed, exit status 1 D: running post-transaction scripts D: closed db index /var/lib/rpm/Triggername D: closed db index /var/lib/rpm/Basenames D: closed db index /var/lib/rpm/Name D: closed db index /var/lib/rpm/Packages D: closed db environment /var/lib/rpm/Packages D: pool mi: reused 846, alloc'd 2, free'd 2 items. D: pool psm: reused 0, alloc'd 1, free'd 1 items. D: pool tsi: reused 25, alloc'd 2, free'd 2 items. D: pool ts: reused 0, alloc'd 1, free'd 1 items. D: pool te: reused 0, alloc'd 1, free'd 1 items. D: pool ps: reused 1, alloc'd 1, free'd 1 items. D: pool al: reused 0, alloc'd 1, free'd 1 items. D: pool ds: reused 60, alloc'd 14, free'd 14 items. D: pool fi: reused 0, alloc'd 1, free'd 1 items. D: pool db: reused 1, alloc'd 1, free'd 1 items. D: pool dbi: reused 4, alloc'd 5, free'd 5 items. D: pool h: reused 119, alloc'd 2, free'd 2 items. D: pool lua: reused 0, alloc'd 1, free'd 1 items. D: pool mire: reused 187, alloc'd 3, free'd 3 items. D: pool bf: reused 261, alloc'd 3, free'd 3 items. D: pool ht: reused 0, alloc'd 3, free'd 3 items. D: pool iob: reused 0, alloc'd 1, free'd 1 items. D: pool fd: reused 15, alloc'd 1, free'd 1 items. D: exit code: 1 > # rpm -q --triggers rc-scripts-0.4.3.3-3.x86_64 > triggerpostun scriptlet (using /bin/sh) -- initscripts > mv -f /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-* /etc/sysconfig/interfaces > -- glen From n3npq at me.com Tue Oct 30 16:42:37 2012 From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:42:37 -0400 Subject: rpm4/rpm5 incompat: rpm5 firing on provides In-Reply-To: <508FF38B.6030201@pld-linux.org> References: <508EBED7.7050700@pld-linux.org> <20121030075937.GB1826@home.lan> <508FE94A.4030102@pld-linux.org> <6FE82C23-9031-4190-B921-8C3643A40A61@me.com> <508FED1E.2040900@pld-linux.org> <508FF38B.6030201@pld-linux.org> Message-ID: <984C036F-B25E-426C-95AA-5959891101EB@me.com> On Oct 30, 2012, at 11:34 AM, Elan Ruusam?e wrote: > > the "provides"-based trigger was not fired in rpm 4.5, therefore the problem did not exist in rpm4.5 > Having 2 versions of rc-scripts is causing cross triggering: remove one of those 2 packages to better approximate "upgrade" (and run an "upgrade", not an "erase", command > what's our goal? find & fix packages that have triggers on names that are also provided? or patch rpm5 to keep legacy behaviour not to fire triggers on Providenames? > Packages won't trigger on themselves: having 2 versions of rc-files is causing cross-triggering. Meanwhile triggerpostun is usually _NOT_ the right place to fix anything (no matter what PLD has been doing). Its rather unusual to expect a script to run after all package contents -- including the trigger script -- have been removed. 73 de Jeff From glen at pld-linux.org Tue Oct 30 16:48:55 2012 From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?windows-1252?Q?Elan_Ruusam=E4e?=) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:48:55 +0200 Subject: rpm4/rpm5 incompat: rpm5 firing on provides In-Reply-To: <984C036F-B25E-426C-95AA-5959891101EB@me.com> References: <508EBED7.7050700@pld-linux.org> <20121030075937.GB1826@home.lan> <508FE94A.4030102@pld-linux.org> <6FE82C23-9031-4190-B921-8C3643A40A61@me.com> <508FED1E.2040900@pld-linux.org> <508FF38B.6030201@pld-linux.org> <984C036F-B25E-426C-95AA-5959891101EB@me.com> Message-ID: <508FF6E7.2080809@pld-linux.org> On 30.10.2012 17:42, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > Its rather unusual to expect > a script to run after all package contents -- including > the trigger script -- have been removed. the trigger is to migrate config files from "initscripts" package from redhat to pld "rc-scripts" package so if "initscript" package is removed (replaced by rc-scripts), trigger locates interface configs to directory "rc-scripts" expects -- glen From n3npq at me.com Tue Oct 30 17:04:03 2012 From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 12:04:03 -0400 Subject: rpm4/rpm5 incompat: rpm5 firing on provides In-Reply-To: <508FF6E7.2080809@pld-linux.org> References: <508EBED7.7050700@pld-linux.org> <20121030075937.GB1826@home.lan> <508FE94A.4030102@pld-linux.org> <6FE82C23-9031-4190-B921-8C3643A40A61@me.com> <508FED1E.2040900@pld-linux.org> <508FF38B.6030201@pld-linux.org> <984C036F-B25E-426C-95AA-5959891101EB@me.com> <508FF6E7.2080809@pld-linux.org> Message-ID: On Oct 30, 2012, at 11:48 AM, Elan Ruusam?e wrote: > On 30.10.2012 17:42, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> Its rather unusual to expect >> a script to run after all package contents -- including >> the trigger script -- have been removed. > the trigger is to migrate config files from "initscripts" package from redhat to pld "rc-scripts" package > Duplicating what scripts one expects, and marking with %config so no local modifications are lost, and then Obsoletes: initscripts < X.Y.Z Conflicts: initscripts < X.Y.Z Provides: initscripts = X.Y.Z is the "standard" way that a package renaming from "ini scripts" -> "rc-files" is achieved. Note no trigger needed and that %config is used (which cannot be achieved through scripting because there is no ability to track %confoig file states into an rpmdb). > so if "initscript" package is removed (replaced by rc-scripts), trigger locates interface configs to directory "rc-scripts" expects > Is the directory renaming really necessary? That is a different problem than package renaming. And the copy would have to be done much earlier than %triggerpostun with an ordering dependency, to ensure that the contents that need to be copied/saved exist and haven't already been removed. 73 de Jeff From gotar at polanet.pl Tue Oct 30 17:31:05 2012 From: gotar at polanet.pl (Tomasz Pala) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:31:05 +0100 Subject: rpm4/rpm5 incompat: rpm5 firing on provides In-Reply-To: <508EBED7.7050700@pld-linux.org> References: <508EBED7.7050700@pld-linux.org> Message-ID: <20121030163105.GA21031@polanet.pl> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 19:37:27 +0200, Elan Ruusam?e wrote: > # rpm -q --triggers rc-scripts-0.4.3.3-3.x86_64 > triggerpostun scriptlet (using /bin/sh) -- initscripts > mv -f /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-* /etc/sysconfig/interfaces What do you expect from badly written command? 1. using '-f' within /etc should be punished with -rw, as eventually this leads to data loss - consider someone having old network-scripts files _this day_, 2. this command _might_ fail, what shall not prevent upgrade (classic || :). [ "$(echo /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-*)" != "/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-*" ] \ && mv -n /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-* -t /etc/sysconfig/interfaces -- Tomasz Pala From baggins at pld-linux.org Tue Oct 30 17:41:30 2012 From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:41:30 +0100 Subject: rpm4/rpm5 incompat: rpm5 firing on provides In-Reply-To: <508FEEE7.8050805@pld-linux.org> References: <508EBED7.7050700@pld-linux.org> <20121030075937.GB1826@home.lan> <508FE94A.4030102@pld-linux.org> <6FE82C23-9031-4190-B921-8C3643A40A61@me.com> <508FEEE7.8050805@pld-linux.org> Message-ID: <20121030164129.GA1829@home.lan> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012, Elan Ruusam?e wrote: > On 30.10.2012 16:58, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > >> >so, it's already side effect of the uwanted trigger. indeed, the trigger could be fixed not to give error on missing files it tries to move > >> > > > You might state what you expect to happen instead of just listing > > certain commands under the pretense rpm4/rpm5 incompatibilities > > in the future. > i am not sure what to expect, is the direction to fix all packages (how > to find them), or keep legacy behaviour for some time. that's why i > wrote to list IMO we should fix problematic packages, I don't see the need to keep old behavior. I didn't switch to rpm5 to later reintroduce all rpm4 quirks. -- Jan R?korajski | PLD/Linux SysAdm | http://www.pld-linux.org/ bagginsmimuw.edu.pl bagginspld-linux.org From glen at pld-linux.org Tue Oct 30 17:47:18 2012 From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Elan_Ruusam=E4e?=) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 18:47:18 +0200 Subject: rpm4/rpm5 incompat: rpm5 firing on provides In-Reply-To: References: <508EBED7.7050700@pld-linux.org> <20121030075937.GB1826@home.lan> <508FE94A.4030102@pld-linux.org> <6FE82C23-9031-4190-B921-8C3643A40A61@me.com> <508FED1E.2040900@pld-linux.org> <508FF38B.6030201@pld-linux.org> <984C036F-B25E-426C-95AA-5959891101EB@me.com> <508FF6E7.2080809@pld-linux.org> Message-ID: <50900496.7000507@pld-linux.org> On 30.10.2012 18:04, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > On Oct 30, 2012, at 11:48 AM, Elan Ruusam?e wrote: > >> >On 30.10.2012 17:42, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >>> >>Its rather unusual to expect >>> >>a script to run after all package contents -- including >>> >>the trigger script -- have been removed. >> >the trigger is to migrate config files from "initscripts" package from redhat to pld "rc-scripts" package >> > > Duplicating what scripts one expects, and marking with %config so no > local modifications are lost, and then > Obsoletes: initscripts < X.Y.Z > Conflicts: initscripts < X.Y.Z > Provides: initscripts = X.Y.Z > is the "standard" way that a package renaming from "ini scripts" -> "rc-files" is achieved. can't mark by version, because they (redhat/fedora) increase the version as well (it's foreign package, not under pld control) the files are still compatible with pld initscripts, so no reason to limit migration from redhat 6.2 only. > Note no trigger needed and that %config is used (which cannot be achieved through > scripting because there is no ability to track %confoig file states into an rpmdb). > >> >so if "initscript" package is removed (replaced by rc-scripts), trigger locates interface configs to directory "rc-scripts" expects >> > > Is the directory renaming really necessary? hell knows, it's been renamed since '99 :) -- glen From gotar at polanet.pl Tue Oct 30 17:58:07 2012 From: gotar at polanet.pl (Tomasz Pala) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:58:07 +0100 Subject: rpm4/rpm5 incompat: rpm5 firing on provides In-Reply-To: <50900496.7000507@pld-linux.org> References: <508FE94A.4030102@pld-linux.org> <6FE82C23-9031-4190-B921-8C3643A40A61@me.com> <508FED1E.2040900@pld-linux.org> <508FF38B.6030201@pld-linux.org> <984C036F-B25E-426C-95AA-5959891101EB@me.com> <508FF6E7.2080809@pld-linux.org> <50900496.7000507@pld-linux.org> Message-ID: <20121030165807.GA11019@polanet.pl> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 18:47:18 +0200, Elan Ruusam?e wrote: >>> >so if "initscript" package is removed (replaced by rc-scripts), trigger locates interface configs to directory "rc-scripts" expects >>> > >> Is the directory renaming really necessary? > hell knows, it's been renamed since '99 :) Hint: it's better to link directories to keep compatibility, just like /etc/init.d was brought to PLD. -- Tomasz Pala From glen at pld-linux.org Tue Oct 30 18:45:52 2012 From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?ISO-8859-2?Q?Elan_Ruusam=E4e?=) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:45:52 +0200 Subject: rpm4/rpm5 incompat: rpm5 firing on provides In-Reply-To: <20121030165807.GA11019@polanet.pl> References: <508FE94A.4030102@pld-linux.org> <6FE82C23-9031-4190-B921-8C3643A40A61@me.com> <508FED1E.2040900@pld-linux.org> <508FF38B.6030201@pld-linux.org> <984C036F-B25E-426C-95AA-5959891101EB@me.com> <508FF6E7.2080809@pld-linux.org> <50900496.7000507@pld-linux.org> <20121030165807.GA11019@polanet.pl> Message-ID: <50901250.6000602@pld-linux.org> On 10/30/2012 06:58 PM, Tomasz Pala wrote: > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 18:47:18 +0200, Elan Ruusam?e wrote: > >>>>> >>> >so if "initscript" package is removed (replaced by rc-scripts), trigger locates interface configs to directory "rc-scripts" expects >>>>> >>> > >>> >>Is the directory renaming really necessary? >> >hell knows, it's been renamed since '99:) > Hint: it's better to link directories to keep compatibility, just like > /etc/init.d was brought to PLD. changing dir to symlink did not work properly until it got working %pretrans (added in 4.4.2?) so, probably it was too advanced black magic back then :P -- glen From gotar at polanet.pl Tue Oct 30 19:17:40 2012 From: gotar at polanet.pl (Tomasz Pala) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:17:40 +0100 Subject: rpm4/rpm5 incompat: rpm5 firing on provides In-Reply-To: <50901250.6000602@pld-linux.org> References: <6FE82C23-9031-4190-B921-8C3643A40A61@me.com> <508FED1E.2040900@pld-linux.org> <508FF38B.6030201@pld-linux.org> <984C036F-B25E-426C-95AA-5959891101EB@me.com> <508FF6E7.2080809@pld-linux.org> <50900496.7000507@pld-linux.org> <20121030165807.GA11019@polanet.pl> <50901250.6000602@pld-linux.org> Message-ID: <20121030181740.GA19741@polanet.pl> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 19:45:52 +0200, Elan Ruusam?e wrote: >> Hint: it's better to link directories to keep compatibility, just like >> /etc/init.d was brought to PLD. > changing dir to symlink did not work properly until it got working > %pretrans (added in 4.4.2?) > > so, probably it was too advanced black magic back then :P You just had to remove symlink before directory was about to be created: http://cvs.pld-linux.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/packages/icewm/icewm.spec?r1=1.84&r2=1.85 -- Tomasz Pala From n3npq at me.com Tue Oct 30 19:34:55 2012 From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 14:34:55 -0400 Subject: rpm4/rpm5 incompat: rpm5 firing on provides In-Reply-To: <20121030181740.GA19741@polanet.pl> References: <6FE82C23-9031-4190-B921-8C3643A40A61@me.com> <508FED1E.2040900@pld-linux.org> <508FF38B.6030201@pld-linux.org> <984C036F-B25E-426C-95AA-5959891101EB@me.com> <508FF6E7.2080809@pld-linux.org> <50900496.7000507@pld-linux.org> <20121030165807.GA11019@polanet.pl> <50901250.6000602@pld-linux.org> <20121030181740.GA19741@polanet.pl> Message-ID: <8AB1F917-93C8-4B29-8559-B29C7F38E146@me.com> On Oct 30, 2012, at 2:17 PM, Tomasz Pala wrote: > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 19:45:52 +0200, Elan Ruusam?e wrote: > >>> Hint: it's better to link directories to keep compatibility, just like >>> /etc/init.d was brought to PLD. >> changing dir to symlink did not work properly until it got working >> %pretrans (added in 4.4.2?) >> >> so, probably it was too advanced black magic back then :P > > You just had to remove symlink before directory was about to be created: > Um ? no. Please refrain from posting guesses: the end-result is that noon believes me when I describe what needs doing. Hint: You _MUST_ replace the directory with a symlink before fingerprints are computed ==> %pretrans Any other answer is crack (or merely gud enuf) 73 de Jeff From gotar at polanet.pl Wed Oct 31 03:22:54 2012 From: gotar at polanet.pl (Tomasz Pala) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 03:22:54 +0100 Subject: rpm4/rpm5 incompat: rpm5 firing on provides In-Reply-To: <8AB1F917-93C8-4B29-8559-B29C7F38E146@me.com> References: <508FF38B.6030201@pld-linux.org> <984C036F-B25E-426C-95AA-5959891101EB@me.com> <508FF6E7.2080809@pld-linux.org> <50900496.7000507@pld-linux.org> <20121030165807.GA11019@polanet.pl> <50901250.6000602@pld-linux.org> <20121030181740.GA19741@polanet.pl> <8AB1F917-93C8-4B29-8559-B29C7F38E146@me.com> Message-ID: <20121031022253.GA4134@polanet.pl> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 14:34:55 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >>> changing dir to symlink did not work properly until it got working ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>> %pretrans (added in 4.4.2?) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>> so, probably it was too advanced black magic back then :P ^^^^^^^^^ >> You just had to remove symlink before directory was about to be created: ^^^^^^ [link poining to year 2002 cut - PLD had rpm 4.0 _10 ya_] > Um ? no. Please refrain from posting guesses: > the end-result is that noon believes me when > I describe what needs doing. > > Hint: You _MUST_ replace the directory with a symlink > before fingerprints are computed ==> %pretrans > > Any other answer is crack (or merely gud enuf) Quoting myself: "- ugly hack to rpm upgrade [...]" Sure, doing manually anything that could be easily detected and handled by PM sux. Any content that got _replaced_ should not fail upgrades w/o any %pre(trans)ing in robust sw, otherwise we're dealing with clunky workarounds. -- Tomasz Pala