From baggins at pld-linux.org  Sat Sep  1 19:38:50 2012
From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=)
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 19:38:50 +0200
Subject: PLD Th 2012 snapshot released
Message-ID: <20120901173850.GC1621@home.lan>

See http://www.pld-linux.org/ for annoucement.

If someone is interested in maintaning security updates/bugfixes for the
snapshot, please step up - builders have been cloned, so only the
willing person is needed.

-- 
Jan R?korajski                                 | PLD/Linux
SysAdm                                         | http://www.pld-linux.org/
baggins<at>mimuw.edu.pl
baggins<at>pld-linux.org


From baggins at pld-linux.org  Tue Sep  4 12:20:56 2012
From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=)
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 12:20:56 +0200
Subject: Th development plans
Message-ID: <20120904102056.GL28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>

Hi,
After making a snapshot, and having (development wise) stable package set,
I want to start refreshing the distribution. This means big changes in the 
near future to get PLD back to being modern (or at least up-to-date) wrt
current Linux world.

Below I present a plan (a.k.a The Roadmap) for Th:

- db 5.3 as default system BerkeleyDB
- rpm 5.4.x 
- perl 5.16.x
- apache 2.4.x
- full systemd support (provide systemd units, but still support SysV 
        scripts - at least until vserver will be able to run systemd)
- drop *-initrd packages, building them is becoming a RPITA, and the net gain
        is not worth the pain
- grsecurity support in our kernels will be dropped, until someone
	volunteers to keep that patch up-to-date 
- kernel 3.4.x will become the new -longterm

Of course, the always-in-development model stays, other non-conflicting changes 
are welcome, and if you have any comments and proposals please say so.

-- 
Jan R?korajski                                 | PLD/Linux
SysAdm                                         | http://www.pld-linux.org/
baggins<at>mimuw.edu.pl
baggins<at>pld-linux.org


From jajcus at jajcus.net  Tue Sep  4 12:36:12 2012
From: jajcus at jajcus.net (Jacek Konieczny)
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 12:36:12 +0200
Subject: Th development plans
In-Reply-To: <20120904102056.GL28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
References: <20120904102056.GL28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
Message-ID: <20120904103611.GA6282@jajo.eggsoft>

On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 12:20:56PM +0200, Jan R?korajski wrote:
> - rpm 5.4.x 

Yeah!
+1

And we should re-consider every of our current rpm patches, even if some
functionality should be sacrificed.

> - full systemd support (provide systemd units, but still support SysV 
>         scripts - at least until vserver will be able to run systemd)

+1

> - drop *-initrd packages, building them is becoming a RPITA, and the net gain
>         is not worth the pain

I am not sure about this one. Though, I am not going to volunteer to
support those, either ;)

> - grsecurity support in our kernels will be dropped, until someone
> 	volunteers to keep that patch up-to-date 

+1

> - kernel 3.4.x will become the new -longterm

+1, as long as it is considered 'longterm' upstream.

> Of course, the always-in-development model stays, other non-conflicting changes 
> are welcome, and if you have any comments and proposals please say so.

+1

Greets,
        Jacek


From baggins at pld-linux.org  Tue Sep  4 12:46:01 2012
From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=)
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 12:46:01 +0200
Subject: Th development plans
In-Reply-To: <20120904103611.GA6282@jajo.eggsoft>
References: <20120904102056.GL28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
 <20120904103611.GA6282@jajo.eggsoft>
Message-ID: <20120904104601.GN28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>

On Tue, 04 Sep 2012, Jacek Konieczny wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 12:20:56PM +0200, Jan R?korajski wrote:
> > - rpm 5.4.x 
> 
> Yeah!
> +1
> 
> And we should re-consider every of our current rpm patches, even if some
> functionality should be sacrificed.

I went through all the patches on master and rpm-4_5 and they seem sane,
so I don't see the need to drop anything.

> > - grsecurity support in our kernels will be dropped, until someone
> > 	volunteers to keep that patch up-to-date 
> 
> +1
> 
> > - kernel 3.4.x will become the new -longterm
> 
> +1, as long as it is considered 'longterm' upstream.

Yes, Greg K-H stated that 3.4.x will be maintained as lonterm for
the next two years.

-- 
Jan R?korajski                                 | PLD/Linux
SysAdm                                         | http://www.pld-linux.org/
baggins<at>mimuw.edu.pl
baggins<at>pld-linux.org


From arekm at maven.pl  Tue Sep  4 13:43:18 2012
From: arekm at maven.pl (Arkadiusz =?utf-8?q?Mi=C5=9Bkiewicz?=)
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 13:43:18 +0200
Subject: Th development plans
In-Reply-To: <20120904102056.GL28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
References: <20120904102056.GL28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
Message-ID: <201209041343.18645.arekm@maven.pl>

On Tuesday 04 of September 2012, Jan R?korajski wrote:
> Hi,
> After making a snapshot, and having (development wise) stable package set,
> I want to start refreshing the distribution. This means big changes in the
> near future to get PLD back to being modern (or at least up-to-date) wrt
> current Linux world.
> 
> Below I present a plan (a.k.a The Roadmap) for Th:

New texlive, new ffmpeg, new mesa (soon 9.0), new xserver (soon 1.13) ? :-)

-- 
Arkadiusz Mi?kiewicz, arekm / maven.pl


From baggins at pld-linux.org  Tue Sep  4 13:48:11 2012
From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=)
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 13:48:11 +0200
Subject: Th development plans
In-Reply-To: <201209041343.18645.arekm@maven.pl>
References: <20120904102056.GL28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
 <201209041343.18645.arekm@maven.pl>
Message-ID: <20120904114811.GO28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>

On Tue, 04 Sep 2012, Arkadiusz Mi?kiewicz wrote:

> On Tuesday 04 of September 2012, Jan R?korajski wrote:
> > Hi,
> > After making a snapshot, and having (development wise) stable package set,
> > I want to start refreshing the distribution. This means big changes in the
> > near future to get PLD back to being modern (or at least up-to-date) wrt
> > current Linux world.
> > 
> > Below I present a plan (a.k.a The Roadmap) for Th:
> 
> New texlive, new ffmpeg, new mesa (soon 9.0), new xserver (soon 1.13) ? :-)

Sure, but let's take one step at a time, I upgraded db and then I want
to go with rpm (which seems to have some rpmbuild problems related to
python, BTW :/)

-- 
Jan R?korajski                                 | PLD/Linux
SysAdm                                         | http://www.pld-linux.org/
baggins<at>mimuw.edu.pl
baggins<at>pld-linux.org


From kiesiu at pld-linux.org  Tue Sep  4 20:06:21 2012
From: kiesiu at pld-linux.org (Lukasz Kies)
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 20:06:21 +0200
Subject: Th development plans
In-Reply-To: <20120904114811.GO28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
References: <20120904102056.GL28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
 <201209041343.18645.arekm@maven.pl>
 <20120904114811.GO28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
Message-ID: <CADDE8wMZu4j-90SOFm+fbrcUSE9LJ66+u2wmtH=2vEZWu_D91Q@mail.gmail.com>

2012/9/4 Jan R?korajski <baggins at pld-linux.org>:
> On Tue, 04 Sep 2012, Arkadiusz Mi?kiewicz wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday 04 of September 2012, Jan R?korajski wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> > After making a snapshot, and having (development wise) stable package set,
>> > I want to start refreshing the distribution. This means big changes in the
>> > near future to get PLD back to being modern (or at least up-to-date) wrt
>> > current Linux world.
>> >
>> > Below I present a plan (a.k.a The Roadmap) for Th:
>>
>> New texlive, new ffmpeg, new mesa (soon 9.0), new xserver (soon 1.13) ? :-)
>
> Sure, but let's take one step at a time, I upgraded db and then I want
> to go with rpm (which seems to have some rpmbuild problems related to
> python, BTW :/)
>
Hi,

Maybe add some wiki page, where we could add comments about progress,
dates and synchronize work with each other?

-- 
Regards,
?ukasz


From gotar at polanet.pl  Wed Sep  5 10:12:18 2012
From: gotar at polanet.pl (Tomasz Pala)
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 10:12:18 +0200
Subject: Th development plans
In-Reply-To: <20120904102056.GL28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
References: <20120904102056.GL28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
Message-ID: <20120905081218.GA23043@polanet.pl>

On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 12:20:56 +0200, Jan R?korajski wrote:

> Below I present a plan (a.k.a The Roadmap) for Th:
> 
> - rpm 5.4.x 
[...]
> - grsecurity support in our kernels will be dropped, until someone
> 	volunteers to keep that patch up-to-date 
> - kernel 3.4.x will become the new -longterm

How about partial (only things that already compile, no extra patching
and actually not-supported) x32 arch (lib32 prefix)?

If not (I don't want to start discussion*) - is there any howto/manual on
starting private builder?

* being supported by kernel, glibc and base toolchain means there is at
  least _some_ valid rationale and _someone_ might have use for that

-- 
Tomasz Pala <gotar at pld-linux.org>


From jajcus at jajcus.net  Fri Sep  7 09:07:51 2012
From: jajcus at jajcus.net (Jacek Konieczny)
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 09:07:51 +0200
Subject: Remove 'icedtea' package
Message-ID: <20120907070751.GA25517@jajo.eggsoft>

Repository admin request:

    ssh git at git.pld-linux.org trash icedtea

'icedtea6' (Java 6 implementation) package is the maintained one and
'icedtea7' (Java 7) is about to come. The 'icedtea' GIT repository is
also present, but I guess it is some kind of a mistake.

Greets,
        Jacek


From glen at pld-linux.org  Fri Sep  7 11:50:54 2012
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Elan_Ruusam=E4e?=)
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 12:50:54 +0300
Subject: Remove 'icedtea' package
In-Reply-To: <20120907070751.GA25517@jajo.eggsoft>
References: <20120907070751.GA25517@jajo.eggsoft>
Message-ID: <5049C37E.9060409@pld-linux.org>

On 07.09.2012 10:07, Jacek Konieczny wrote:
> Repository admin request:
>
>      ssh git at git.pld-linux.org trash icedtea
>
> 'icedtea6' (Java 6 implementation) package is the maintained one and
> 'icedtea7' (Java 7) is about to come. The 'icedtea' GIT repository is
> also present, but I guess it is some kind of a mistake.
>

how are trashed packages be available to browse or cloning?

from cvs i look they have different history:

http://cvs.pld-linux.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/cvs/packages/icedtea/icedtea.spec?view=log
http://cvs.pld-linux.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/cvs/packages/icedtea6/icedtea6.spec?view=log

imho when icedtea6 was created it should had been a package name from 
icedtea

-- 
glen



From baggins at pld-linux.org  Fri Sep  7 13:15:09 2012
From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=)
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 13:15:09 +0200
Subject: rpm 5.4.10 for testing in th-test
Message-ID: <20120907111509.GV28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>

Hi,
Brand new rpm 5.4.10 will be available for testing in th-test later today.
It has not been installed on our infrastructure yet, there is no poldek
for it on ftp[1], but we need it to be publicly available before making
it our new package manager.

So, please test if it works as expected and is compatible with our
current rpm.

Instalation instructions:

0) backup rpm database in /var/lib/rpm
1) rpm -Fvh rpm* (obviously)
2) run /usr/lib/rpm/bin/dbconvert
3) run rpm --rebuilddb

[1] there is patch available, I will commit it to git today

-- 
Jan R?korajski                                 | PLD/Linux
SysAdm                                         | http://www.pld-linux.org/
baggins<at>mimuw.edu.pl
baggins<at>pld-linux.org


From jajcus at jajcus.net  Fri Sep  7 15:08:53 2012
From: jajcus at jajcus.net (Jacek Konieczny)
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 15:08:53 +0200
Subject: Remove 'icedtea' package
In-Reply-To: <5049C37E.9060409@pld-linux.org>
References: <20120907070751.GA25517@jajo.eggsoft>
 <5049C37E.9060409@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <20120907130853.GB25517@jajo.eggsoft>

On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 12:50:54PM +0300, Elan Ruusam?e wrote:
> from cvs i look they have different history:
> 
> http://cvs.pld-linux.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/cvs/packages/icedtea/icedtea.spec?view=log
> http://cvs.pld-linux.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/cvs/packages/icedtea6/icedtea6.spec?view=log
> 
> imho when icedtea6 was created it should had been a package name from 
> icedtea

IIRC IcedTea and icedtea.spec was Java-7-alpha based at the time
icedtea6.spec was created time and it was never made a usable JDK
replacement for PLD.

IcedTea6 project was made upstream  with a stable Java 6 (the 'official
current Java version' then) implementation and confusingly similar
version numbering. Not to downgrade icedtea.spec and not to cause
problems when time comes to package Java 7, I have put IcedTea6 to
icedtea6.spec.

Now the versioning upstream has been changed. Projects are still named
'IcedTea6' and 'IcedTea7', but version numbering is different: 1.x for
IcedTea6 and 2.x for IcedTea7.

Now, Java 7 is the current Java language release, so it makes sense to
package IcedTea7, but I using 'icedtea' package name for that would
suggest a downgrade. And basing on the old icedtea.spec probably won't
work as well as forking icedtea6.spec to make the icedtea7.spec, which 
I plan to do soon.

Greets,
        Jacek


From wiget at pld-linux.org  Fri Sep  7 17:48:27 2012
From: wiget at pld-linux.org (Artur Frysiak)
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 17:48:27 +0200
Subject: rpm 5.4.10 for testing in th-test
In-Reply-To: <20120907111509.GV28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
References: <20120907111509.GV28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
Message-ID: <CAHxPtFrqCSAuGNn4G6TBgc8L2LLN-wwMhq6szqPdstB724zP7A@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Jan R?korajski <baggins at pld-linux.org> wrote:
> Hi,
> Brand new rpm 5.4.10 will be available for testing in th-test later today.
> It has not been installed on our infrastructure yet, there is no poldek
> for it on ftp[1], but we need it to be publicly available before making
> it our new package manager.
>
> So, please test if it works as expected and is compatible with our
> current rpm.
>
> Instalation instructions:
>
> 0) backup rpm database in /var/lib/rpm
> 1) rpm -Fvh rpm* (obviously)

LC_ALL=C sudo rpm -Fhv *rpm*-5.4* --nodeps
Preparing...                ########################################### [100%]
        file /usr/lib/rpm/mono-find-provides from install of
rpm-build-5.4.10-0.6.x86_64 conflicts with file from package
mono-devel-2.11.1-1.x86_64
        file /usr/lib/rpm/mono-find-requires from install of
rpm-build-5.4.10-0.6.x86_64 conflicts with file from package
mono-devel-2.11.1-1.x86_64

-- 
Artur Frysiak


From baggins at pld-linux.org  Fri Sep  7 20:11:54 2012
From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=)
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 20:11:54 +0200
Subject: rpm 5.4.10 for testing in th-test
In-Reply-To: <CAHxPtFrqCSAuGNn4G6TBgc8L2LLN-wwMhq6szqPdstB724zP7A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20120907111509.GV28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
 <CAHxPtFrqCSAuGNn4G6TBgc8L2LLN-wwMhq6szqPdstB724zP7A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20120907181154.GA1493@home.lan>

On Fri, 07 Sep 2012, Artur Frysiak wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Jan R?korajski <baggins at pld-linux.org> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Brand new rpm 5.4.10 will be available for testing in th-test later today.
> > It has not been installed on our infrastructure yet, there is no poldek
> > for it on ftp[1], but we need it to be publicly available before making
> > it our new package manager.
> >
> > So, please test if it works as expected and is compatible with our
> > current rpm.
> >
> > Instalation instructions:
> >
> > 0) backup rpm database in /var/lib/rpm
> > 1) rpm -Fvh rpm* (obviously)
> 
> LC_ALL=C sudo rpm -Fhv *rpm*-5.4* --nodeps
> Preparing...                ########################################### [100%]
>         file /usr/lib/rpm/mono-find-provides from install of
> rpm-build-5.4.10-0.6.x86_64 conflicts with file from package
> mono-devel-2.11.1-1.x86_64
>         file /usr/lib/rpm/mono-find-requires from install of
> rpm-build-5.4.10-0.6.x86_64 conflicts with file from package
> mono-devel-2.11.1-1.x86_64

Unpackaged those in rel 0.7

-- 
Jan R?korajski                                 | PLD/Linux
SysAdm                                         | http://www.pld-linux.org/
baggins<at>mimuw.edu.pl
baggins<at>pld-linux.org


From wiget at pld-linux.org  Fri Sep  7 20:49:00 2012
From: wiget at pld-linux.org (Artur Frysiak)
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 20:49:00 +0200
Subject: rpm 5.4.10 for testing in th-test
In-Reply-To: <20120907111509.GV28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
References: <20120907111509.GV28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
Message-ID: <20120907184900.GA26033@tower.tower>

On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 01:15:09PM +0200, Jan R?korajski wrote:
> Hi,
> Brand new rpm 5.4.10 will be available for testing in th-test later today.
> It has not been installed on our infrastructure yet, there is no poldek
> for it on ftp[1], but we need it to be publicly available before making
> it our new package manager.
> 
> So, please test if it works as expected and is compatible with our
> current rpm.
> 
> Instalation instructions:
> 
> 0) backup rpm database in /var/lib/rpm
> 1) rpm -Fvh rpm* (obviously)
> 2) run /usr/lib/rpm/bin/dbconvert
> 3) run rpm --rebuilddb

rpm-specdump need patch for rpm 5.x

Some macros changed and builder clone packages to ~/rpm/${name} not
~/rpm/packages/${name}, but this maybe releated to missing/broken rpm-specdump.

-- 
Artur Frysiak
PLD Linux Team member


From n3npq at me.com  Fri Sep  7 20:54:10 2012
From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson)
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 14:54:10 -0400
Subject: rpm 5.4.10 for testing in th-test
In-Reply-To: <20120907111509.GV28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
References: <20120907111509.GV28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
Message-ID: <251DB183-22CB-4C41-9C07-93F331B38B4D@me.com>


On Sep 7, 2012, at 7:15 AM, Jan R?korajski <baggins at pld-linux.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> Brand new rpm 5.4.10 will be available for testing in th-test later today.
> It has not been installed on our infrastructure yet, there is no poldek
> for it on ftp[1], but we need it to be publicly available before making
> it our new package manager.
> 
> So, please test if it works as expected and is compatible with our
> current rpm.
> 
> Instalation instructions:
> 
> 0) backup rpm database in /var/lib/rpm
> 1) rpm -Fvh rpm* (obviously)
> 2) run /usr/lib/rpm/bin/dbconvert
> 3) run rpm --rebuilddb
> 

That's the basic recipe for converting, yes.

However, --rebuilddb is largely obsolete in rpm-5.3.x
and isn't likely to "fix" anything. Instead
	cd /var/lib/rpm
	dbXY_recover -ev

Holler on <rpm-devel at rpm5.org> or at launchpad.net/rpm
if/when you need help or have questions.

hth

73 de Jeff



From blues at pld-linux.org  Fri Sep  7 22:26:37 2012
From: blues at pld-linux.org (=?ISO-8859-2?Q?Pawe=B3_Go=B3aszewski?=)
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 22:26:37 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: rpm 5.4.10 for testing in th-test
In-Reply-To: <251DB183-22CB-4C41-9C07-93F331B38B4D@me.com>
References: <20120907111509.GV28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
 <251DB183-22CB-4C41-9C07-93F331B38B4D@me.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1209072225130.16299@fgnss.gnfx.tqn.cy>

On Fri, 7 Sep 2012, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
> > Brand new rpm 5.4.10 will be available for testing in th-test later 
> > today. It has not been installed on our infrastructure yet, there is 
> > no poldek for it on ftp[1], but we need it to be publicly available 
> > before making it our new package manager. So, please test if it works 
> > as expected and is compatible with our current rpm. Instalation 
> > instructions:
> > 
> > 0) backup rpm database in /var/lib/rpm
> > 1) rpm -Fvh rpm* (obviously)
> > 2) run /usr/lib/rpm/bin/dbconvert
> > 3) run rpm --rebuilddb
> That's the basic recipe for converting, yes.
> 
> However, --rebuilddb is largely obsolete in rpm-5.3.x
> and isn't likely to "fix" anything. Instead
> 	cd /var/lib/rpm
> 	dbXY_recover -ev

It shouldn't be a big problem to implement running that command as 
--rebuilddb, right?

-- 
pozdr.  Pawe? Go?aszewski          jid:blues<at>jabber<dot>gda<dot>pl
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 baggins at pld-linux.org  Fri Sep  7 22:37:28 2012
From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=)
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 22:37:28 +0200
Subject: rpm 5.4.10 for testing in th-test
In-Reply-To: <251DB183-22CB-4C41-9C07-93F331B38B4D@me.com>
References: <20120907111509.GV28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
 <251DB183-22CB-4C41-9C07-93F331B38B4D@me.com>
Message-ID: <20120907203728.GA13055@home.lan>

On Fri, 07 Sep 2012, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:

> 
> On Sep 7, 2012, at 7:15 AM, Jan R?korajski <baggins at pld-linux.org> wrote:
> 
> > Instalation instructions:
> > 
> > 0) backup rpm database in /var/lib/rpm
> > 1) rpm -Fvh rpm* (obviously)
> > 2) run /usr/lib/rpm/bin/dbconvert
> > 3) run rpm --rebuilddb
> > 
> 
> That's the basic recipe for converting, yes.
> 
> However, --rebuilddb is largely obsolete in rpm-5.3.x
> and isn't likely to "fix" anything. Instead
> 	cd /var/lib/rpm
> 	dbXY_recover -ev
> 
> Holler on <rpm-devel at rpm5.org> or at launchpad.net/rpm
> if/when you need help or have questions.
> 
> hth

I'm getting the following message repeated many times when
(un)installing packages:

==> warning: tag 1029 type(0x1) != implicit type(0x20002)

should I be worried?

Also %post(un) scriptlets seem to not being run - even something as
simple as '%post -p /sbin/ldconfig'.

-- 
Jan R?korajski                                 | PLD/Linux
SysAdm                                         | http://www.pld-linux.org/
baggins<at>mimuw.edu.pl
baggins<at>pld-linux.org


From n3npq at me.com  Fri Sep  7 23:07:57 2012
From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson)
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 17:07:57 -0400
Subject: rpm 5.4.10 for testing in th-test
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1209072225130.16299@fgnss.gnfx.tqn.cy>
References: <20120907111509.GV28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
 <251DB183-22CB-4C41-9C07-93F331B38B4D@me.com>
 <alpine.LNX.2.00.1209072225130.16299@fgnss.gnfx.tqn.cy>
Message-ID: <8C280B85-DC9C-41A5-A606-2FC0C908E571@me.com>


On Sep 7, 2012, at 4:26 PM, Pawe? Go?aszewski <blues at pld-linux.org> wrote:

> 
> It shouldn't be a big problem to implement running that command as 
> --rebuilddb, right?
> 

Not sure what you are asking: the --rebuilddb
option can be run, just not going to help/hurt anything.

The --rebuilddb has been mis-used forever. And with
ACID transactional behavior since rpm-5.3 dbXY_recover
(which is also fully automated on next rpm invocation)
is likelier to "fix" whatever is wrong than running
with --rebuilddb.

73 de Jeff
> -- 
> pozdr.  Pawe? Go?aszewski          jid:blues<at>jabber<dot>gda<dot>pl
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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._______________________________________________
> pld-devel-en mailing list
> pld-devel-en at lists.pld-linux.org
> http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en



From qboosh at pld-linux.org  Sat Sep  8 22:08:36 2012
From: qboosh at pld-linux.org (Jakub Bogusz)
Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2012 22:08:36 +0200
Subject: git - renaming already existing package
Message-ID: <20120908200836.GA1790@mail>

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?

I'm also interested in answers to glen's questions about "git trashing"
- is the trashed package available for checkouts or browsing (via
gitweb).


-- 
Jakub Bogusz    http://qboosh.pl/


From glen at pld-linux.org  Mon Sep 10 09:52:45 2012
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?B?RWxhbiBSdXVzYW3DpGU=?=)
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 10:52:45 +0300
Subject: [packages/rpm] - disable removing duplicate ldconfig invocations
 optimization   http://rpm5.org/community/rpm-devel
In-Reply-To: <b6aa06669d52acb5791a88eef2b8499391c5b44e_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
References: <6f54f6bd0ee636a105363c7a4bf69c7acda13085_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <b6aa06669d52acb5791a88eef2b8499391c5b44e_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <504D9C4D.30805@pld-linux.org>

On 10.09.2012 09:12, baggins wrote:
> commit b6aa06669d52acb5791a88eef2b8499391c5b44e
> Author: Jan R?korajski<baggins at pld-linux.org>
> Date:   Sun Sep 9 19:18:20 2012 +0200
>
>      - disable removing duplicate ldconfig invocations optimization
>        http://rpm5.org/community/rpm-devel/5380.html
just to comment why optimization is not needed:
recent glibc caches ldconfig calls, so it's not that heavy, and besides 
fs cache should be hot as well

# LC_ALL=C l /var/cache/ldconfig/aux-cache
-rw------- 1 root root 110K Sep  7 20:41 /var/cache/ldconfig/aux-cache

-- 
glen



From n3npq at me.com  Mon Sep 10 15:07:26 2012
From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson)
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 09:07:26 -0400
Subject: [packages/rpm] - disable removing duplicate ldconfig invocations
 optimization   http://rpm5.org/community/rpm-devel
In-Reply-To: <504D9C4D.30805@pld-linux.org>
References: <6f54f6bd0ee636a105363c7a4bf69c7acda13085_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <b6aa06669d52acb5791a88eef2b8499391c5b44e_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <504D9C4D.30805@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <E69E0C4B-126B-431C-A5F8-A49485A064D3@me.com>


On Sep 10, 2012, at 3:52 AM, Elan Ruusam?e wrote:

> On 10.09.2012 09:12, baggins wrote:
>> commit b6aa06669d52acb5791a88eef2b8499391c5b44e
>> Author: Jan R?korajski<baggins at pld-linux.org>
>> Date:   Sun Sep 9 19:18:20 2012 +0200
>> 
>>     - disable removing duplicate ldconfig invocations optimization
>>       http://rpm5.org/community/rpm-devel/5380.html
> just to comment why optimization is not needed:
> recent glibc caches ldconfig calls, so it's not that heavy, and besides fs cache should be hot as well
> 

Subjective claims of "not that heavy" and "should be hot" do not support the
conclusion "optimization is not needed" without measurements.

Can you provide measurements?

73 de Jeff

From qboosh at pld-linux.org  Mon Sep 10 19:45:12 2012
From: qboosh at pld-linux.org (Jakub Bogusz)
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 19:45:12 +0200
Subject: git - renaming already existing package
In-Reply-To: <20120908200836.GA1790@mail>
References: <20120908200836.GA1790@mail>
Message-ID: <20120910174512.GA7192@mail>

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'm also interested in answers to glen's questions about "git trashing"
> - is the trashed package available for checkouts or browsing (via
> gitweb).

I see some "ATTIC" references - how is it configured in PLD gitolite?


-- 
Jakub Bogusz    http://qboosh.pl/


From wiget at pld-linux.org  Mon Sep 10 21:55:23 2012
From: wiget at pld-linux.org (Artur Frysiak)
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 21:55:23 +0200
Subject: rpm 5.4.10 for testing in th-test
In-Reply-To: <20120907111509.GV28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
References: <20120907111509.GV28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
Message-ID: <CAHxPtFr6_cTx1=v7eUz_VNMjCnvP_KR7CA+ttiZimvt=SBT2Qg@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Jan R?korajski <baggins at pld-linux.org> wrote:
> Hi,
> Brand new rpm 5.4.10 will be available for testing in th-test later today.
> It has not been installed on our infrastructure yet, there is no poldek
> for it on ftp[1], but we need it to be publicly available before making
> it our new package manager.
>
> So, please test if it works as expected and is compatible with our
> current rpm.
>
> Instalation instructions:
>
> 0) backup rpm database in /var/lib/rpm
> 1) rpm -Fvh rpm* (obviously)
> 2) run /usr/lib/rpm/bin/dbconvert
> 3) run rpm --rebuilddb

$ LC_ALL=C sudo rpm -Uhv systemd-187-4.x86_64.rpm
systemd-libs-187-4.x86_64.rpm systemd-units-187-4.x86_64.rpm
udev-core-187-4.x86_64.rpm udev-libs-187-4.x86_64.rpm
udev-initrd-187-4.x86_64.rpm udev-187-4.x86_64.rpm
error: Failed dependencies:
        mpd < 0.16.5-4 conflicts with systemd-187-4.x86_64
        stunnel < 4.50-2 conflicts with systemd-187-4.x86_64
$ rpm -q mpd stunnel
mpd-0.16.7-4.x86_64
stunnel-4.52-1.x86_64

-- 
Artur Frysiak


From baggins at pld-linux.org  Tue Sep 11 07:29:42 2012
From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=)
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 07:29:42 +0200
Subject: rpm 5.4.10 for testing in th-test
In-Reply-To: <CAHxPtFr6_cTx1=v7eUz_VNMjCnvP_KR7CA+ttiZimvt=SBT2Qg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20120907111509.GV28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
 <CAHxPtFr6_cTx1=v7eUz_VNMjCnvP_KR7CA+ttiZimvt=SBT2Qg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20120911052942.GA1519@home.lan>

On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Artur Frysiak wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Jan R?korajski <baggins at pld-linux.org> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Brand new rpm 5.4.10 will be available for testing in th-test later today.
> > It has not been installed on our infrastructure yet, there is no poldek
> > for it on ftp[1], but we need it to be publicly available before making
> > it our new package manager.
> >
> > So, please test if it works as expected and is compatible with our
> > current rpm.
> >
> > Instalation instructions:
> >
> > 0) backup rpm database in /var/lib/rpm
> > 1) rpm -Fvh rpm* (obviously)
> > 2) run /usr/lib/rpm/bin/dbconvert
> > 3) run rpm --rebuilddb
> 
> $ LC_ALL=C sudo rpm -Uhv systemd-187-4.x86_64.rpm
> systemd-libs-187-4.x86_64.rpm systemd-units-187-4.x86_64.rpm
> udev-core-187-4.x86_64.rpm udev-libs-187-4.x86_64.rpm
> udev-initrd-187-4.x86_64.rpm udev-187-4.x86_64.rpm
> error: Failed dependencies:
>         mpd < 0.16.5-4 conflicts with systemd-187-4.x86_64
>         stunnel < 4.50-2 conflicts with systemd-187-4.x86_64
> $ rpm -q mpd stunnel
> mpd-0.16.7-4.x86_64
> stunnel-4.52-1.x86_64

rpm -q rpm? ;)

-- 
Jan R?korajski                                 | PLD/Linux
SysAdm                                         | http://www.pld-linux.org/
baggins<at>mimuw.edu.pl
baggins<at>pld-linux.org


From wiget at pld-linux.org  Tue Sep 11 07:40:59 2012
From: wiget at pld-linux.org (Artur Frysiak)
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 07:40:59 +0200
Subject: rpm 5.4.10 for testing in th-test
In-Reply-To: <20120911052942.GA1519@home.lan>
References: <20120907111509.GV28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
 <CAHxPtFr6_cTx1=v7eUz_VNMjCnvP_KR7CA+ttiZimvt=SBT2Qg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120911052942.GA1519@home.lan>
Message-ID: <CAHxPtFoHRvxnz+KhHB_AgtD70Vp4zj4Aht=VCqR4-wJ_=i2THA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Jan R?korajski <baggins at pld-linux.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Artur Frysiak wrote:
>> $ LC_ALL=C sudo rpm -Uhv systemd-187-4.x86_64.rpm
>> systemd-libs-187-4.x86_64.rpm systemd-units-187-4.x86_64.rpm
>> udev-core-187-4.x86_64.rpm udev-libs-187-4.x86_64.rpm
>> udev-initrd-187-4.x86_64.rpm udev-187-4.x86_64.rpm
>> error: Failed dependencies:
>>         mpd < 0.16.5-4 conflicts with systemd-187-4.x86_64
>>         stunnel < 4.50-2 conflicts with systemd-187-4.x86_64
>> $ rpm -q mpd stunnel
>> mpd-0.16.7-4.x86_64
>> stunnel-4.52-1.x86_64
>
> rpm -q rpm? ;)

$ rpm -q rpm
rpm-5.4.10-0.12.x86_64



-- 
Artur Frysiak


From baggins at pld-linux.org  Tue Sep 11 12:58:59 2012
From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=)
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 12:58:59 +0200
Subject: rpm 5.4.10 for testing in th-test
In-Reply-To: <CAHxPtFoHRvxnz+KhHB_AgtD70Vp4zj4Aht=VCqR4-wJ_=i2THA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20120907111509.GV28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
 <CAHxPtFr6_cTx1=v7eUz_VNMjCnvP_KR7CA+ttiZimvt=SBT2Qg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120911052942.GA1519@home.lan>
 <CAHxPtFoHRvxnz+KhHB_AgtD70Vp4zj4Aht=VCqR4-wJ_=i2THA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20120911105859.GE11122@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>

On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Artur Frysiak wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Jan R?korajski <baggins at pld-linux.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Artur Frysiak wrote:
> >> $ LC_ALL=C sudo rpm -Uhv systemd-187-4.x86_64.rpm
> >> systemd-libs-187-4.x86_64.rpm systemd-units-187-4.x86_64.rpm
> >> udev-core-187-4.x86_64.rpm udev-libs-187-4.x86_64.rpm
> >> udev-initrd-187-4.x86_64.rpm udev-187-4.x86_64.rpm
> >> error: Failed dependencies:
> >>         mpd < 0.16.5-4 conflicts with systemd-187-4.x86_64
> >>         stunnel < 4.50-2 conflicts with systemd-187-4.x86_64
> >> $ rpm -q mpd stunnel
> >> mpd-0.16.7-4.x86_64
> >> stunnel-4.52-1.x86_64
> >
> > rpm -q rpm? ;)
> 
> $ rpm -q rpm
> rpm-5.4.10-0.12.x86_64

The problem comes from mpd and stunnel have Provides user(%{name}) and
group(%{name}), and rpm mixes RPMNS_TYPE_USER/RPMNS_TYPE_GROUP namespace
deps with RPMNS_TYPE_VERSION(?) causing P:group(%{name}) to behave like
unversioned P:%{name} and satisfying that conflict:

D:   NO     A config(mpd) = 0:0.16.7-4  B mpd < 0.16.5-4
D:   YES    A group(mpd)        B mpd < 0.16.5-4
D: Conflicts: mpd < 0.16.5-4                                YES (db provides)
D: package systemd-187-4.x86_64 has unsatisfied Conflicts: mpd < 0.16.5-4

Shouldn't rpmdsCompare test if the comparison is in the same namespace?

-- 
Jan R?korajski                                 | PLD/Linux
SysAdm                                         | http://www.pld-linux.org/
baggins<at>mimuw.edu.pl
baggins<at>pld-linux.org


From glen at pld-linux.org  Tue Sep 11 14:03:41 2012
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?B?RWxhbiBSdXVzYW3DpGU=?=)
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 15:03:41 +0300
Subject: rpm 5.4.10 for testing in th-test
In-Reply-To: <20120911105859.GE11122@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
References: <20120907111509.GV28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
 <CAHxPtFr6_cTx1=v7eUz_VNMjCnvP_KR7CA+ttiZimvt=SBT2Qg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120911052942.GA1519@home.lan>
 <CAHxPtFoHRvxnz+KhHB_AgtD70Vp4zj4Aht=VCqR4-wJ_=i2THA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120911105859.GE11122@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
Message-ID: <504F289D.5080505@pld-linux.org>

On 11.09.2012 13:58, Jan R?korajski wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Artur Frysiak wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Jan R?korajski <baggins at pld-linux.org> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Artur Frysiak wrote:
>>>> $ LC_ALL=C sudo rpm -Uhv systemd-187-4.x86_64.rpm
>>>> systemd-libs-187-4.x86_64.rpm systemd-units-187-4.x86_64.rpm
>>>> udev-core-187-4.x86_64.rpm udev-libs-187-4.x86_64.rpm
>>>> udev-initrd-187-4.x86_64.rpm udev-187-4.x86_64.rpm
>>>> error: Failed dependencies:
>>>>          mpd < 0.16.5-4 conflicts with systemd-187-4.x86_64
>>>>          stunnel < 4.50-2 conflicts with systemd-187-4.x86_64
>>>> $ rpm -q mpd stunnel
>>>> mpd-0.16.7-4.x86_64
>>>> stunnel-4.52-1.x86_64
>>> rpm -q rpm? ;)
>> $ rpm -q rpm
>> rpm-5.4.10-0.12.x86_64
> The problem comes from mpd and stunnel have Provides user(%{name}) and
> group(%{name}), and rpm mixes RPMNS_TYPE_USER/RPMNS_TYPE_GROUP namespace
> deps with RPMNS_TYPE_VERSION(?) causing P:group(%{name}) to behave like
> unversioned P:%{name} and satisfying that conflict:
>
> D:   NO     A config(mpd) = 0:0.16.7-4  B mpd < 0.16.5-4
> D:   YES    A group(mpd)        B mpd < 0.16.5-4
> D: Conflicts: mpd < 0.16.5-4                                YES (db provides)
> D: package systemd-187-4.x86_64 has unsatisfied Conflicts: mpd < 0.16.5-4
>
> Shouldn't rpmdsCompare test if the comparison is in the same namespace?
>

this part was disabled in rpm 4.5, seems the patch is not working or 
gone missing?
patch should have link to bugtracker where previous problems were described

in short: disable rpm behaviour, as we fill it P-s ourself

-- 
glen



From baggins at pld-linux.org  Tue Sep 11 14:29:01 2012
From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=)
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 14:29:01 +0200
Subject: rpm 5.4.10 for testing in th-test
In-Reply-To: <504F289D.5080505@pld-linux.org>
References: <20120907111509.GV28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
 <CAHxPtFr6_cTx1=v7eUz_VNMjCnvP_KR7CA+ttiZimvt=SBT2Qg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120911052942.GA1519@home.lan>
 <CAHxPtFoHRvxnz+KhHB_AgtD70Vp4zj4Aht=VCqR4-wJ_=i2THA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120911105859.GE11122@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
 <504F289D.5080505@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <20120911122900.GF11122@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>

On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Elan Ruusam?e wrote:

> On 11.09.2012 13:58, Jan R?korajski wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Artur Frysiak wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Jan R?korajski <baggins at pld-linux.org> wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Artur Frysiak wrote:
> >>>> $ LC_ALL=C sudo rpm -Uhv systemd-187-4.x86_64.rpm
> >>>> systemd-libs-187-4.x86_64.rpm systemd-units-187-4.x86_64.rpm
> >>>> udev-core-187-4.x86_64.rpm udev-libs-187-4.x86_64.rpm
> >>>> udev-initrd-187-4.x86_64.rpm udev-187-4.x86_64.rpm
> >>>> error: Failed dependencies:
> >>>>          mpd < 0.16.5-4 conflicts with systemd-187-4.x86_64
> >>>>          stunnel < 4.50-2 conflicts with systemd-187-4.x86_64
> >>>> $ rpm -q mpd stunnel
> >>>> mpd-0.16.7-4.x86_64
> >>>> stunnel-4.52-1.x86_64
> >>> rpm -q rpm? ;)
> >> $ rpm -q rpm
> >> rpm-5.4.10-0.12.x86_64
> > The problem comes from mpd and stunnel have Provides user(%{name}) and
> > group(%{name}), and rpm mixes RPMNS_TYPE_USER/RPMNS_TYPE_GROUP namespace
> > deps with RPMNS_TYPE_VERSION(?) causing P:group(%{name}) to behave like
> > unversioned P:%{name} and satisfying that conflict:
> >
> > D:   NO     A config(mpd) = 0:0.16.7-4  B mpd < 0.16.5-4
> > D:   YES    A group(mpd)        B mpd < 0.16.5-4
> > D: Conflicts: mpd < 0.16.5-4                                YES (db provides)
> > D: package systemd-187-4.x86_64 has unsatisfied Conflicts: mpd < 0.16.5-4
> >
> > Shouldn't rpmdsCompare test if the comparison is in the same namespace?
> >
> 
> this part was disabled in rpm 4.5, seems the patch is not working or 
> gone missing?
> patch should have link to bugtracker where previous problems were described

rpm behaviour is the same with or without the patch.
Probably it must touch something else, maybe name extraction from
NAMESPACE(name)?

-- 
Jan R?korajski                                 | PLD/Linux
SysAdm                                         | http://www.pld-linux.org/
baggins<at>mimuw.edu.pl
baggins<at>pld-linux.org


From baggins at pld-linux.org  Tue Sep 11 14:38:12 2012
From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=)
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 14:38:12 +0200
Subject: rpm 5.4.10 for testing in th-test
In-Reply-To: <20120911122900.GF11122@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
References: <20120907111509.GV28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
 <CAHxPtFr6_cTx1=v7eUz_VNMjCnvP_KR7CA+ttiZimvt=SBT2Qg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120911052942.GA1519@home.lan>
 <CAHxPtFoHRvxnz+KhHB_AgtD70Vp4zj4Aht=VCqR4-wJ_=i2THA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120911105859.GE11122@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
 <504F289D.5080505@pld-linux.org>
 <20120911122900.GF11122@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
Message-ID: <20120911123812.GG11122@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>

On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Jan R?korajski wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Elan Ruusam?e wrote:
> 
> > On 11.09.2012 13:58, Jan R?korajski wrote:
> > > On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Artur Frysiak wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Jan R?korajski <baggins at pld-linux.org> wrote:
> > >>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Artur Frysiak wrote:
> > >>>> $ LC_ALL=C sudo rpm -Uhv systemd-187-4.x86_64.rpm
> > >>>> systemd-libs-187-4.x86_64.rpm systemd-units-187-4.x86_64.rpm
> > >>>> udev-core-187-4.x86_64.rpm udev-libs-187-4.x86_64.rpm
> > >>>> udev-initrd-187-4.x86_64.rpm udev-187-4.x86_64.rpm
> > >>>> error: Failed dependencies:
> > >>>>          mpd < 0.16.5-4 conflicts with systemd-187-4.x86_64
> > >>>>          stunnel < 4.50-2 conflicts with systemd-187-4.x86_64
> > >>>> $ rpm -q mpd stunnel
> > >>>> mpd-0.16.7-4.x86_64
> > >>>> stunnel-4.52-1.x86_64
> > >>> rpm -q rpm? ;)
> > >> $ rpm -q rpm
> > >> rpm-5.4.10-0.12.x86_64
> > > The problem comes from mpd and stunnel have Provides user(%{name}) and
> > > group(%{name}), and rpm mixes RPMNS_TYPE_USER/RPMNS_TYPE_GROUP namespace
> > > deps with RPMNS_TYPE_VERSION(?) causing P:group(%{name}) to behave like
> > > unversioned P:%{name} and satisfying that conflict:
> > >
> > > D:   NO     A config(mpd) = 0:0.16.7-4  B mpd < 0.16.5-4
> > > D:   YES    A group(mpd)        B mpd < 0.16.5-4
> > > D: Conflicts: mpd < 0.16.5-4                                YES (db provides)
> > > D: package systemd-187-4.x86_64 has unsatisfied Conflicts: mpd < 0.16.5-4
> > >
> > > Shouldn't rpmdsCompare test if the comparison is in the same namespace?
> > >
> > 
> > this part was disabled in rpm 4.5, seems the patch is not working or 
> > gone missing?
> > patch should have link to bugtracker where previous problems were described
> 
> rpm behaviour is the same with or without the patch.
> Probably it must touch something else, maybe name extraction from
> NAMESPACE(name)?

Gahhhh, I seem to have broken the patch while updating to rpm5.
rel 0.13 will be fixed.

-- 
Jan R?korajski                                 | PLD/Linux
SysAdm                                         | http://www.pld-linux.org/
baggins<at>mimuw.edu.pl
baggins<at>pld-linux.org


From n3npq at me.com  Tue Sep 11 14:54:45 2012
From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson)
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 08:54:45 -0400
Subject: rpm 5.4.10 for testing in th-test
In-Reply-To: <20120911105859.GE11122@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
References: <20120907111509.GV28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
 <CAHxPtFr6_cTx1=v7eUz_VNMjCnvP_KR7CA+ttiZimvt=SBT2Qg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120911052942.GA1519@home.lan>
 <CAHxPtFoHRvxnz+KhHB_AgtD70Vp4zj4Aht=VCqR4-wJ_=i2THA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120911105859.GE11122@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
Message-ID: <FB0779E1-6157-4406-9920-745F7ADE4023@me.com>


On Sep 11, 2012, at 6:58 AM, Jan R?korajski <baggins at pld-linux.org> wrote:

>> 
>> $ rpm -q rpm
>> rpm-5.4.10-0.12.x86_64
> 
> The problem comes from mpd and stunnel have Provides user(%{name}) and
> group(%{name}), and rpm mixes RPMNS_TYPE_USER/RPMNS_TYPE_GROUP namespace
> deps with RPMNS_TYPE_VERSION(?) causing P:group(%{name}) to behave like
> unversioned P:%{name} and satisfying that conflict:
> 
> D:   NO     A config(mpd) = 0:0.16.7-4  B mpd < 0.16.5-4
> D:   YES    A group(mpd)        B mpd < 0.16.5-4
> D: Conflicts: mpd < 0.16.5-4                                YES (db provides)
> D: package systemd-187-4.x86_64 has unsatisfied Conflicts: mpd < 0.16.5-4
> 

There is a namespace collision for user(?) and group(?).

As implemented @rpm5.org, the user(?) and group(?) namespaces
have a pre-defined semantic and are satisfied by lookup up
the user/group using getpwent(3) getgrent(3).

Specifically, "run-time probes" are _NOT_ satisfied by
examining package Provides:, but by looking up strings
using the usual glibc name services.

(aside)
At some point the implementation will be extended so that
	Provides: user(foo) = N
will add an entry to /etc/passwd (where N = the desired uid),
withe removal mapped to an Obsoletes:

> Shouldn't rpmdsCompare test if the comparison is in the same namespace?
> 

rpmdsCompare() already SHOULD have this behavior: the routine
won't be called for user(?) and group(?) name spaces.

(aside)
BTW, it would have been far easier if you had chosen
to discuss issues before upgrading to rpm-5.4.x.

Reactively re-vetting incompatibilities as discovered
is in noone's interest because of the tyranny of
	Upgrades MUST "work".
because all that will, happen is PLD will rip out every
implementation that has been accomplished over the past
few years to achieve
	Have it your own way!
which is indistinguishable from a "fork".

I personally have little interest in re-visiting
what is now ancient (>3y ago) hysteria.

I have offered repeatedly to assist PLD upgrades and
both arekm/glen SHOUL be aware of all of the changes,
and have had an opportunity to discuss incompatibilities
and rationales when these changes were made years ago.

hth

73 de Jeff



From qboosh at pld-linux.org  Tue Sep 11 17:39:31 2012
From: qboosh at pld-linux.org (Jakub Bogusz)
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:39:31 +0200
Subject: git.pld <> github problem encountered
Message-ID: <20120911153931.GA9953@mail>

When doing slug.py init:

Initialized empty Git repository in /cvs/root/gitolite/repositories/packages/telepathy-spec.git/
Cannot create repository telepathy-spec on github
Problem with creating gihub mirror for packages/telepathy-spec at /home/services/git/adc/bin/create line 27.

And when git pushing:

remote: ssh_exchange_identification: Connection closed by remote host
remote: fatal: The remote end hung up unexpectedly


-- 
Jakub Bogusz    http://qboosh.pl/


From n3npq at me.com  Tue Sep 11 20:47:45 2012
From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson)
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 14:47:45 -0400
Subject: rpm 5.4.10 for testing in th-test
In-Reply-To: <20120911182935.GA1483@home.lan>
References: <20120907111509.GV28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
 <CAHxPtFr6_cTx1=v7eUz_VNMjCnvP_KR7CA+ttiZimvt=SBT2Qg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120911052942.GA1519@home.lan>
 <CAHxPtFoHRvxnz+KhHB_AgtD70Vp4zj4Aht=VCqR4-wJ_=i2THA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120911105859.GE11122@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
 <FB0779E1-6157-4406-9920-745F7ADE4023@me.com> <20120911182935.GA1483@home.lan>
Message-ID: <49BC1B98-E5CC-4112-A2BD-7EFB5E0FAF9E@me.com>


On Sep 11, 2012, at 2:29 PM, Jan R?korajski <baggins at pld-linux.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
> 
>> On Sep 11, 2012, at 6:58 AM, Jan R?korajski <baggins at pld-linux.org> wrote:
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> $ rpm -q rpm
>>>> rpm-5.4.10-0.12.x86_64
>>> 
>>> The problem comes from mpd and stunnel have Provides user(%{name}) and
>>> group(%{name}), and rpm mixes RPMNS_TYPE_USER/RPMNS_TYPE_GROUP namespace
>>> deps with RPMNS_TYPE_VERSION(?) causing P:group(%{name}) to behave like
>>> unversioned P:%{name} and satisfying that conflict:
>>> 
>>> D:   NO     A config(mpd) = 0:0.16.7-4  B mpd < 0.16.5-4
>>> D:   YES    A group(mpd)        B mpd < 0.16.5-4
>               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> D: Conflicts: mpd < 0.16.5-4                                YES (db provides)
>                                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yes, already noted (but I do not know what patches
you are applying).

>>> D: package systemd-187-4.x86_64 has unsatisfied Conflicts: mpd < 0.16.5-4
>>> 
>> 
>> There is a namespace collision for user(?) and group(?).
>> 
>> As implemented @rpm5.org, the user(?) and group(?) namespaces
>> have a pre-defined semantic and are satisfied by lookup up
>> the user/group using getpwent(3) getgrent(3).
>> 
>> Specifically, "run-time probes" are _NOT_ satisfied by
>> examining package Provides:, but by looking up strings
>> using the usual glibc name services.
>> 
>> (aside)
>> At some point the implementation will be extended so that
>> 	Provides: user(foo) = N
>> will add an entry to /etc/passwd (where N = the desired uid),
>> withe removal mapped to an Obsoletes:
> 
> What abous stuff like homedir, gecos, supplementary groups, etc.?
> 

(aside)
Yes there is a tuple of information that needs to be
well defined. This is no harder than defining some character
like ':' to serialize the tuple.

The harder issue will be permitting white space in *.spec
parsing, where the feeble/naive parsing to next ',' or white
space that is currently being parsed will have to be improved.

None of this is rocket science. And this isn't the
time or place to discuss the best way to automate
passed/group management within overloading RPM
	Provides: user(foo)
	Obsoletes: group(bar)
syntax to add/delete user/group items.

>>> Shouldn't rpmdsCompare test if the comparison is in the same namespace?
>>> 
>> 
>> rpmdsCompare() already SHOULD have this behavior: the routine
>> won't be called for user(?) and group(?) name spaces.
> 
> As you can see above it is called with 'mpd < 0.16.5-4' dep from
> installed package (this is the code path that skips NSType user/group)
> and 'config(mpd) = 0:0.16.7-4' and 'group(mpd)' from db iteration which
> have no NSType checking.
> 

So its called from poldek, not from rpmlib lib/depends.c?

Yes: you need to parse the user(?) and group(?) namespace
wrappers similar to what is being done in unsatisfiedDepend()
near lib/depends.c:868.

Then there is the further design decision to decide
how to interpret user(?) and group(?) wrappings
with poldek+rpm to maximize "legacy compatibility" and
minimize maintenance.

>> (aside)
>> BTW, it would have been far easier if you had chosen
>> to discuss issues before upgrading to rpm-5.4.x.
> 
> Unfortunately the only problems that I was aware of was some 3y old
> segfaults :(
> 

Post the details at launchpad.net/rpm and I'll sort
the segfaults for you.

>> Reactively re-vetting incompatibilities as discovered
>> is in noone's interest because of the tyranny of
>> 	Upgrades MUST "work".
>> because all that will, happen is PLD will rip out every
>> implementation that has been accomplished over the past
>> few years to achieve
>> 	Have it your own way!
>> which is indistinguishable from a "fork".
> 
> Currently the only incompatibility is P:user()/group() we're talking
> about here. And it looks to me like unchecked code path issue we
> can fix and be both happy.
> 

Hard to say what happy means from here without knowing
what is being proposed. But yes, an accidental name collision
can be sorted without pain. The hardest issue is
	What about "legacy compatibility" with versions
	of RPM that do not have "run-time probes"?
The better approach is back porting, but otherwise
"run-time probes" are merely serialized strings that can be stubbed
out in older versions of rpm without too much difficulty.

> Believe me I don't want to introduce incompatibilities as those will
> make my life harder later on maintaining them.
> 

Good (neither do I).

73 de Jeff



From baggins at pld-linux.org  Tue Sep 11 20:29:35 2012
From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=)
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 20:29:35 +0200
Subject: rpm 5.4.10 for testing in th-test
In-Reply-To: <FB0779E1-6157-4406-9920-745F7ADE4023@me.com>
References: <20120907111509.GV28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
 <CAHxPtFr6_cTx1=v7eUz_VNMjCnvP_KR7CA+ttiZimvt=SBT2Qg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120911052942.GA1519@home.lan>
 <CAHxPtFoHRvxnz+KhHB_AgtD70Vp4zj4Aht=VCqR4-wJ_=i2THA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120911105859.GE11122@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
 <FB0779E1-6157-4406-9920-745F7ADE4023@me.com>
Message-ID: <20120911182935.GA1483@home.lan>

On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:

> On Sep 11, 2012, at 6:58 AM, Jan R?korajski <baggins at pld-linux.org> wrote:
> 
> >> 
> >> $ rpm -q rpm
> >> rpm-5.4.10-0.12.x86_64
> > 
> > The problem comes from mpd and stunnel have Provides user(%{name}) and
> > group(%{name}), and rpm mixes RPMNS_TYPE_USER/RPMNS_TYPE_GROUP namespace
> > deps with RPMNS_TYPE_VERSION(?) causing P:group(%{name}) to behave like
> > unversioned P:%{name} and satisfying that conflict:
> > 
> > D:   NO     A config(mpd) = 0:0.16.7-4  B mpd < 0.16.5-4
> > D:   YES    A group(mpd)        B mpd < 0.16.5-4
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > D: Conflicts: mpd < 0.16.5-4                                YES (db provides)
                                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > D: package systemd-187-4.x86_64 has unsatisfied Conflicts: mpd < 0.16.5-4
> > 
> 
> There is a namespace collision for user(?) and group(?).
> 
> As implemented @rpm5.org, the user(?) and group(?) namespaces
> have a pre-defined semantic and are satisfied by lookup up
> the user/group using getpwent(3) getgrent(3).
> 
> Specifically, "run-time probes" are _NOT_ satisfied by
> examining package Provides:, but by looking up strings
> using the usual glibc name services.
> 
> (aside)
> At some point the implementation will be extended so that
> 	Provides: user(foo) = N
> will add an entry to /etc/passwd (where N = the desired uid),
> withe removal mapped to an Obsoletes:

What abous stuff like homedir, gecos, supplementary groups, etc.?

> > Shouldn't rpmdsCompare test if the comparison is in the same namespace?
> > 
> 
> rpmdsCompare() already SHOULD have this behavior: the routine
> won't be called for user(?) and group(?) name spaces.

As you can see above it is called with 'mpd < 0.16.5-4' dep from
installed package (this is the code path that skips NSType user/group)
and 'config(mpd) = 0:0.16.7-4' and 'group(mpd)' from db iteration which
have no NSType checking.

> (aside)
> BTW, it would have been far easier if you had chosen
> to discuss issues before upgrading to rpm-5.4.x.

Unfortunately the only problems that I was aware of was some 3y old
segfaults :(

> Reactively re-vetting incompatibilities as discovered
> is in noone's interest because of the tyranny of
> 	Upgrades MUST "work".
> because all that will, happen is PLD will rip out every
> implementation that has been accomplished over the past
> few years to achieve
> 	Have it your own way!
> which is indistinguishable from a "fork".

Currently the only incompatibility is P:user()/group() we're talking
about here. And it looks to me like unchecked code path issue we
can fix and be both happy.

Believe me I don't want to introduce incompatibilities as those will
make my life harder later on maintaining them.

> I personally have little interest in re-visiting
> what is now ancient (>3y ago) hysteria.
> 
> I have offered repeatedly to assist PLD upgrades and
> both arekm/glen SHOUL be aware of all of the changes,
> and have had an opportunity to discuss incompatibilities
> and rationales when these changes were made years ago.

-- 
Jan R?korajski                                 | PLD/Linux
SysAdm                                         | http://www.pld-linux.org/
baggins<at>mimuw.edu.pl
baggins<at>pld-linux.org


From baggins at pld-linux.org  Tue Sep 11 22:49:24 2012
From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=)
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 22:49:24 +0200
Subject: rpm 5.4.10 for testing in th-test
In-Reply-To: <49BC1B98-E5CC-4112-A2BD-7EFB5E0FAF9E@me.com>
References: <20120907111509.GV28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
 <CAHxPtFr6_cTx1=v7eUz_VNMjCnvP_KR7CA+ttiZimvt=SBT2Qg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120911052942.GA1519@home.lan>
 <CAHxPtFoHRvxnz+KhHB_AgtD70Vp4zj4Aht=VCqR4-wJ_=i2THA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120911105859.GE11122@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
 <FB0779E1-6157-4406-9920-745F7ADE4023@me.com>
 <20120911182935.GA1483@home.lan>
 <49BC1B98-E5CC-4112-A2BD-7EFB5E0FAF9E@me.com>
Message-ID: <20120911204924.GB1483@home.lan>

On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:

> 
> On Sep 11, 2012, at 2:29 PM, Jan R?korajski <baggins at pld-linux.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
> > 
> >> On Sep 11, 2012, at 6:58 AM, Jan R?korajski <baggins at pld-linux.org> wrote:
> >> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> $ rpm -q rpm
> >>>> rpm-5.4.10-0.12.x86_64
> >>> 
> >>> The problem comes from mpd and stunnel have Provides user(%{name}) and
> >>> group(%{name}), and rpm mixes RPMNS_TYPE_USER/RPMNS_TYPE_GROUP namespace
> >>> deps with RPMNS_TYPE_VERSION(?) causing P:group(%{name}) to behave like
> >>> unversioned P:%{name} and satisfying that conflict:
> >>> 
> >>> D:   NO     A config(mpd) = 0:0.16.7-4  B mpd < 0.16.5-4
> >>> D:   YES    A group(mpd)        B mpd < 0.16.5-4
> >               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>> D: Conflicts: mpd < 0.16.5-4                                YES (db provides)
> >                                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Yes, already noted (but I do not know what patches
> you are applying).

Nothing special there, AFAIR.

> >>> D: package systemd-187-4.x86_64 has unsatisfied Conflicts: mpd < 0.16.5-4
> >>> 
> >> 
[...]
> >>> Shouldn't rpmdsCompare test if the comparison is in the same namespace?
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> rpmdsCompare() already SHOULD have this behavior: the routine
> >> won't be called for user(?) and group(?) name spaces.
> > 
> > As you can see above it is called with 'mpd < 0.16.5-4' dep from
> > installed package (this is the code path that skips NSType user/group)
> > and 'config(mpd) = 0:0.16.7-4' and 'group(mpd)' from db iteration which
> > have no NSType checking.
> > 
> 
> So its called from poldek, not from rpmlib lib/depends.c?

No, it's pure rpmlib lib/depends.c.

> Yes: you need to parse the user(?) and group(?) namespace
> wrappers similar to what is being done in unsatisfiedDepend()
> near lib/depends.c:868.

No, it's this piece of code in rpmlib lib/depends.c:~1450:

        mi = rpmtsInitIterator(ts, RPMTAG_PROVIDENAME, Name, 0);
        (void) rpmmiPrune(mi,
                        ts->removedPackages, ts->numRemovedPackages, 1);
        while ((h = rpmmiNext(mi)) != NULL) {
            if (rpmdsAnyMatchesDep(h, dep, _rpmds_nopromote)) {
                rpmdsNotify(dep, _("(db provides)"), rc);
                mi = rpmmiFree(mi);
                goto exit;
            }
        }
        mi = rpmmiFree(mi);

dep here is 'mpd < 0.16.5-4', and it goes through all NSType checks,
h becomes 'group(mpd)' and is never tested if its NSType matches the dep
it is compared to.

> Then there is the further design decision to decide
> how to interpret user(?) and group(?) wrappings
> with poldek+rpm to maximize "legacy compatibility" and
> minimize maintenance.
> 
> >> (aside)
> >> BTW, it would have been far easier if you had chosen
> >> to discuss issues before upgrading to rpm-5.4.x.
> > 
> > Unfortunately the only problems that I was aware of was some 3y old
> > segfaults :(
> > 
> 
> Post the details at launchpad.net/rpm and I'll sort
> the segfaults for you.

I don't know if they're worth you attention, all of them seem outdated:

- headerGet() making poldek segfault http://rpm5.org/cvs/tktview?tn=38,1
- rpm doesn't exit when no sources/patches available http://rpm5.org/cvs/tktview?tn=40,1
- http://rpm5.org/cvs/tktview?tn=41&_submit=Show
- when adopting, use 4.5 ticket for checklist: https://bugs.launchpad.net/pld-linux/+bug/262985

> >> Reactively re-vetting incompatibilities as discovered
> >> is in noone's interest because of the tyranny of
> >> 	Upgrades MUST "work".
> >> because all that will, happen is PLD will rip out every
> >> implementation that has been accomplished over the past
> >> few years to achieve
> >> 	Have it your own way!
> >> which is indistinguishable from a "fork".
> > 
> > Currently the only incompatibility is P:user()/group() we're talking
> > about here. And it looks to me like unchecked code path issue we
> > can fix and be both happy.
> > 
> 
> Hard to say what happy means from here without knowing
> what is being proposed. But yes, an accidental name collision
> can be sorted without pain. The hardest issue is
> 	What about "legacy compatibility" with versions
> 	of RPM that do not have "run-time probes"?
> The better approach is back porting, but otherwise
> "run-time probes" are merely serialized strings that can be stubbed
> out in older versions of rpm without too much difficulty.

AFAIK, even our rpm 4.5 has "run-time probes" like uname(release),
so they're not the problem here. I can live with some level of legacy
breakage, one have to cut off the long tail sometime.

-- 
Jan R?korajski                                 | PLD/Linux
SysAdm                                         | http://www.pld-linux.org/
baggins<at>mimuw.edu.pl
baggins<at>pld-linux.org


From wrobell at pld-linux.org  Tue Sep 11 22:58:55 2012
From: wrobell at pld-linux.org (Artur Wroblewski)
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 21:58:55 +0100
Subject: texlive 2012
In-Reply-To: <CADtCJqor014w5PbPiqKKgbeUrxXBXjZhYjQN4c7GMn78b7qfUA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+92fu8SBd_ngu-n7zsK+QUQvK5Fw2RmhDPgoTdk2Hp7TU0+sA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADtCJqor014w5PbPiqKKgbeUrxXBXjZhYjQN4c7GMn78b7qfUA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+92fu-PDrBQ_rVYkMBbPmXGBJ8oY_YTEfTCBo5EzMhTSVXUew@mail.gmail.com>

Does it make sense to have texlive.spec and texlive-texmf.spec?

I understand that the latter deals with much larger source file,
but then we have to deal with problems like the following

- amstex.1 manual is provided by texlive.spec
- amstex format and other files are provided by texlive-texml.spec

Also, due to two spec files we create some artificial packages, i.e.

- texlive-texmf.spec: texlive-latex-bibtex-data
- texlive.spec: texlive-latex-bibtex - it requires the above, but you have
  to build texlive.spec first

I would suggest to merge those two specs again. Bit more painful
to build, but much simpler to maintain.

Regards,

w


From n3npq at me.com  Tue Sep 11 23:04:58 2012
From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson)
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:04:58 -0400
Subject: rpm 5.4.10 for testing in th-test
In-Reply-To: <20120911204924.GB1483@home.lan>
References: <20120907111509.GV28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
 <CAHxPtFr6_cTx1=v7eUz_VNMjCnvP_KR7CA+ttiZimvt=SBT2Qg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120911052942.GA1519@home.lan>
 <CAHxPtFoHRvxnz+KhHB_AgtD70Vp4zj4Aht=VCqR4-wJ_=i2THA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120911105859.GE11122@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
 <FB0779E1-6157-4406-9920-745F7ADE4023@me.com> <20120911182935.GA1483@home.lan>
 <49BC1B98-E5CC-4112-A2BD-7EFB5E0FAF9E@me.com> <20120911204924.GB1483@home.lan>
Message-ID: <B17669C1-6522-45FF-ABB2-2794498EC313@me.com>


On Sep 11, 2012, at 4:49 PM, Jan R?korajski <baggins at pld-linux.org> wrote:

>> 
> 
> No, it's this piece of code in rpmlib lib/depends.c:~1450:
> 

Got it ?

>        mi = rpmtsInitIterator(ts, RPMTAG_PROVIDENAME, Name, 0);
>        (void) rpmmiPrune(mi,
>                        ts->removedPackages, ts->numRemovedPackages, 1);
>        while ((h = rpmmiNext(mi)) != NULL) {
>            if (rpmdsAnyMatchesDep(h, dep, _rpmds_nopromote)) {
>                rpmdsNotify(dep, _("(db provides)"), rc);
>                mi = rpmmiFree(mi);
>                goto exit;
>            }
>        }
>        mi = rpmmiFree(mi);
> 
> dep here is 'mpd < 0.16.5-4', and it goes through all NSType checks,
> h becomes 'group(mpd)' and is never tested if its NSType matches the dep
> it is compared to.
> 

? that code should not have been traversed.

I'm expecting this code in lib/depends.c:955 to catch user(?) and group(?):

    /* Evaluate user/group lookup probes. */
    if (NSType == RPMNS_TYPE_USER) {
        const char *s;
        uid_t uid = 0;
        s = Name; while (*s && xisdigit(*s)) s++;

        if (*s)
            xx = unameToUid(Name, &uid);
        else {
            uid = strtol(Name, NULL, 10);
            xx = (uidToUname(uid) ? 0 : -1);
        }
        rc = (xx >= 0 ? 0 : 1);
        if (Flags & RPMSENSE_MISSINGOK)
            goto unsatisfied;
        rpmdsNotify(dep, _("(user lookup)"), rc);
        goto exit;
    }
    if (NSType == RPMNS_TYPE_GROUP) {
        const char *s;
        gid_t gid = 0;
        s = Name; while (*s && xisdigit(*s)) s++;

        if (*s)
            xx = gnameToGid(Name, &gid);
        else {
            gid = strtol(Name, NULL, 10);
            xx = (gidToGname(gid) ? 0 : -1);
        }
        rc = (xx >= 0 ? 0 : 1);
        if (Flags & RPMSENSE_MISSINGOK)
            goto unsatisfied;
        rpmdsNotify(dep, _("(group lookup)"), rc);
        goto exit;
    }

Any idea why the code above isn't being traversed? I'm
missing something here, any help appreciated.

>> Then there is the further design decision to decide
>> how to interpret user(?) and group(?) wrappings
>> with poldek+rpm to maximize "legacy compatibility" and
>> minimize maintenance.
>> 
>>>> (aside)
>>>> BTW, it would have been far easier if you had chosen
>>>> to discuss issues before upgrading to rpm-5.4.x.
>>> 
>>> Unfortunately the only problems that I was aware of was some 3y old
>>> segfaults :(
>>> 
>> 
>> Post the details at launchpad.net/rpm and I'll sort
>> the segfaults for you.
> 
> I don't know if they're worth you attention, all of them seem outdated:
> 
> - headerGet() making poldek segfault http://rpm5.org/cvs/tktview?tn=38,1
> - rpm doesn't exit when no sources/patches available http://rpm5.org/cvs/tktview?tn=40,1
> - http://rpm5.org/cvs/tktview?tn=41&_submit=Show
> - when adopting, use 4.5 ticket for checklist: https://bugs.launchpad.net/pld-linux/+bug/262985
> 

I will look later tonight (to ensure actually fixed).

>>>> Reactively re-vetting incompatibilities as discovered
>>>> is in noone's interest because of the tyranny of
>>>> 	Upgrades MUST "work".
>>>> because all that will, happen is PLD will rip out every
>>>> implementation that has been accomplished over the past
>>>> few years to achieve
>>>> 	Have it your own way!
>>>> which is indistinguishable from a "fork".
>>> 
>>> Currently the only incompatibility is P:user()/group() we're talking
>>> about here. And it looks to me like unchecked code path issue we
>>> can fix and be both happy.
>>> 
>> 
>> Hard to say what happy means from here without knowing
>> what is being proposed. But yes, an accidental name collision
>> can be sorted without pain. The hardest issue is
>> 	What about "legacy compatibility" with versions
>> 	of RPM that do not have "run-time probes"?
>> The better approach is back porting, but otherwise
>> "run-time probes" are merely serialized strings that can be stubbed
>> out in older versions of rpm without too much difficulty.
> 
> AFAIK, even our rpm 4.5 has "run-time probes" like uname(release),
> so they're not the problem here. I can live with some level of legacy
> breakage, one have to cut off the long tail sometime.
> 

Good (I've mostly forgotten whether probes are in rpm-4.5 these days).

But if using "run-time probes", then I'm not sure why
there are
	Provides: user(mpd) ?
dependencies being added. Or am I confused somehow?

73 de Jeff


> -- 
> Jan R?korajski                                 | PLD/Linux
> SysAdm                                         | http://www.pld-linux.org/
> baggins<at>mimuw.edu.pl
> baggins<at>pld-linux.org
> ______________________________________________________________________
> RPM Package Manager                                    http://rpm5.org
> Developer Communication List                        rpm-devel at rpm5.org



From baggins at pld-linux.org  Tue Sep 11 23:22:59 2012
From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=)
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 23:22:59 +0200
Subject: rpm 5.4.10 for testing in th-test
In-Reply-To: <B17669C1-6522-45FF-ABB2-2794498EC313@me.com>
References: <20120907111509.GV28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
 <CAHxPtFr6_cTx1=v7eUz_VNMjCnvP_KR7CA+ttiZimvt=SBT2Qg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120911052942.GA1519@home.lan>
 <CAHxPtFoHRvxnz+KhHB_AgtD70Vp4zj4Aht=VCqR4-wJ_=i2THA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120911105859.GE11122@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
 <FB0779E1-6157-4406-9920-745F7ADE4023@me.com>
 <20120911182935.GA1483@home.lan>
 <49BC1B98-E5CC-4112-A2BD-7EFB5E0FAF9E@me.com>
 <20120911204924.GB1483@home.lan>
 <B17669C1-6522-45FF-ABB2-2794498EC313@me.com>
Message-ID: <20120911212259.GC1483@home.lan>

On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:

> 
> On Sep 11, 2012, at 4:49 PM, Jan R?korajski <baggins at pld-linux.org> wrote:
> 
> >> 
> > 
> > No, it's this piece of code in rpmlib lib/depends.c:~1450:
> > 
> 
> Got it ?
> 
> >        mi = rpmtsInitIterator(ts, RPMTAG_PROVIDENAME, Name, 0);
> >        (void) rpmmiPrune(mi,
> >                        ts->removedPackages, ts->numRemovedPackages, 1);
> >        while ((h = rpmmiNext(mi)) != NULL) {
> >            if (rpmdsAnyMatchesDep(h, dep, _rpmds_nopromote)) {
> >                rpmdsNotify(dep, _("(db provides)"), rc);
> >                mi = rpmmiFree(mi);
> >                goto exit;
> >            }
> >        }
> >        mi = rpmmiFree(mi);
> > 
> > dep here is 'mpd < 0.16.5-4', and it goes through all NSType checks,
> > h becomes 'group(mpd)' and is never tested if its NSType matches the dep
> > it is compared to.
> > 
> 
> ? that code should not have been traversed.
> 
> I'm expecting this code in lib/depends.c:955 to catch user(?) and group(?):
> 
>     /* Evaluate user/group lookup probes. */
>     if (NSType == RPMNS_TYPE_USER) {
>         const char *s;
>         uid_t uid = 0;
>         s = Name; while (*s && xisdigit(*s)) s++;
> 
>         if (*s)
>             xx = unameToUid(Name, &uid);
>         else {
>             uid = strtol(Name, NULL, 10);
>             xx = (uidToUname(uid) ? 0 : -1);
>         }
>         rc = (xx >= 0 ? 0 : 1);
>         if (Flags & RPMSENSE_MISSINGOK)
>             goto unsatisfied;
>         rpmdsNotify(dep, _("(user lookup)"), rc);
>         goto exit;
>     }
>     if (NSType == RPMNS_TYPE_GROUP) {
>         const char *s;
>         gid_t gid = 0;
>         s = Name; while (*s && xisdigit(*s)) s++;
> 
>         if (*s)
>             xx = gnameToGid(Name, &gid);
>         else {
>             gid = strtol(Name, NULL, 10);
>             xx = (gidToGname(gid) ? 0 : -1);
>         }
>         rc = (xx >= 0 ? 0 : 1);
>         if (Flags & RPMSENSE_MISSINGOK)
>             goto unsatisfied;
>         rpmdsNotify(dep, _("(group lookup)"), rc);
>         goto exit;
>     }
> 
> Any idea why the code above isn't being traversed? I'm
> missing something here, any help appreciated.

dep in question is of the TYPE_VERSION here, comes from package being
installed and it is 'mpd < 0.16.5-4'
'group(mpd)' comes from the rpmdb Provides iteration later on.

> >> Post the details at launchpad.net/rpm and I'll sort
> >> the segfaults for you.
> > 
> > I don't know if they're worth you attention, all of them seem outdated:
> > 
> > - headerGet() making poldek segfault http://rpm5.org/cvs/tktview?tn=38,1
> > - rpm doesn't exit when no sources/patches available http://rpm5.org/cvs/tktview?tn=40,1
> > - http://rpm5.org/cvs/tktview?tn=41&_submit=Show
> > - when adopting, use 4.5 ticket for checklist: https://bugs.launchpad.net/pld-linux/+bug/262985
> > 
> 
> I will look later tonight (to ensure actually fixed).

Thanks in advance :)

> >>>> Reactively re-vetting incompatibilities as discovered
> >>>> is in noone's interest because of the tyranny of
> >>>> 	Upgrades MUST "work".
> >>>> because all that will, happen is PLD will rip out every
> >>>> implementation that has been accomplished over the past
> >>>> few years to achieve
> >>>> 	Have it your own way!
> >>>> which is indistinguishable from a "fork".
> >>> 
> >>> Currently the only incompatibility is P:user()/group() we're talking
> >>> about here. And it looks to me like unchecked code path issue we
> >>> can fix and be both happy.
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> Hard to say what happy means from here without knowing
> >> what is being proposed. But yes, an accidental name collision
> >> can be sorted without pain. The hardest issue is
> >> 	What about "legacy compatibility" with versions
> >> 	of RPM that do not have "run-time probes"?
> >> The better approach is back porting, but otherwise
> >> "run-time probes" are merely serialized strings that can be stubbed
> >> out in older versions of rpm without too much difficulty.
> > 
> > AFAIK, even our rpm 4.5 has "run-time probes" like uname(release),
> > so they're not the problem here. I can live with some level of legacy
> > breakage, one have to cut off the long tail sometime.
> > 
> 
> Good (I've mostly forgotten whether probes are in rpm-4.5 these days).
> 
> But if using "run-time probes", then I'm not sure why
> there are
> 	Provides: user(mpd) ?
> dependencies being added. Or am I confused somehow?

Hmm, besides not being able to find that particular probe in rpm5
source (may be me tired), how can we tell that _this_ package provide
_that_ username other than specyfying Provides: user(mpd)?

I always considered user() and group() provides as a means to tell that
those user/group names come from the package having appriopriate Provides.

-- 
Jan R?korajski                                 | PLD/Linux
SysAdm                                         | http://www.pld-linux.org/
baggins<at>mimuw.edu.pl
baggins<at>pld-linux.org


From n3npq at me.com  Wed Sep 12 05:06:45 2012
From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson)
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 23:06:45 -0400
Subject: rpm 5.4.10 for testing in th-test
In-Reply-To: <20120911212259.GC1483@home.lan>
References: <20120907111509.GV28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
 <CAHxPtFr6_cTx1=v7eUz_VNMjCnvP_KR7CA+ttiZimvt=SBT2Qg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120911052942.GA1519@home.lan>
 <CAHxPtFoHRvxnz+KhHB_AgtD70Vp4zj4Aht=VCqR4-wJ_=i2THA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120911105859.GE11122@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
 <FB0779E1-6157-4406-9920-745F7ADE4023@me.com> <20120911182935.GA1483@home.lan>
 <49BC1B98-E5CC-4112-A2BD-7EFB5E0FAF9E@me.com> <20120911204924.GB1483@home.lan>
 <B17669C1-6522-45FF-ABB2-2794498EC313@me.com> <20120911212259.GC1483@home.lan>
Message-ID: <1BEE60A2-EFF6-4757-B18F-BB3EE2519154@me.com>


On Sep 11, 2012, at 5:22 PM, Jan R?korajski <baggins at pld-linux.org> wrote:

>> 
>> Any idea why the code above isn't being traversed? I'm
>> missing something here, any help appreciated.
> 
> dep in question is of the TYPE_VERSION here, comes from package being
> installed and it is 'mpd < 0.16.5-4'
> 'group(mpd)' comes from the rpmdb Provides iteration later on.
> 

Because I lack specifics, I need clarification:

	Is the
		Provides: group(mpd)
	retrieved from Providename index in rpmdb matching a
		Conflicts: mpd < 0.16.5-4
	from a package header in the code you posted?

That's broken imho (and I should have enough details
to find the flaw if/when you confirm).

(aside)
The easy work around is removing
	Provides: group(md5)
although I lack sufficient details on what is/was intended
with that dependency to say for sure. Removing the Provides:
SHOULD prevent the Conflicts: from firing.

>>>> Post the details at launchpad.net/rpm and I'll sort
>>>> the segfaults for you.
>>> 
>>> I don't know if they're worth you attention, all of them seem outdated:
>>> 
>>> - headerGet() making poldek segfault http://rpm5.org/cvs/tktview?tn=38,1
>>> - rpm doesn't exit when no sources/patches available http://rpm5.org/cvs/tktview?tn=40,1
>>> - http://rpm5.org/cvs/tktview?tn=41&_submit=Show
>>> - when adopting, use 4.5 ticket for checklist: https://bugs.launchpad.net/pld-linux/+bug/262985
>>> 
>> 
>> I will look later tonight (to ensure actually fixed).
> 
> Thanks in advance :)
> 
>>>>>> Reactively re-vetting incompatibilities as discovered
>>>>>> is in noone's interest because of the tyranny of
>>>>>> 	Upgrades MUST "work".
>>>>>> because all that will, happen is PLD will rip out every
>>>>>> implementation that has been accomplished over the past
>>>>>> few years to achieve
>>>>>> 	Have it your own way!
>>>>>> which is indistinguishable from a "fork".
>>>>> 
>>>>> Currently the only incompatibility is P:user()/group() we're talking
>>>>> about here. And it looks to me like unchecked code path issue we
>>>>> can fix and be both happy.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hard to say what happy means from here without knowing
>>>> what is being proposed. But yes, an accidental name collision
>>>> can be sorted without pain. The hardest issue is
>>>> 	What about "legacy compatibility" with versions
>>>> 	of RPM that do not have "run-time probes"?
>>>> The better approach is back porting, but otherwise
>>>> "run-time probes" are merely serialized strings that can be stubbed
>>>> out in older versions of rpm without too much difficulty.
>>> 
>>> AFAIK, even our rpm 4.5 has "run-time probes" like uname(release),
>>> so they're not the problem here. I can live with some level of legacy
>>> breakage, one have to cut off the long tail sometime.
>>> 
>> 
>> Good (I've mostly forgotten whether probes are in rpm-4.5 these days).
>> 
>> But if using "run-time probes", then I'm not sure why
>> there are
>> 	Provides: user(mpd) ?
>> dependencies being added. Or am I confused somehow?
> 
> Hmm, besides not being able to find that particular probe in rpm5
> source (may be me tired), how can we tell that _this_ package provide
> _that_ username other than specyfying Provides: user(mpd)?
> 

The confusion is likely that I wasn't sure whether it was a
user(?) or a group(?) dependency which are quite similar in form.
Perhaps I should have said
	Provides: group(mpd)

> I always considered user() and group() provides as a means to tell that
> those user/group names come from the package having appriopriate Provides.
> 

There's no well defined semantic for
	Provides: group(mpd)
even if PLD has adopted some convention afaik. The
	Provides: group(mpd)
is just a string and (imho) should be removed
if there are problems unless there is truly some
explicit PLD implementation that relies on the adopted
convention.

(aside)
The future intent @rpm5.org is to overload Provides:/Obsoletes: as
a means to automate adding/deleting entries in /etc/passwd
and /etc/group (where there will be an explicit semantic
attached to the namespace(s).

The only show stopping issue is committing to a tuple serialization
that maps onto the necessary fields needed in /etc/passwd etc with
reasonable defaults for missing values.

Consensus on representations in *.spec is always rate limiting: it
literally takes years before the complaints from package monkeys
disappear, sigh.

hth

73 de Jeff

> -- 
> Jan R?korajski                                 | PLD/Linux
> SysAdm                                         | http://www.pld-linux.org/
> baggins<at>mimuw.edu.pl
> baggins<at>pld-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 udvzsolt at gmail.com  Wed Sep 12 07:23:27 2012
From: udvzsolt at gmail.com (Zsolt Udvari)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 07:23:27 +0200
Subject: texlive 2012
In-Reply-To: <CA+92fu-PDrBQ_rVYkMBbPmXGBJ8oY_YTEfTCBo5EzMhTSVXUew@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+92fu8SBd_ngu-n7zsK+QUQvK5Fw2RmhDPgoTdk2Hp7TU0+sA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADtCJqor014w5PbPiqKKgbeUrxXBXjZhYjQN4c7GMn78b7qfUA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+92fu-PDrBQ_rVYkMBbPmXGBJ8oY_YTEfTCBo5EzMhTSVXUew@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADtCJqo4ahTcaSbEfkx8ic2VTRoQQbF_6tW3_FKcHYdge7CWnQ@mail.gmail.com>

The reason of splitting: texlive is arch-dependent, texlive-texmf is
arch-independent.
The versions are different.

> - texlive-texmf.spec: texlive-latex-bibtex-data
> - texlive.spec: texlive-latex-bibtex - it requires the above, but you have
>   to build texlive.spec first
You can build texlive.spec with older texlive-latex-bibtex-data. This
is the reason why need bootstrap.
So you'll build texlive2012 with texlive-texmf2008, after you'll build
texlive-texmf2012 with texlive2012, and rebuild texlive2012 with
texlive-texmf2012.

> I would suggest to merge those two specs again. Bit more painful
> to build, but much simpler to maintain.
I think the maintain isn't harder with two little(?) specs.
I think it would be nice to create a policy: which type of files
belongs to texlive and which belongs to texlive-texmf and apply this
policy.
Some time ago, when I've split texlive.spec to texlive.spec and
texlive-texmf.spec many things was adhoc-style :) So first need a
big-big cleaning and I think after this the maintain will be simple.
With one big spec: the build will be hard, see above, as you wrote:
you'll build the texlive.spec's texlive-bin and after you'll install
these packages and build texlive.spec's texlive-texmf?

Zsolt


From baggins at pld-linux.org  Wed Sep 12 07:33:15 2012
From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 07:33:15 +0200
Subject: rpm 5.4.10 for testing in th-test
In-Reply-To: <1BEE60A2-EFF6-4757-B18F-BB3EE2519154@me.com>
References: <20120911052942.GA1519@home.lan>
 <CAHxPtFoHRvxnz+KhHB_AgtD70Vp4zj4Aht=VCqR4-wJ_=i2THA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120911105859.GE11122@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
 <FB0779E1-6157-4406-9920-745F7ADE4023@me.com>
 <20120911182935.GA1483@home.lan>
 <49BC1B98-E5CC-4112-A2BD-7EFB5E0FAF9E@me.com>
 <20120911204924.GB1483@home.lan>
 <B17669C1-6522-45FF-ABB2-2794498EC313@me.com>
 <20120911212259.GC1483@home.lan>
 <1BEE60A2-EFF6-4757-B18F-BB3EE2519154@me.com>
Message-ID: <20120912053315.GA1527@home.lan>

On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:

> 
> On Sep 11, 2012, at 5:22 PM, Jan R?korajski <baggins at pld-linux.org> wrote:
> 
> >> 
> >> Any idea why the code above isn't being traversed? I'm
> >> missing something here, any help appreciated.
> > 
> > dep in question is of the TYPE_VERSION here, comes from package being
> > installed and it is 'mpd < 0.16.5-4'
> > 'group(mpd)' comes from the rpmdb Provides iteration later on.
> > 
> 
> Because I lack specifics, I need clarification:
> 
> 	Is the
> 		Provides: group(mpd)
> 	retrieved from Providename index in rpmdb matching a
> 		Conflicts: mpd < 0.16.5-4
> 	from a package header in the code you posted?
> 
> That's broken imho (and I should have enough details
> to find the flaw if/when you confirm).

Yes, this is exactly what is happening.
IMHO rpmdsCompare needs a test (A->ns.Type == B->ns.Type), but I dont't
know if it won't cause side-effects.

-- 
Jan R?korajski                                 | PLD/Linux
SysAdm                                         | http://www.pld-linux.org/
baggins<at>mimuw.edu.pl
baggins<at>pld-linux.org


From jajcus at jajcus.net  Wed Sep 12 08:56:27 2012
From: jajcus at jajcus.net (Jacek Konieczny)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 08:56:27 +0200
Subject: rpm 5.4.10 for testing in th-test
In-Reply-To: <1BEE60A2-EFF6-4757-B18F-BB3EE2519154@me.com>
References: <20120911052942.GA1519@home.lan>
 <CAHxPtFoHRvxnz+KhHB_AgtD70Vp4zj4Aht=VCqR4-wJ_=i2THA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120911105859.GE11122@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
 <FB0779E1-6157-4406-9920-745F7ADE4023@me.com>
 <20120911182935.GA1483@home.lan>
 <49BC1B98-E5CC-4112-A2BD-7EFB5E0FAF9E@me.com>
 <20120911204924.GB1483@home.lan>
 <B17669C1-6522-45FF-ABB2-2794498EC313@me.com>
 <20120911212259.GC1483@home.lan>
 <1BEE60A2-EFF6-4757-B18F-BB3EE2519154@me.com>
Message-ID: <20120912065627.GA3253@jajo.eggsoft>

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:06:45PM -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
> There's no well defined semantic for
> 	Provides: group(mpd)
> even if PLD has adopted some convention afaik. The
> 	Provides: group(mpd)
> is just a string and (imho) should be removed
> if there are problems unless there is truly some
> explicit PLD implementation that relies on the adopted
> convention.

There is.

PLD. Packages with 'Provides: group(mpd)' call the '%groupadd' macro
during installation, which creates the group if it is not already
defined. When uninstalled they call the '%groupremove' macro.

The same 'group(mpd)' may be provided by multiple packages (probably not
much sense with the 'mpd' group, but important for other cases) and the
group will be removed only when the last package which provides it is
removed. So the 'Provides: user(*)' and 'Provides: group(*)' are
critical for our %{user,group}{add,remove}  macros.

Other solutions to the problem (multiple packages using the same
user/groups) would be:
- including every system uid/gid in the 'setup' package. 
  Disadvantages: lots of unneeded user and groups defined on every PLD
  system and the need to update the setup package whenever user/group is
  needed for anything else.
- providing each such user/group/user&group via a single packages
  Disadvantages: some packages would be created only to hold a single
  user or group definition.
- never removing users/groups added
  Disadvantages: mess left after uninstalled packages

Our useradd/groupadd macros with 'Provides: user/group(*)' seem to be
quite an elegant solution in comparison and RPM 5.x still doesn't seem
to provide anything better.

Greets,
        Jacek


From glen at pld-linux.org  Wed Sep 12 12:22:21 2012
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Elan_Ruusam=E4e?=)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 13:22:21 +0300
Subject: texlive 2012
In-Reply-To: <CADtCJqo4ahTcaSbEfkx8ic2VTRoQQbF_6tW3_FKcHYdge7CWnQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+92fu8SBd_ngu-n7zsK+QUQvK5Fw2RmhDPgoTdk2Hp7TU0+sA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADtCJqor014w5PbPiqKKgbeUrxXBXjZhYjQN4c7GMn78b7qfUA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+92fu-PDrBQ_rVYkMBbPmXGBJ8oY_YTEfTCBo5EzMhTSVXUew@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADtCJqo4ahTcaSbEfkx8ic2VTRoQQbF_6tW3_FKcHYdge7CWnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5050625D.5010407@pld-linux.org>

On 12.09.2012 08:23, Zsolt Udvari wrote:
> The reason of splitting: texlive is arch-dependent, texlive-texmf is
> arch-independent.
> The versions are different.
can this reason be marked void with rpm5?
in other words, does rpm5 support noarch subpackages?

just mark them, nothing more complex in it, it's fault of packager 
putting invliad content here, we have ftp automation to alert on some 
mistakes.

jbj: i know you're reading :)

-- 
glen



From glen at pld-linux.org  Wed Sep 12 12:25:13 2012
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Elan_Ruusam=E4e?=)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 13:25:13 +0300
Subject: texlive 2012
In-Reply-To: <CADtCJqo4ahTcaSbEfkx8ic2VTRoQQbF_6tW3_FKcHYdge7CWnQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+92fu8SBd_ngu-n7zsK+QUQvK5Fw2RmhDPgoTdk2Hp7TU0+sA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADtCJqor014w5PbPiqKKgbeUrxXBXjZhYjQN4c7GMn78b7qfUA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+92fu-PDrBQ_rVYkMBbPmXGBJ8oY_YTEfTCBo5EzMhTSVXUew@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADtCJqo4ahTcaSbEfkx8ic2VTRoQQbF_6tW3_FKcHYdge7CWnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <50506309.7000108@pld-linux.org>

On 12.09.2012 08:23, Zsolt Udvari wrote:
> Some time ago, when I've split texlive.spec to texlive.spec and
> texlive-texmf.spec many things was adhoc-style:)  So first need a
> big-big cleaning and I think after this the maintain will be simple.
> With one big spec: the build will be hard, see above, as you wrote:
> you'll build the texlive.spec's texlive-bin and after you'll install
> these packages and build texlive.spec's texlive-texmf?

why is building hard? you do first rpmbuild, and alter you handle only 
%files
thus:


$ ./repackage.sh textlive.spec
will invoke %install and produce .rpm files

and after that if you do not need to modify $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, you can 
just invoke:
$ ./repackage.sh textlive.spec -bb
this will not invoke %install again, just will produce .rpm packages

(repackage.sh is just frontend to rpmbuild --short-circuit)

-- 
glen



From baggins at pld-linux.org  Wed Sep 12 14:55:59 2012
From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 14:55:59 +0200
Subject: Th development plans
In-Reply-To: <CADDE8wMZu4j-90SOFm+fbrcUSE9LJ66+u2wmtH=2vEZWu_D91Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20120904102056.GL28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
 <201209041343.18645.arekm@maven.pl>
 <20120904114811.GO28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
 <CADDE8wMZu4j-90SOFm+fbrcUSE9LJ66+u2wmtH=2vEZWu_D91Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20120912125559.GK11122@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>

On Tue, 04 Sep 2012, Lukasz Kies wrote:

> 2012/9/4 Jan R?korajski <baggins at pld-linux.org>:
> > On Tue, 04 Sep 2012, Arkadiusz Mi?kiewicz wrote:
> >
> >> On Tuesday 04 of September 2012, Jan R?korajski wrote:
> >> > Hi,
> >> > After making a snapshot, and having (development wise) stable package set,
> >> > I want to start refreshing the distribution. This means big changes in the
> >> > near future to get PLD back to being modern (or at least up-to-date) wrt
> >> > current Linux world.
> >> >
> >> > Below I present a plan (a.k.a The Roadmap) for Th:
> >>
> >> New texlive, new ffmpeg, new mesa (soon 9.0), new xserver (soon 1.13) ? :-)
> >
> > Sure, but let's take one step at a time, I upgraded db and then I want
> > to go with rpm (which seems to have some rpmbuild problems related to
> > python, BTW :/)
> >
> Hi,
> 
> Maybe add some wiki page, where we could add comments about progress,
> dates and synchronize work with each other?

Done, not much content yet, but we can start from here.
http://www.pld-linux.org/Th-next

-- 
Jan R?korajski                                 | PLD/Linux
SysAdm                                         | http://www.pld-linux.org/
baggins<at>mimuw.edu.pl
baggins<at>pld-linux.org


From n3npq at me.com  Wed Sep 12 15:10:52 2012
From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 09:10:52 -0400
Subject: rpm 5.4.10 for testing in th-test
In-Reply-To: <20120912065627.GA3253@jajo.eggsoft>
References: <20120911052942.GA1519@home.lan>
 <CAHxPtFoHRvxnz+KhHB_AgtD70Vp4zj4Aht=VCqR4-wJ_=i2THA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120911105859.GE11122@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
 <FB0779E1-6157-4406-9920-745F7ADE4023@me.com> <20120911182935.GA1483@home.lan>
 <49BC1B98-E5CC-4112-A2BD-7EFB5E0FAF9E@me.com> <20120911204924.GB1483@home.lan>
 <B17669C1-6522-45FF-ABB2-2794498EC313@me.com> <20120911212259.GC1483@home.lan>
 <1BEE60A2-EFF6-4757-B18F-BB3EE2519154@me.com>
 <20120912065627.GA3253@jajo.eggsoft>
Message-ID: <E0509759-ADA3-450D-B52C-ED24AF813E6D@me.com>


On Sep 12, 2012, at 2:56 AM, Jacek Konieczny <jajcus at jajcus.net> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:06:45PM -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
>> There's no well defined semantic for
>> 	Provides: group(mpd)
>> even if PLD has adopted some convention afaik. The
>> 	Provides: group(mpd)
>> is just a string and (imho) should be removed
>> if there are problems unless there is truly some
>> explicit PLD implementation that relies on the adopted
>> convention.
> 
> There is.
> 

OK.

> PLD. Packages with 'Provides: group(mpd)' call the '%groupadd' macro
> during installation, which creates the group if it is not already
> defined. When uninstalled they call the '%groupremove' macro.
> 
> The same 'group(mpd)' may be provided by multiple packages (probably not
> much sense with the 'mpd' group, but important for other cases) and the
> group will be removed only when the last package which provides it is
> removed. So the 'Provides: user(*)' and 'Provides: group(*)' are
> critical for our %{user,group}{add,remove}  macros.
> 
> Other solutions to the problem (multiple packages using the same
> user/groups) would be:
> - including every system uid/gid in the 'setup' package. 
>  Disadvantages: lots of unneeded user and groups defined on every PLD
>  system and the need to update the setup package whenever user/group is
>  needed for anything else.
> - providing each such user/group/user&group via a single packages
>  Disadvantages: some packages would be created only to hold a single
>  user or group definition.
> - never removing users/groups added
>  Disadvantages: mess left after uninstalled packages
> 
> Our useradd/groupadd macros with 'Provides: user/group(*)' seem to be
> quite an elegant solution in comparison and RPM 5.x still doesn't seem
> to provide anything better.
> 

Heh: @rpm5.org has a complete copy of shadowutils
reworked into lua module(s) in order to be able
to perform _EXACTLY_ what useradd/groupadd do
in cross-compilation (and cross-install) environments
using embedded lua and shadowutils (and checkconf).

RPM+LUA+SHADOWUTILS is/was arguably "better" at the time (~2008).

rpm also embeds augeas, so augtool commands can
be run that do not only add/delete but also permit
modification under an augtool-like DSL programatically.

More recently, rpm embeds sqlite3 and there are
virtual tables to user/group management: the intent
is/was to add transactional support and a 2-phase commit
to /etc/passwd/gtoup management well integrated into
	Transactionally Protected Package Management
At the moment user/group management is RO and without
transactional support ? there's been little reason
to complete the work so far.

But this isn't the time/pace to discuss relative merits
of user/group management ? the rpmdsCompare needs to
be extended to include the namespace in the comparison.

73 de Jeff



From glen at pld-linux.org  Wed Sep 12 15:43:41 2012
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?B?RWxhbiBSdXVzYW3DpGU=?=)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 16:43:41 +0300
Subject: [packages/rpm] - add filetriggers directory
In-Reply-To: <e9eb00afc48b027786d4fd5c23e6cff20acc8df8_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
References: <76fbad186cb1b83c2fbc4a2b079717bfe6830631_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <e9eb00afc48b027786d4fd5c23e6cff20acc8df8_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <5050918D.2070702@pld-linux.org>

On 12.09.2012 14:51, baggins wrote:
> commit e9eb00afc48b027786d4fd5c23e6cff20acc8df8
> Author: Jan R?korajski <baggins at pld-linux.org>
> Date:   Wed Sep 12 13:33:26 2012 +0200
>
>      - add filetriggers directory
...
>   
>   %dir /var/lib/rpm
> +%dir /var/lib/rpm/filetriggers

why filetriggers in /var/lib? due /usr separation? maybe put to /lib/rpm 
instead then? more FHS friendly imho

-- 
glen



From n3npq at me.com  Wed Sep 12 16:05:28 2012
From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 10:05:28 -0400
Subject: [packages/rpm] - add filetriggers directory
In-Reply-To: <5050918D.2070702@pld-linux.org>
References: <76fbad186cb1b83c2fbc4a2b079717bfe6830631_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <e9eb00afc48b027786d4fd5c23e6cff20acc8df8_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <5050918D.2070702@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <584BBDFF-75CB-4CFA-A0CC-58B29DC40633@me.com>


On Sep 12, 2012, at 9:43 AM, Elan Ruusam?e wrote:

> On 12.09.2012 14:51, baggins wrote:
>> commit e9eb00afc48b027786d4fd5c23e6cff20acc8df8
>> Author: Jan R?korajski <baggins at pld-linux.org>
>> Date:   Wed Sep 12 13:33:26 2012 +0200
>> 
>>     - add filetriggers directory
> ...
>>    %dir /var/lib/rpm
>> +%dir /var/lib/rpm/filetriggers
> 
> why filetriggers in /var/lib? due /usr separation? maybe put to /lib/rpm instead then? more FHS friendly imho
> 

Adding non-rpmdb data (like filetriggers) into a directory that includes a Berkeley DB dbenv
blocks further performance increases and addressing the permission changes
that are needed to permit RO access with the ability to create locks (i.e. RO MUST
be able to write to __db* files in order to register locks).

I too would suggest choosing some other path for filetriggers than /var/lib/rpm.

73 de Jeff

> -- 
> 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 qboosh at pld-linux.org  Wed Sep 12 18:20:52 2012
From: qboosh at pld-linux.org (Jakub Bogusz)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 18:20:52 +0200
Subject: [packages/rpm] - set binary payload to xzdio (same as lzdio,
 but uses current xz) - add settings provided by patche
In-Reply-To: <c73c505644fa30c3e32a596dbc4aea90cfac0bcc_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
References: <76fbad186cb1b83c2fbc4a2b079717bfe6830631_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <c73c505644fa30c3e32a596dbc4aea90cfac0bcc_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <20120912162052.GA17612@mail>

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 01:51:26PM +0200, baggins wrote:
> commit c73c505644fa30c3e32a596dbc4aea90cfac0bcc
> Author: Jan R?korajski <baggins at pld-linux.org>
> Date:   Wed Sep 12 13:24:58 2012 +0200
> 
>     - set binary payload to xzdio (same as lzdio, but uses current xz)

>  %_source_payload	w9.gzdio
> -%_binary_payload	w9.lzdio
> +%_binary_payload	w9.xzdio

What is the minimal rpm version that supports xzdio (and what was that
supports lzdio)?

If not the same, there must exist some easy upgrade path.


-- 
Jakub Bogusz    http://qboosh.pl/


From n3npq at me.com  Wed Sep 12 18:20:46 2012
From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 12:20:46 -0400
Subject: [packages/rpm] - set binary payload to xzdio (same as lzdio,
 but uses current xz) - add settings provided by patche
In-Reply-To: <20120912162052.GA17612@mail>
References: <76fbad186cb1b83c2fbc4a2b079717bfe6830631_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <c73c505644fa30c3e32a596dbc4aea90cfac0bcc_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <20120912162052.GA17612@mail>
Message-ID: <0406D8DB-CE72-42BC-8299-52A6A84B6B4F@me.com>


On Sep 12, 2012, at 12:20 PM, Jakub Bogusz wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 01:51:26PM +0200, baggins wrote:
>> commit c73c505644fa30c3e32a596dbc4aea90cfac0bcc
>> Author: Jan R?korajski <baggins at pld-linux.org>
>> Date:   Wed Sep 12 13:24:58 2012 +0200
>> 
>>    - set binary payload to xzdio (same as lzdio, but uses current xz)
> 
>> %_source_payload	w9.gzdio
>> -%_binary_payload	w9.lzdio
>> +%_binary_payload	w9.xzdio
> 
> What is the minimal rpm version that supports xzdio (and what was that
> supports lzdio)?
> 

Counting Mandriva backports: rpm-4.4.2.3 (though its a bloody mess in MES5)

> If not the same, there must exist some easy upgrade path.
> 

rpm2cpio.sh | cpio -dim

Guaranteed to "upgrade" and not particularly hard.

73 de Jeff



From baggins at pld-linux.org  Wed Sep 12 18:37:59 2012
From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 18:37:59 +0200
Subject: [packages/rpm] - set binary payload to xzdio (same as lzdio, but
 uses current xz) - add settings provided by patche
In-Reply-To: <20120912162052.GA17612@mail>
References: <76fbad186cb1b83c2fbc4a2b079717bfe6830631_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <c73c505644fa30c3e32a596dbc4aea90cfac0bcc_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <20120912162052.GA17612@mail>
Message-ID: <20120912163759.GA1530@home.lan>

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012, Jakub Bogusz wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 01:51:26PM +0200, baggins wrote:
> > commit c73c505644fa30c3e32a596dbc4aea90cfac0bcc
> > Author: Jan R?korajski <baggins at pld-linux.org>
> > Date:   Wed Sep 12 13:24:58 2012 +0200
> > 
> >     - set binary payload to xzdio (same as lzdio, but uses current xz)
> 
> >  %_source_payload	w9.gzdio
> > -%_binary_payload	w9.lzdio
> > +%_binary_payload	w9.xzdio
> 
> What is the minimal rpm version that supports xzdio (and what was that
> supports lzdio)?

None of our rpm4 supports xzdio, but rpm package by itself is build with
gzdio payload.

> If not the same, there must exist some easy upgrade path.

rpm-*.rpm packages are built with gzdio payload so it should
be possible to upgrade without problems using any rpm version.

-- 
Jan R?korajski                                 | PLD/Linux
SysAdm                                         | http://www.pld-linux.org/
baggins<at>mimuw.edu.pl
baggins<at>pld-linux.org


From wrobell at pld-linux.org  Wed Sep 12 18:40:35 2012
From: wrobell at pld-linux.org (Artur Wroblewski)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:40:35 +0100
Subject: texlive 2012
In-Reply-To: <CADtCJqo4ahTcaSbEfkx8ic2VTRoQQbF_6tW3_FKcHYdge7CWnQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+92fu8SBd_ngu-n7zsK+QUQvK5Fw2RmhDPgoTdk2Hp7TU0+sA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADtCJqor014w5PbPiqKKgbeUrxXBXjZhYjQN4c7GMn78b7qfUA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+92fu-PDrBQ_rVYkMBbPmXGBJ8oY_YTEfTCBo5EzMhTSVXUew@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADtCJqo4ahTcaSbEfkx8ic2VTRoQQbF_6tW3_FKcHYdge7CWnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+92fu9ynv3uWeEav6Dod-wJnuLV2ndCook+gFGzCZUAw-Dxhg@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 6:23 AM, Zsolt Udvari <udvzsolt at gmail.com> wrote:
[...]

> With one big spec: the build will be hard, see above, as you wrote:
> you'll build the texlive.spec's texlive-bin and after you'll install
> these packages and build texlive.spec's texlive-texmf?

No, texlive-texmf.spec so far seems to be (the %prep and %build
sections are empty)

- copy the contents of texlive-%{version}-texmf archive into $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
- do some cleanup
- create format files, i.e. latex.fmt

Above can be done without any bootstrap, IMHO.

I really do not see why we need two spec files beside inconvenience of one
of them being quite large. Otherwise this seems to complicate things (see
the 2 examples in my previous e-mail).

Regards,

w


From n3npq at me.com  Wed Sep 12 18:49:51 2012
From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 12:49:51 -0400
Subject: [packages/rpm] - set binary payload to xzdio (same as lzdio,
 but uses current xz) - add settings provided by patche
In-Reply-To: <20120912163759.GA1530@home.lan>
References: <76fbad186cb1b83c2fbc4a2b079717bfe6830631_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <c73c505644fa30c3e32a596dbc4aea90cfac0bcc_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <20120912162052.GA17612@mail> <20120912163759.GA1530@home.lan>
Message-ID: <7B6CC373-19C8-4E1E-B6EA-323A4BDAA14D@me.com>


On Sep 12, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jan R?korajski wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Sep 2012, Jakub Bogusz wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 01:51:26PM +0200, baggins wrote:
>>> commit c73c505644fa30c3e32a596dbc4aea90cfac0bcc
>>> Author: Jan R?korajski <baggins at pld-linux.org>
>>> Date:   Wed Sep 12 13:24:58 2012 +0200
>>> 
>>>    - set binary payload to xzdio (same as lzdio, but uses current xz)
>> 
>>> %_source_payload	w9.gzdio
>>> -%_binary_payload	w9.lzdio
>>> +%_binary_payload	w9.xzdio
>> 
>> What is the minimal rpm version that supports xzdio (and what was that
>> supports lzdio)?
> 
> None of our rpm4 supports xzdio, but rpm package by itself is build with
> gzdio payload.
> 

The back port isn't impossibly hard. but you want to start with ~rpm-5.1.4 iirc.

>> If not the same, there must exist some easy upgrade path.
> 
> rpm-*.rpm packages are built with gzdio payload so it should
> be possible to upgrade without problems using any rpm version.
> 

Shipping *.src.rpm with anything except ZLIB compression is asking for incompatibilities.

Using rpm2cpio (or rpm2cpio.sh) to unpack a *.src.rpm and rebuilding
with compression du jour is the proper "upgrade" path.

Meanwhile LZMA -> XZ transition got smeared out for years and isn't an RPM issue per se.

73 de Jeff
> -- 
> Jan R?korajski                                 | PLD/Linux
> SysAdm                                         | http://www.pld-linux.org/
> baggins<at>mimuw.edu.pl
> baggins<at>pld-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  Wed Sep 12 19:02:12 2012
From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 19:02:12 +0200
Subject: [packages/rpm] - set binary payload to xzdio (same as lzdio, but
 uses current xz) - add settings provided by patche
In-Reply-To: <7B6CC373-19C8-4E1E-B6EA-323A4BDAA14D@me.com>
References: <76fbad186cb1b83c2fbc4a2b079717bfe6830631_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <c73c505644fa30c3e32a596dbc4aea90cfac0bcc_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <20120912162052.GA17612@mail> <20120912163759.GA1530@home.lan>
 <7B6CC373-19C8-4E1E-B6EA-323A4BDAA14D@me.com>
Message-ID: <20120912170212.GB1530@home.lan>

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:

> 
> On Sep 12, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Jan R?korajski wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 12 Sep 2012, Jakub Bogusz wrote:
> > 
> >> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 01:51:26PM +0200, baggins wrote:
> >>> commit c73c505644fa30c3e32a596dbc4aea90cfac0bcc
> >>> Author: Jan R?korajski <baggins at pld-linux.org>
> >>> Date:   Wed Sep 12 13:24:58 2012 +0200
> >>> 
> >>>    - set binary payload to xzdio (same as lzdio, but uses current xz)
> >> 
> >>> %_source_payload	w9.gzdio
> >>> -%_binary_payload	w9.lzdio
> >>> +%_binary_payload	w9.xzdio
> >> 
> >> What is the minimal rpm version that supports xzdio (and what was that
> >> supports lzdio)?
> > 
> > None of our rpm4 supports xzdio, but rpm package by itself is build with
> > gzdio payload.
> > 
> 
> The back port isn't impossibly hard. but you want to start with ~rpm-5.1.4 iirc.

IMO it's a waste of time to backport something to a software that will
be obsolete real soon now (rpm4 in this case).

> >> If not the same, there must exist some easy upgrade path.
> > 
> > rpm-*.rpm packages are built with gzdio payload so it should
> > be possible to upgrade without problems using any rpm version.
> > 
> 
> Shipping *.src.rpm with anything except ZLIB compression is asking for incompatibilities.

We are shipping binary (*.ARCH.rpm) rpm packages with rpm using ZLIB, so
it should be always possible to install new rpm.

-- 
Jan R?korajski                                 | PLD/Linux
SysAdm                                         | http://www.pld-linux.org/
baggins<at>mimuw.edu.pl
baggins<at>pld-linux.org


From n3npq at me.com  Wed Sep 12 19:25:34 2012
From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 13:25:34 -0400
Subject: [packages/rpm] - set binary payload to xzdio (same as lzdio,
 but uses current xz) - add settings provided by patche
In-Reply-To: <20120912170212.GB1530@home.lan>
References: <76fbad186cb1b83c2fbc4a2b079717bfe6830631_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <c73c505644fa30c3e32a596dbc4aea90cfac0bcc_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <20120912162052.GA17612@mail> <20120912163759.GA1530@home.lan>
 <7B6CC373-19C8-4E1E-B6EA-323A4BDAA14D@me.com> <20120912170212.GB1530@home.lan>
Message-ID: <0FE73280-CF12-40A3-B760-5554C16B9435@me.com>


On Sep 12, 2012, at 1:02 PM, Jan R?korajski wrote:

>> 
>> Shipping *.src.rpm with anything except ZLIB compression is asking for incompatibilities.
> 
> We are shipping binary (*.ARCH.rpm) rpm packages with rpm using ZLIB, so
> it should be always possible to install new rpm.
> 

Good: zlib (as used @rpm5.org) is --rsyncable (and afaik LZMA/XZ is not).

If both the remote/local packages are --rsyncable, then you SHOULD see larger
bandwidth reductions than available with XZ compression and no --rsyncable afaik.

The savings is a difficult measurement however, harder than just comparing file sizes.

73 de Jeff



From lukaszgl at post.pl  Wed Sep 12 19:33:27 2012
From: lukaszgl at post.pl (Lukasz Glebicki)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 19:33:27 +0200
Subject: PLD-update-TODO
In-Reply-To: <201207241732.08494.arekm@maven.pl>
References: <20120724154447.GA7475@mail> <201207241732.08494.arekm@maven.pl>
Message-ID: <2139032.6g6LcTy5BE@inhell>

On Tuesday 24 of July 2012 17:32:08 Arkadiusz Mi?kiewicz wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 of July 2012, Jakub Bogusz wrote:
> > Has git migration stopped PLD-update-TODO updates?
> 
> It is not changed to work with git (yet).

Some people (like me) can't develop without this file.I'm waiting for it. Good 
luck.
-- 
?ukasz G??bicki  mail/rot13:yhxnfmty at cbfg.cy  PLD/Linux Team
gg:246267    Linux Registered User #318551   blekot:{irc,skype}


From qboosh at pld-linux.org  Wed Sep 12 19:36:23 2012
From: qboosh at pld-linux.org (Jakub Bogusz)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 19:36:23 +0200
Subject: [packages/rpm] - set binary payload to xzdio (same as lzdio,
 but uses current xz) - add settings provided by patche
In-Reply-To: <20120912163759.GA1530@home.lan>
References: <76fbad186cb1b83c2fbc4a2b079717bfe6830631_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <c73c505644fa30c3e32a596dbc4aea90cfac0bcc_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <20120912162052.GA17612@mail> <20120912163759.GA1530@home.lan>
Message-ID: <20120912173623.GA17789@mail>

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 06:37:59PM +0200, Jan R?korajski wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2012, Jakub Bogusz wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 01:51:26PM +0200, baggins wrote:
> > > commit c73c505644fa30c3e32a596dbc4aea90cfac0bcc
> > > Author: Jan R?korajski <baggins at pld-linux.org>
> > > Date:   Wed Sep 12 13:24:58 2012 +0200
> > > 
> > >     - set binary payload to xzdio (same as lzdio, but uses current xz)
> > 
> > >  %_source_payload	w9.gzdio
> > > -%_binary_payload	w9.lzdio
> > > +%_binary_payload	w9.xzdio
> > 
> > What is the minimal rpm version that supports xzdio (and what was that
> > supports lzdio)?
> 
> None of our rpm4 supports xzdio, but rpm package by itself is build with
> gzdio payload.
> 
> > If not the same, there must exist some easy upgrade path.
> 
> rpm-*.rpm packages are built with gzdio payload so it should
> be possible to upgrade without problems using any rpm version.

But rpm.rpm requires also some library rpms, e.g.:
- db5.3 is something new in Th
- xz 5.1.x (5.0.x dated few months ago won't satisfy)


-- 
Jakub Bogusz    http://qboosh.pl/


From qboosh at pld-linux.org  Wed Sep 12 19:48:07 2012
From: qboosh at pld-linux.org (Jakub Bogusz)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 19:48:07 +0200
Subject: PLD-update-TODO
In-Reply-To: <2139032.6g6LcTy5BE@inhell>
References: <20120724154447.GA7475@mail> <201207241732.08494.arekm@maven.pl>
 <2139032.6g6LcTy5BE@inhell>
Message-ID: <20120912174807.GA17921@mail>

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 07:33:27PM +0200, Lukasz Glebicki wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 of July 2012 17:32:08 Arkadiusz Mi?kiewicz wrote:
> > On Tuesday 24 of July 2012, Jakub Bogusz wrote:
> > > Has git migration stopped PLD-update-TODO updates?
> > 
> > It is not changed to work with git (yet).
> 
> Some people (like me) can't develop without this file.I'm waiting for it. Good 
> luck.

It's normally updated since a few days after the cited posts.


-- 
Jakub Bogusz    http://qboosh.pl/


From glen at pld-linux.org  Wed Sep 12 20:09:02 2012
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?B?RWxhbiBSdXVzYW3DpGU=?=)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 21:09:02 +0300
Subject: [packages/rpm] - set binary payload to xzdio (same as lzdio,
 but uses current xz) - add settings provided by patche
In-Reply-To: <7B6CC373-19C8-4E1E-B6EA-323A4BDAA14D@me.com>
References: <76fbad186cb1b83c2fbc4a2b079717bfe6830631_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <c73c505644fa30c3e32a596dbc4aea90cfac0bcc_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <20120912162052.GA17612@mail> <20120912163759.GA1530@home.lan>
 <7B6CC373-19C8-4E1E-B6EA-323A4BDAA14D@me.com>
Message-ID: <5050CFBE.8040401@pld-linux.org>

On 09/12/2012 07:49 PM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
>>> >>
>>>> >>>%_source_payload	w9.gzdio
>>>> >>>-%_binary_payload	w9.lzdio
>>>> >>>+%_binary_payload	w9.xzdio
...
> Shipping *.src.rpm with anything except ZLIB compression is asking for incompatibilities.
src.rpm is not touched, it's still "w9.gzdio"

-- 
glen



From baggins at pld-linux.org  Wed Sep 12 20:26:10 2012
From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 20:26:10 +0200
Subject: [packages/rpm] - set binary payload to xzdio (same as lzdio, but
 uses current xz) - add settings provided by patche
In-Reply-To: <20120912173623.GA17789@mail>
References: <76fbad186cb1b83c2fbc4a2b079717bfe6830631_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <c73c505644fa30c3e32a596dbc4aea90cfac0bcc_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <20120912162052.GA17612@mail> <20120912163759.GA1530@home.lan>
 <20120912173623.GA17789@mail>
Message-ID: <20120912182610.GA1608@home.lan>

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012, Jakub Bogusz wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 06:37:59PM +0200, Jan R?korajski wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Sep 2012, Jakub Bogusz wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 01:51:26PM +0200, baggins wrote:
> > > > commit c73c505644fa30c3e32a596dbc4aea90cfac0bcc
> > > > Author: Jan R?korajski <baggins at pld-linux.org>
> > > > Date:   Wed Sep 12 13:24:58 2012 +0200
> > > > 
> > > >     - set binary payload to xzdio (same as lzdio, but uses current xz)
> > > 
> > > >  %_source_payload	w9.gzdio
> > > > -%_binary_payload	w9.lzdio
> > > > +%_binary_payload	w9.xzdio
> > > 
> > > What is the minimal rpm version that supports xzdio (and what was that
> > > supports lzdio)?
> > 
> > None of our rpm4 supports xzdio, but rpm package by itself is build with
> > gzdio payload.
> > 
> > > If not the same, there must exist some easy upgrade path.
> > 
> > rpm-*.rpm packages are built with gzdio payload so it should
> > be possible to upgrade without problems using any rpm version.
> 
> But rpm.rpm requires also some library rpms, e.g.:
> - db5.3 is something new in Th
> - xz 5.1.x (5.0.x dated few months ago won't satisfy)

Good point, I'll revert that change then.
As there is no real difference between lzdio and xzdio that I can find,
we can postpone the switch for later.

-- 
Jan R?korajski                                 | PLD/Linux
SysAdm                                         | http://www.pld-linux.org/
baggins<at>mimuw.edu.pl
baggins<at>pld-linux.org


From baggins at pld-linux.org  Wed Sep 12 20:32:30 2012
From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 20:32:30 +0200
Subject: [packages/rpm] - add filetriggers directory
In-Reply-To: <5050918D.2070702@pld-linux.org>
References: <76fbad186cb1b83c2fbc4a2b079717bfe6830631_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <e9eb00afc48b027786d4fd5c23e6cff20acc8df8_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <5050918D.2070702@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <20120912183230.GB1608@home.lan>

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012, Elan Ruusam?e wrote:

> On 12.09.2012 14:51, baggins wrote:
> > commit e9eb00afc48b027786d4fd5c23e6cff20acc8df8
> > Author: Jan R?korajski <baggins at pld-linux.org>
> > Date:   Wed Sep 12 13:33:26 2012 +0200
> >
> >      - add filetriggers directory
> ...
> >   
> >   %dir /var/lib/rpm
> > +%dir /var/lib/rpm/filetriggers
> 
> why filetriggers in /var/lib? due /usr separation? maybe put to /lib/rpm 
> instead then? more FHS friendly imho

What about /etc/rpm/filetriggers ?
Let's try not to needlesly multiply directories.

-- 
Jan R?korajski                                 | PLD/Linux
SysAdm                                         | http://www.pld-linux.org/
baggins<at>mimuw.edu.pl
baggins<at>pld-linux.org


From n3npq at me.com  Wed Sep 12 21:46:48 2012
From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 15:46:48 -0400
Subject: [packages/rpm] - add filetriggers directory
In-Reply-To: <20120912183230.GB1608@home.lan>
References: <76fbad186cb1b83c2fbc4a2b079717bfe6830631_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <e9eb00afc48b027786d4fd5c23e6cff20acc8df8_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <5050918D.2070702@pld-linux.org> <20120912183230.GB1608@home.lan>
Message-ID: <85368FAE-5C95-429F-9CBA-22645D33757D@me.com>


On Sep 12, 2012, at 2:32 PM, Jan R?korajski wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Sep 2012, Elan Ruusam?e wrote:
> 
>> On 12.09.2012 14:51, baggins wrote:
>>> commit e9eb00afc48b027786d4fd5c23e6cff20acc8df8
>>> Author: Jan R?korajski <baggins at pld-linux.org>
>>> Date:   Wed Sep 12 13:33:26 2012 +0200
>>> 
>>>     - add filetriggers directory
>> ...
>>> 
>>>  %dir /var/lib/rpm
>>> +%dir /var/lib/rpm/filetriggers
>> 
>> why filetriggers in /var/lib? due /usr separation? maybe put to /lib/rpm 
>> instead then? more FHS friendly imho
> 
> What about /etc/rpm/filetriggers ?

FYI: this is Mandriva filetriggers and is likely to be removed in favor of
using existing %trigger* scripts, which permit file paths, directory paths (with trailing /),
and glob expressions to be used.

The reason for _NOT_ using Mandriva file triggers is that %trigger scripts are
wholly contained within package metadata and so can be debugged more easily
than a pile of "stuff" that is read, matched, and run (and rpm is blamed when the
opaque "stuff" breaks).

Try-and-see: there's likely still a bit more to do, but the basics have been in place
with test cases for several years now.

> Let's try not to needlesly multiply directories.
> 

FYI: rpm-5.4.10 is already using /var/lib/wdj path for sqlite3 and (soon) libgit2 development.
And /var/cache/rpm is likely to be used for secondary indices and perhaps transactional
logs by end-of-year.

Reliability/performance is increased if the data store, the __db* cache, and the logs can
be put on different partitions/disks.

73 de Jeff



From baggins at pld-linux.org  Thu Sep 13 13:28:41 2012
From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=)
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 13:28:41 +0200
Subject: rpm 5.4.10 for testing in th-test
In-Reply-To: <E0509759-ADA3-450D-B52C-ED24AF813E6D@me.com>
References: <20120911105859.GE11122@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
 <FB0779E1-6157-4406-9920-745F7ADE4023@me.com>
 <20120911182935.GA1483@home.lan>
 <49BC1B98-E5CC-4112-A2BD-7EFB5E0FAF9E@me.com>
 <20120911204924.GB1483@home.lan>
 <B17669C1-6522-45FF-ABB2-2794498EC313@me.com>
 <20120911212259.GC1483@home.lan>
 <1BEE60A2-EFF6-4757-B18F-BB3EE2519154@me.com>
 <20120912065627.GA3253@jajo.eggsoft>
 <E0509759-ADA3-450D-B52C-ED24AF813E6D@me.com>
Message-ID: <20120913112841.GQ11122@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:

> But this isn't the time/pace to discuss relative merits
> of user/group management ? the rpmdsCompare needs to
> be extended to include the namespace in the comparison.

Would something like this do the job (works-for-me)?
Or is it too simplified?


--- rpm-5.4.10/lib/rpmds.c~	2012-07-06 17:39:16.000000000 +0200
+++ rpm-5.4.10/lib/rpmds.c	2012-09-13 12:40:32.439076460 +0200
@@ -4036,6 +4036,12 @@
 
 assert((rpmdsFlags(A) & RPMSENSE_SENSEMASK) == A->ns.Flags);
 assert((rpmdsFlags(B) & RPMSENSE_SENSEMASK) == B->ns.Flags);
+    /* Different namespaces don't overlap. */
+    if (A->ns.Type != B->ns.Type) {
+	result = 0;
+	goto exit;
+    }
+
     /* Different names (and/or name.arch's) don't overlap. */
     if (rpmdsNAcmp(A, B)) {
 	result = 0;

-- 
Jan R?korajski                                 | PLD/Linux
SysAdm                                         | http://www.pld-linux.org/
baggins<at>mimuw.edu.pl
baggins<at>pld-linux.org


From n3npq at me.com  Thu Sep 13 14:45:09 2012
From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson)
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 08:45:09 -0400
Subject: rpm 5.4.10 for testing in th-test
In-Reply-To: <20120913112841.GQ11122@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
References: <20120911105859.GE11122@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
 <FB0779E1-6157-4406-9920-745F7ADE4023@me.com> <20120911182935.GA1483@home.lan>
 <49BC1B98-E5CC-4112-A2BD-7EFB5E0FAF9E@me.com> <20120911204924.GB1483@home.lan>
 <B17669C1-6522-45FF-ABB2-2794498EC313@me.com> <20120911212259.GC1483@home.lan>
 <1BEE60A2-EFF6-4757-B18F-BB3EE2519154@me.com>
 <20120912065627.GA3253@jajo.eggsoft>
 <E0509759-ADA3-450D-B52C-ED24AF813E6D@me.com>
 <20120913112841.GQ11122@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
Message-ID: <760A23B8-8DA0-442B-ADB0-E2793FF1A2ED@me.com>


On Sep 13, 2012, at 7:28 AM, Jan R?korajski wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Sep 2012, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
> 
>> But this isn't the time/pace to discuss relative merits
>> of user/group management ? the rpmdsCompare needs to
>> be extended to include the namespace in the comparison.
> 
> Would something like this do the job (works-for-me)?
> Or is it too simplified?
> 

Perfect!

73 de Jeff

> 
> --- rpm-5.4.10/lib/rpmds.c~	2012-07-06 17:39:16.000000000 +0200
> +++ rpm-5.4.10/lib/rpmds.c	2012-09-13 12:40:32.439076460 +0200
> @@ -4036,6 +4036,12 @@
> 
> assert((rpmdsFlags(A) & RPMSENSE_SENSEMASK) == A->ns.Flags);
> assert((rpmdsFlags(B) & RPMSENSE_SENSEMASK) == B->ns.Flags);
> +    /* Different namespaces don't overlap. */
> +    if (A->ns.Type != B->ns.Type) {
> +	result = 0;
> +	goto exit;
> +    }
> +
>     /* Different names (and/or name.arch's) don't overlap. */
>     if (rpmdsNAcmp(A, B)) {
> 	result = 0;
> 
> -- 
> Jan R?korajski                                 | PLD/Linux
> SysAdm                                         | http://www.pld-linux.org/
> baggins<at>mimuw.edu.pl
> baggins<at>pld-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 lordblick at gmail.com  Thu Sep 13 21:27:55 2012
From: lordblick at gmail.com (Lord Blick)
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 21:27:55 +0200
Subject: [Th] python3 gobject
Message-ID: <505233BB.7010004@gmail.com>

Has anybody some experience in subject ?
Problem goes that:
$ rpm -q python3-pygobject3
python3-pygobject3-3.2.2-1.x86_64
$  ls -l /usr/lib64/libpyglib-gi-2.0-python3.so*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root  33 09-13 11:00 
/usr/lib64/libpyglib-gi-2.0-python3.so -> libpyglib-gi-2.0-python3.so.0.0.0*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 19K 05-15 18:01 
/usr/lib64/libpyglib-gi-2.0-python3.so.0.0.0*
$ python3
Python 3.2.3 (default, May 31 2012, 12:04:08)
[GCC 4.6.3 20120315 (release)] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
 >>> import gi
Traceback (most recent call last):
   File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
   File "/usr/lib64/python3.2/site-packages/gi/__init__.py", line 23, in 
<module>
     from ._gi import _API, Repository
ImportError: libpyglib-gi-2.0-python3.so.0: cannot open shared object 
file: No such file or directory
 >>>

-- 
Best Regards,
Lord Blick


From glen at pld-linux.org  Thu Sep 13 22:19:33 2012
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Elan_Ruusam=E4e?=)
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 23:19:33 +0300
Subject: [Th] python3 gobject
In-Reply-To: <505233BB.7010004@gmail.com>
References: <505233BB.7010004@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <50523FD5.8070602@pld-linux.org>

On 09/13/2012 10:27 PM, Lord Blick wrote:
> Has anybody some experience in subject ?
> Problem goes that:
> $ rpm -q python3-pygobject3
> python3-pygobject3-3.2.2-1.x86_64
> $  ls -l /usr/lib64/libpyglib-gi-2.0-python3.so*
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root  33 09-13 11:00 
> /usr/lib64/libpyglib-gi-2.0-python3.so -> 
> libpyglib-gi-2.0-python3.so.0.0.0*
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 19K 05-15 18:01 
> /usr/lib64/libpyglib-gi-2.0-python3.so.0.0.0*
> $ python3
> Python 3.2.3 (default, May 31 2012, 12:04:08)
> [GCC 4.6.3 20120315 (release)] on linux2
> Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
> >>> import gi
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>   File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
>   File "/usr/lib64/python3.2/site-packages/gi/__init__.py", line 23, 
> in <module>
>     from ._gi import _API, Repository
> ImportError: libpyglib-gi-2.0-python3.so.0: cannot open shared object 
> file: No such file or directory
> >>>
seems ldconfig missing from package

invoke it (as root) and you problem solved is solved

will fix .spec too in a jiffy


-- 
glen



From baggins at pld-linux.org  Fri Sep 14 08:27:08 2012
From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=)
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 08:27:08 +0200
Subject: rpm 5.4.10 for testing in th-test
In-Reply-To: <CAHxPtFoHRvxnz+KhHB_AgtD70Vp4zj4Aht=VCqR4-wJ_=i2THA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20120907111509.GV28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
 <CAHxPtFr6_cTx1=v7eUz_VNMjCnvP_KR7CA+ttiZimvt=SBT2Qg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120911052942.GA1519@home.lan>
 <CAHxPtFoHRvxnz+KhHB_AgtD70Vp4zj4Aht=VCqR4-wJ_=i2THA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20120914062707.GA1587@home.lan>

On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Artur Frysiak wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Jan R?korajski <baggins at pld-linux.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Artur Frysiak wrote:
> >> $ LC_ALL=C sudo rpm -Uhv systemd-187-4.x86_64.rpm
> >> systemd-libs-187-4.x86_64.rpm systemd-units-187-4.x86_64.rpm
> >> udev-core-187-4.x86_64.rpm udev-libs-187-4.x86_64.rpm
> >> udev-initrd-187-4.x86_64.rpm udev-187-4.x86_64.rpm
> >> error: Failed dependencies:
> >>         mpd < 0.16.5-4 conflicts with systemd-187-4.x86_64
> >>         stunnel < 4.50-2 conflicts with systemd-187-4.x86_64
> >> $ rpm -q mpd stunnel
> >> mpd-0.16.7-4.x86_64
> >> stunnel-4.52-1.x86_64
> >
> > rpm -q rpm? ;)
> 
> $ rpm -q rpm
> rpm-5.4.10-0.12.x86_64

Please try rpm-5.4.10-0.15.x86_64

-- 
Jan R?korajski                                 | PLD/Linux
SysAdm                                         | http://www.pld-linux.org/
baggins<at>mimuw.edu.pl
baggins<at>pld-linux.org


From baggins at pld-linux.org  Fri Sep 14 12:24:49 2012
From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=)
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 12:24:49 +0200
Subject: RPM 5 and BDB 5.3 status update
Message-ID: <20120914102449.GT11122@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>

Hello,
This is quick status update on the migration to BDB 5.3 and RPM 5

BDB 5.3 is done, but some packages does not built with it and if noone
takes care of them, they will be removed from ftp:

ggz-server.spec
inn.spec
jabberd.spec
klibido.spec
qtstalker.spec
wwwcount.spec
php52.spec

PHP 5.2 is a special case, was kept only for very backwards
compatibility, and it will be removed anyway.

As for the RPM 5, I'm quite satisfied with rpm 5.4.10-0.15 packages
that are available in th-test, and if nothing big comes up
I will set the release to 1 and put it on ftp in th-ready and
builders on next friday (Sep 21)

So please test again and report problems/regressions.

Once again, slighlty revised, upgrade instructions:

0) backup rpm database in /var/lib/rpm
1) rpm -Fvh rpm* (obviously)
2) run /usr/lib/rpm/bin/dbconvert --rebuilddb
	--rebuilddb option will instruct dbconvert to recreate all
	database indexes, without it indexes will be rectreated
	silently on as-needed basis by rpm [1]
	(may take a long time, even more than hour on large database)

Unfortunately you have to rebuild poldek by yourself for now (take it
from rpm5 branch in git).

[1] Jeff, please correct me if I'm wrong here

-- 
Jan R?korajski                                 | PLD/Linux
SysAdm                                         | http://www.pld-linux.org/
baggins<at>mimuw.edu.pl
baggins<at>pld-linux.org


From glen at pld-linux.org  Fri Sep 14 13:21:21 2012
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?B?RWxhbiBSdXVzYW3DpGU=?=)
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 14:21:21 +0300
Subject: RPM 5 and BDB 5.3 status update
In-Reply-To: <20120914102449.GT11122@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
References: <20120914102449.GT11122@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
Message-ID: <50531331.8040304@pld-linux.org>

On 14.09.2012 13:24, Jan R?korajski wrote:
> As for the RPM 5, I'm quite satisfied with rpm 5.4.10-0.15 packages
> that are available in th-test, and if nothing big comes up
> I will set the release to 1 and put it on ftp in th-ready and
> builders on next friday (Sep 21)
php-fpm and php54-fpm conflict currently with log files:

/etc/cron.daily/logrotate:

error: php54-fpm:1 duplicate log entry for /var/log/fpm.log


probably should have /var/log/fpm54.log as logs as well

also 5.4 todo is not completed, some sapis are disabled, those should be 
fixed first

-- 
glen



From glen at pld-linux.org  Fri Sep 14 14:31:56 2012
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?B?RWxhbiBSdXVzYW3DpGU=?=)
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:31:56 +0300
Subject: [packages/rpm] - pattern_Release cannot be overriden, change
 it in main macro file
In-Reply-To: <e94735a58a6fcbe63431319d50aaba90defb0b26_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
References: <eaa461d6b54c371c033516b32d5887b0c3271f2a_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <e94735a58a6fcbe63431319d50aaba90defb0b26_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <505323BC.6090601@pld-linux.org>

On 14.09.2012 15:18, baggins wrote:
> @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
> +--- rpm-5.4.10/macros/macros.in~	2012-09-12 13:52:19.305575500 +0200
> ++++ rpm-5.4.10/macros/macros.in	2012-09-14 14:15:34.115044785 +0200
> +@@ -778,7 +778,7 @@
> + %pattern_Name		^[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9+._-]*$
> + %pattern_Epoch		^[0-9]+$
> + %pattern_Version	^[A-Za-z0-9+._~]+$
> +-%pattern_Release	^[A-Za-z0-9+._]+$
> ++%pattern_Release	^[A-Za-z0-9+._@{}%]+$
> + %pattern_Disttag	^[A-Za-z0-9]+$
> + %pattern_Repotag	^[A-Za-z0-9]+$
> + %pattern_Distepoch	^[A-Za-z0-9.]+$

i'm wondering, are these patterns locale insensitive?

i hope they are, otherwise under LC_ALL=et_EE letters 'tuv' won't be matched

-- 
glen



From wiget at pld-linux.org  Fri Sep 14 16:00:17 2012
From: wiget at pld-linux.org (Artur Frysiak)
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 16:00:17 +0200
Subject: rpm 5.4.10 for testing in th-test
In-Reply-To: <20120914062707.GA1587@home.lan>
References: <20120907111509.GV28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
 <CAHxPtFr6_cTx1=v7eUz_VNMjCnvP_KR7CA+ttiZimvt=SBT2Qg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120911052942.GA1519@home.lan>
 <CAHxPtFoHRvxnz+KhHB_AgtD70Vp4zj4Aht=VCqR4-wJ_=i2THA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120914062707.GA1587@home.lan>
Message-ID: <CAHxPtFqxAsmAgFeYLhXZ9EBjp=C52Wmc0r7iAKh-BfEMEVMORQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Jan R?korajski <baggins at pld-linux.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Artur Frysiak wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Jan R?korajski <baggins at pld-linux.org> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Artur Frysiak wrote:
>> >> $ LC_ALL=C sudo rpm -Uhv systemd-187-4.x86_64.rpm
>> >> systemd-libs-187-4.x86_64.rpm systemd-units-187-4.x86_64.rpm
>> >> udev-core-187-4.x86_64.rpm udev-libs-187-4.x86_64.rpm
>> >> udev-initrd-187-4.x86_64.rpm udev-187-4.x86_64.rpm
>> >> error: Failed dependencies:
>> >>         mpd < 0.16.5-4 conflicts with systemd-187-4.x86_64
>> >>         stunnel < 4.50-2 conflicts with systemd-187-4.x86_64
>> >> $ rpm -q mpd stunnel
>> >> mpd-0.16.7-4.x86_64
>> >> stunnel-4.52-1.x86_64
>> >
>> > rpm -q rpm? ;)
>>
>> $ rpm -q rpm
>> rpm-5.4.10-0.12.x86_64
>
> Please try rpm-5.4.10-0.15.x86_64

Works for me.
-- 
Artur Frysiak


From n3npq at me.com  Fri Sep 14 20:16:52 2012
From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson)
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 14:16:52 -0400
Subject: [packages/rpm] - pattern_Release cannot be overriden,
 change it in main macro file
In-Reply-To: <505323BC.6090601@pld-linux.org>
References: <eaa461d6b54c371c033516b32d5887b0c3271f2a_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <e94735a58a6fcbe63431319d50aaba90defb0b26_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <505323BC.6090601@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <5972BB81-546C-44C6-8B4C-AA16AAD4ABE5@me.com>


On Sep 14, 2012, at 8:31 AM, Elan Ruusam?e wrote:

> On 14.09.2012 15:18, baggins wrote:
>> @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
>> +--- rpm-5.4.10/macros/macros.in~	2012-09-12 13:52:19.305575500 +0200
>> ++++ rpm-5.4.10/macros/macros.in	2012-09-14 14:15:34.115044785 +0200
>> +@@ -778,7 +778,7 @@
>> + %pattern_Name		^[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9+._-]*$
>> + %pattern_Epoch		^[0-9]+$
>> + %pattern_Version	^[A-Za-z0-9+._~]+$
>> +-%pattern_Release	^[A-Za-z0-9+._]+$
>> ++%pattern_Release	^[A-Za-z0-9+._@{}%]+$
>> + %pattern_Disttag	^[A-Za-z0-9]+$
>> + %pattern_Repotag	^[A-Za-z0-9]+$
>> + %pattern_Distepoch	^[A-Za-z0-9.]+$
> 
> i'm wondering, are these patterns locale insensitive?
> 

The specific answer is likely not locale insensitive, because PCRE is locale sensitive.

The patterns are to catch malicious odd characters in patterns that script kiddies blindly
extract from packages directly into scripts.

Meanwhile the *.spec is in the C locale (and all the usual localizations -- while permitted --
are ignored).

Of course there is noting stopping anyone from littering *.spec files with any
octets they wish, and the usual
	Sh*t happens.
will ensue,

> i hope they are, otherwise under LC_ALL=et_EE letters 'tuv' won't be matched
> 

*shrug*

Running rpmbuild in anything other than the C locale has no known benefit or usage case.

73 de Jeff



From glen at pld-linux.org  Sat Sep 15 00:55:10 2012
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Elan_Ruusam=E4e?=)
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2012 01:55:10 +0300
Subject: [packages/rpm] - pattern_Release cannot be overriden, change
 it in main macro file
In-Reply-To: <5972BB81-546C-44C6-8B4C-AA16AAD4ABE5@me.com>
References: <eaa461d6b54c371c033516b32d5887b0c3271f2a_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <e94735a58a6fcbe63431319d50aaba90defb0b26_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <505323BC.6090601@pld-linux.org>
 <5972BB81-546C-44C6-8B4C-AA16AAD4ABE5@me.com>
Message-ID: <5053B5CE.106@pld-linux.org>

On 14/09/12 21:16, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
> 	Sh*t happens.
yeah, rpm 4.5 (and 4.4.9 and 4.4.2) took the dump if i first 256 bytes 
contained 0x7f..0xff byte

here's test spec for it:
http://git.pld-linux.org/?p=packages/test.git;a=blob;f=test.spec;h=4d2bb35f8683e15bd3fc7069d5431cc649738678;hb=7451100f7d57d6866078b5a8a24962cec7e505a2

don't remember went this through mailing lists earlier or not

-- 
glen



From n3npq at me.com  Sat Sep 15 05:33:16 2012
From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson)
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 23:33:16 -0400
Subject: [packages/rpm] - pattern_Release cannot be overriden,
 change it in main macro file
In-Reply-To: <5053B5CE.106@pld-linux.org>
References: <eaa461d6b54c371c033516b32d5887b0c3271f2a_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <e94735a58a6fcbe63431319d50aaba90defb0b26_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <505323BC.6090601@pld-linux.org> <5972BB81-546C-44C6-8B4C-AA16AAD4ABE5@me.com>
 <5053B5CE.106@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <79669C65-709B-47F2-BBC0-0B087862D446@me.com>


On Sep 14, 2012, at 6:55 PM, Elan Ruusam?e <glen at pld-linux.org> wrote:

> On 14/09/12 21:16, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
>> 	Sh*t happens.
> yeah, rpm 4.5 (and 4.4.9 and 4.4.2) took the dump if i first 256 bytes contained 0x7f..0xff byte
> 
> here's test spec for it:
> http://git.pld-linux.org/?p=packages/test.git;a=blob;f=test.spec;h=4d2bb35f8683e15bd3fc7069d5431cc649738678;hb=7451100f7d57d6866078b5a8a24962cec7e505a2
> 
> don't remember went this through mailing lists earlier or not
> 

The check for isprint(3) in the 1st 256b of a *.spec
is reported every couple of years, yes.

The reason for the (rather naive) check is to catch n00b package
monkey errors like
	rpmbuild -ba /dev/random
so that an error msg can be displayed.

First reported by PLD (like many other bugs) years ago
with this comment (which I still carry around proudly
at build.c:73 ;-)

/*
 * Kurwa, durni ameryka?ce sobe zawsze my?l?, ?e ca?y ?wiat m?wi po
 * angielsku...
 */

hth

73 de Jeff



From n3npq at me.com  Sat Sep 15 06:32:54 2012
From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson)
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2012 00:32:54 -0400
Subject: [packages/rpm] - pattern_Release cannot be overriden,
 change it in main macro file
In-Reply-To: <5053B5CE.106@pld-linux.org>
References: <eaa461d6b54c371c033516b32d5887b0c3271f2a_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <e94735a58a6fcbe63431319d50aaba90defb0b26_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <505323BC.6090601@pld-linux.org> <5972BB81-546C-44C6-8B4C-AA16AAD4ABE5@me.com>
 <5053B5CE.106@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <1BA7B8C2-A108-46A6-8966-1F8464564ECF@me.com>


On Sep 14, 2012, at 6:55 PM, Elan Ruusam?e <glen at pld-linux.org> wrote:

> On 14/09/12 21:16, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
>> 	Sh*t happens.
> yeah, rpm 4.5 (and 4.4.9 and 4.4.2) took the dump if i first 256 bytes contained 0x7f..0xff byte
> 
> here's test spec for it:
> http://git.pld-linux.org/?p=packages/test.git;a=blob;f=test.spec;h=4d2bb35f8683e15bd3fc7069d5431cc649738678;hb=7451100f7d57d6866078b5a8a24962cec7e505a2
> 

Here are the 1st 3 lines of test.spec:

   1 # "?" - an unicode character in first 256 byte of a spec makes spec invalid
   2 %include        /usr/lib/rpm/macros.java
   3 Summary:        test package to run COMMAND like commands on builder :/

line #2 can be written
	%{load:%{_usrlibrpm}/macros.java}
The benefit of using %{load:?} rather than %include
is that the syntax of macro config files, not *.spec,
is used while parsing.

Specifically that means no need for %define, and multiline
macros with escaping are better supported.

RPM will be refactoring most build macros out
of "default" configuration expecting *.spec files
(or build systems) to determine what macros need
to be loaded.

The reason is that there are now ~500 macros being
carried around through all modes of operation, of which
maybe 50 have any use outside of package building.

hth

73 de Jeff



From qboosh at pld-linux.org  Sat Sep 15 09:01:07 2012
From: qboosh at pld-linux.org (Jakub Bogusz)
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2012 09:01:07 +0200
Subject: binutils 2.23.51.0.2.20120908 vs mysql
Message-ID: <20120915070107.GA28676@mail>

I got:

/usr/bin/i686-pld-linux-g++    -fPIC -Wall -Wno-unused-parameter -fno-implicit-templates -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -O2 -g -DDBUG_OFF -DMY_PTHREAD_FASTMUTEX=1    -Wl,--export-dynamic CMakeFiles/mysqld.dir/main.cc.o  -o mysqld  -lpthread libsql.a ../mysys/libmysys.a ../storage/innobase/libinnobase.a -laio ../storage/perfschema/libperfschema.a ../storage/heap/libheap.a ../storage/csv/libcsv.a ../storage/myisammrg/libmyisammrg.a ../storage/myisam/libmyisam.a libpartition.a ../mysys/libmysys.a ../dbug/libdbug.a ../mysys/libmysys.a ../dbug/libdbug.a -lz -lm -lrt ../strings/libstrings.a ../vio/libvio.a ../regex/libregex.a -lpthread -lwrap -lcrypt -ldl -lssl -lcrypto
/usr/bin/ld: BFD (Linux/GNU Binutils) 2.23.51.0.2.20120908 internal error, aborting at elf32-i386.c line 3642 in elf_i386_relocate_section

/usr/bin/ld: Please report this bug.

collect2: ld returned 1 exit status

Is it reproductible?


-- 
Jakub Bogusz    http://qboosh.pl/


From lordblick at gmail.com  Sat Sep 15 15:13:42 2012
From: lordblick at gmail.com (LordBlick)
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2012 15:13:42 +0200
Subject: [Th] python3 gobject
In-Reply-To: <50523FD5.8070602@pld-linux.org>
References: <505233BB.7010004@gmail.com> <50523FD5.8070602@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <50547F06.9090804@gmail.com>

W odpowiedzi na wiadomo?? z dnia 13.09.2012 22:19, od Elan Ruusam?e:
>> seems ldconfig missing from package
>
> invoke it (as root) and you problem solved is solved
It helps, thanks a lot.

-- 
Best Regards,
Lord Blick



From glen at pld-linux.org  Sat Sep 15 17:49:26 2012
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?windows-1252?Q?Elan_Ruusam=E4e?=)
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2012 18:49:26 +0300
Subject: [packages/rpm] - pattern_Release cannot be overriden, change
 it in main macro file
In-Reply-To: <1BA7B8C2-A108-46A6-8966-1F8464564ECF@me.com>
References: <eaa461d6b54c371c033516b32d5887b0c3271f2a_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <e94735a58a6fcbe63431319d50aaba90defb0b26_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <505323BC.6090601@pld-linux.org>
 <5972BB81-546C-44C6-8B4C-AA16AAD4ABE5@me.com> <5053B5CE.106@pld-linux.org>
 <1BA7B8C2-A108-46A6-8966-1F8464564ECF@me.com>
Message-ID: <5054A386.4020102@pld-linux.org>

On 09/15/2012 07:32 AM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
> The reason is that there are now ~500 macros being
> carried around through all modes of operation, of which
> maybe 50 have any use outside of package building.
especially annoying ones are ones that %(execute) something.

therefore i've done over the time two kinds of optimizations in pld:
1. make such macros evaluate once:

# if %{_topdir}/SPECS exists, it's old style structure
%_specdir       %{expand:%%global _specdir %([ ! -d %{_topdir}/SPECS ] 
&& echo %{_topdir}/%{name} || echo %{_topdir}/SPECS)}
%_specdir
%_sourcedir     %{expand:%%global _sourcedir %([ ! -d %{_topdir}/SOURCES 
] && echo %{_specdir} || echo %{_topdir}/SOURCES)}%_sourcedir

2. in pld builder script, start with blank macros (skip our build 
macros), define ones used in .spec as %{nil} or () to leave syntax (but 
not values) valid

this at the time i made it, in php.spec optimized ./builder -bp from 3m 
to 3s

https://github.com/pld-linux/rpm-build-tools/commit/fa4bf1df3b2e998160d56004a956c6d3451b0e0b

-- 
glen



From qboosh at pld-linux.org  Sun Sep 16 21:35:29 2012
From: qboosh at pld-linux.org (Jakub Bogusz)
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2012 21:35:29 +0200
Subject: binutils 2.23.51.0.2.20120908 vs mysql
In-Reply-To: <20120915070107.GA28676@mail>
References: <20120915070107.GA28676@mail>
Message-ID: <20120916193529.GA2511@mail>

On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 09:01:07AM +0200, Jakub Bogusz wrote:
> I got:
> 
> /usr/bin/i686-pld-linux-g++    -fPIC -Wall -Wno-unused-parameter -fno-implicit-templates -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -O2 -g -DDBUG_OFF -DMY_PTHREAD_FASTMUTEX=1    -Wl,--export-dynamic CMakeFiles/mysqld.dir/main.cc.o  -o mysqld  -lpthread libsql.a ../mysys/libmysys.a ../storage/innobase/libinnobase.a -laio ../storage/perfschema/libperfschema.a ../storage/heap/libheap.a ../storage/csv/libcsv.a ../storage/myisammrg/libmyisammrg.a ../storage/myisam/libmyisam.a libpartition.a ../mysys/libmysys.a ../dbug/libdbug.a ../mysys/libmysys.a ../dbug/libdbug.a -lz -lm -lrt ../strings/libstrings.a ../vio/libvio.a ../regex/libregex.a -lpthread -lwrap -lcrypt -ldl -lssl -lcrypto
> /usr/bin/ld: BFD (Linux/GNU Binutils) 2.23.51.0.2.20120908 internal error, aborting at elf32-i386.c line 3642 in elf_i386_relocate_section
> 
> /usr/bin/ld: Please report this bug.
> 
> collect2: ld returned 1 exit status

The same when trying to build qt 4.8.3, during libQtScript linking.


-- 
Jakub Bogusz    http://qboosh.pl/


From pluto at agmk.net  Wed Sep 19 21:49:40 2012
From: pluto at agmk.net (=?utf-8?B?UGF3ZcWC?= Sikora)
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 21:49:40 +0200
Subject: Th development plans
In-Reply-To: <20120904102056.GL28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
References: <20120904102056.GL28621@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>
Message-ID: <2412094.yJcKvJu6Nj@localhost>

On Tuesday 04 of September 2012 12:20:56 Jan R?korajski wrote:
> Hi,
> After making a snapshot, and having (development wise) stable package set,
> I want to start refreshing the distribution. This means big changes in the 
> near future to get PLD back to being modern (or at least up-to-date) wrt
> current Linux world.
> 
> Below I present a plan (a.k.a The Roadmap) for Th:
> 
> - db 5.3 as default system BerkeleyDB
> - rpm 5.4.x 
> - perl 5.16.x
> - apache 2.4.x
> - full systemd support (provide systemd units, but still support SysV 
>         scripts - at least until vserver will be able to run systemd)
> - drop *-initrd packages, building them is becoming a RPITA, and the net gain
>         is not worth the pain
> - grsecurity support in our kernels will be dropped, until someone
> 	volunteers to keep that patch up-to-date 
> - kernel 3.4.x will become the new -longterm
> 
> Of course, the always-in-development model stays, other non-conflicting changes 
> are welcome, and if you have any comments and proposals please say so.
> 

i'm thinking about one idea - compiling linux distro with clang into platform
idenpendent bitcode (somthing like .rpm.noarch) and providing platform specific
ll-virtual-machine but currently there's a serious limitation - no shared bitcode
linking :/



From baggins at pld-linux.org  Sat Sep 22 10:47:36 2012
From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=)
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 10:47:36 +0200
Subject: rpm 5.x in Th
Message-ID: <20120922084736.GA1623@home.lan>

RPM 5 is now officially the package manager of PLD Th.
Complete package set (rpm, poldek, etc.) is available in th-test,
and builders have been upgraded to new rpm.

Some basic information is available on http://www.pld-linux.org/RPM5
feel free to add whatever you think may be important.

-- 
Jan R?korajski                                 | PLD/Linux
SysAdm                                         | http://www.pld-linux.org/
baggins<at>mimuw.edu.pl
baggins<at>pld-linux.org


From lukasz at chrustek.net  Sat Sep 22 18:59:40 2012
From: lukasz at chrustek.net (=?utf-8?Q?=C5=81ukasz_Chrustek?=)
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 18:59:40 +0200
Subject: rpm 5.x in Th
In-Reply-To: <20120922084736.GA1623@home.lan>
References: <20120922084736.GA1623@home.lan>
Message-ID: <772713033.20120922185940@chrustek.net>

Hello,

> RPM 5 is now officially the package manager of PLD Th.
> Complete package set (rpm, poldek, etc.) is available in th-test,
> and builders have been upgraded to new rpm.

> Some basic information is available on http://www.pld-linux.org/RPM5
> feel free to add whatever you think may be important.

I have problem with rollback option in latest rpm:

# export LANG=en_EN.UTF-8;rpm -Uvh --rollback '20 minutes ago'
Rollback goal:  Sat Sep 22 18:35:29 2012 (0x505de8d1)
BDB2053 Freeing read locks for locker 0xf1: 13697/3061184384
BDB2053 Freeing read locks for locker 0xf2: 13697/3061184384
BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13697/0
BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13697/0
BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13697/0
BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13697/0
BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13697/0
BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13697/0
BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13697/0
BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13697/0
BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13697/0
BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13697/0
BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13697/0
rpm: rpmdb.c:2742: rpmmiInit: Assertion `keylen == sizeof(he->p.ui32p[0])' failed.
zsh: abort      rpm -Uvh --rollback '20 minutes ago'

# rpm -q rpm
rpm-5.4.10-0.17.i686



-- 
Regards,
 brushek



From n3npq at me.com  Sat Sep 22 20:39:03 2012
From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson)
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 14:39:03 -0400
Subject: rpm 5.x in Th
In-Reply-To: <772713033.20120922185940@chrustek.net>
References: <20120922084736.GA1623@home.lan>
 <772713033.20120922185940@chrustek.net>
Message-ID: <2E5E2840-C6C1-4C8E-9444-E145CEE5ECFA@me.com>


On Sep 22, 2012, at 12:59 PM, ?ukasz Chrustek <lukasz at chrustek.net> wrote:

> 
> I have problem with rollback option in latest rpm:
> 
> # export LANG=en_EN.UTF-8;rpm -Uvh --rollback '20 minutes ago'
> Rollback goal:  Sat Sep 22 18:35:29 2012 (0x505de8d1)
> BDB2053 Freeing read locks for locker 0xf1: 13697/3061184384
> BDB2053 Freeing read locks for locker 0xf2: 13697/3061184384
> BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13697/0
> BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13697/0
> BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13697/0
> BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13697/0
> BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13697/0
> BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13697/0
> BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13697/0
> BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13697/0
> BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13697/0
> BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13697/0
> BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13697/0
> rpm: rpmdb.c:2742: rpmmiInit: Assertion `keylen == sizeof(he->p.ui32p[0])' failed.
> zsh: abort      rpm -Uvh --rollback '20 minutes ago'
> 

Are you actually using --rollback? If so, you are the
only person on the planet using --rollback.

There are no plans to support the previous --rollback
mechanism @rpm5.org: WYSIWYG (and the entire mechanism
is too cumbersome to use, you can find my analysis
on some Mancoosi WP3 mailing list a couple years ago
if so inclined).

Much better is/was possible/planned in rpm-5.3.x. Sadly
the Mancoosi project decided to "fix" apt instead of rpm
and --rollback efforts with TPPM in RPM were never finished.

These days BTRFS! BTRFS! BTRFS! snapshot management
(which isn't --rollback transactional package management) is likely
what most users want/need/expect. Inserting the necessary
BTRFS ioctls is a very simple implementation waiting
for BTRFS to become usefully/stably deployed in linux.

73 de Jeff
> # rpm -q rpm
> rpm-5.4.10-0.17.i686
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> brushek
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pld-devel-en mailing list
> pld-devel-en at lists.pld-linux.org
> http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en



From lukasz at chrustek.net  Sat Sep 22 22:00:45 2012
From: lukasz at chrustek.net (=?utf-8?Q?=C5=81ukasz_Chrustek?=)
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 22:00:45 +0200
Subject: rpm 5.x in Th
In-Reply-To: <2E5E2840-C6C1-4C8E-9444-E145CEE5ECFA@me.com>
References: <20120922084736.GA1623@home.lan>
 <772713033.20120922185940@chrustek.net>
 <2E5E2840-C6C1-4C8E-9444-E145CEE5ECFA@me.com>
Message-ID: <1012833912.20120922220045@chrustek.net>

Witam,


> On Sep 22, 2012, at 12:59 PM, ?ukasz Chrustek <lukasz at chrustek.net> wrote:

>> 
>> I have problem with rollback option in latest rpm:
>> 
>> # export LANG=en_EN.UTF-8;rpm -Uvh --rollback '20 minutes ago'
>> Rollback goal:  Sat Sep 22 18:35:29 2012 (0x505de8d1)
>> BDB2053 Freeing read locks for locker 0xf1: 13697/3061184384
>> BDB2053 Freeing read locks for locker 0xf2: 13697/3061184384
>> BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13697/0
>> BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13697/0
>> BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13697/0
>> BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13697/0
>> BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13697/0
>> BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13697/0
>> BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13697/0
>> BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13697/0
>> BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13697/0
>> BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13697/0
>> BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13697/0
>> rpm: rpmdb.c:2742: rpmmiInit: Assertion `keylen == sizeof(he->p.ui32p[0])' failed.
>> zsh: abort      rpm -Uvh --rollback '20 minutes ago'
>> 

> Are you actually using --rollback? If so, you are the
> only person on the planet using --rollback.

Well,  so  remove this option from rpm if it isn't usable. What for is
it  now  ?  I  think  it is/was nice, fast and proper way to return to
working  set  of  last updated set of packagaes. For what is repackage
(from where I took the old version in this case) ?

> There are no plans to support the previous --rollback
> mechanism @rpm5.org: WYSIWYG (and the entire mechanism
> is too cumbersome to use, you can find my analysis
> on some Mancoosi WP3 mailing list a couple years ago
> if so inclined).

OK.  Do  You  have/see  some  other  way  to  manage  transactions and
repackeged rpms ?

> Much better is/was possible/planned in rpm-5.3.x. Sadly
> the Mancoosi project decided to "fix" apt instead of rpm
> and --rollback efforts with TPPM in RPM were never finished.

And there is no plans for finish them ?

> These days BTRFS! BTRFS! BTRFS! snapshot management
> (which isn't --rollback transactional package management) is likely
> what most users want/need/expect. Inserting the necessary
> BTRFS ioctls is a very simple implementation waiting
> for BTRFS to become usefully/stably deployed in linux.

OK.  I  don't know what to say here. I don't know why rollback need to
be  connected  with  any  file  system,  for  me  it  is  some kind of
overreacting :P.

-- 
Regards,
 brushek



From n3npq at me.com  Sat Sep 22 22:21:22 2012
From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson)
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 16:21:22 -0400
Subject: rpm 5.x in Th
In-Reply-To: <1012833912.20120922220045@chrustek.net>
References: <20120922084736.GA1623@home.lan>
 <772713033.20120922185940@chrustek.net>
 <2E5E2840-C6C1-4C8E-9444-E145CEE5ECFA@me.com>
 <1012833912.20120922220045@chrustek.net>
Message-ID: <1FF06B47-7329-44B6-BD76-2AC7B9585063@me.com>


On Sep 22, 2012, at 4:00 PM, ?ukasz Chrustek <lukasz at chrustek.net> wrote:

> Witam,
> 
> 
>> On Sep 22, 2012, at 12:59 PM, ?ukasz Chrustek <lukasz at chrustek.net> wrote:
> 
>>> 
>>> I have problem with rollback option in latest rpm:
>>> 
>>> # export LANG=en_EN.UTF-8;rpm -Uvh --rollback '20 minutes ago'
>>> Rollback goal:  Sat Sep 22 18:35:29 2012 (0x505de8d1)
>>> BDB2053 Freeing read locks for locker 0xf1: 13697/3061184384
>>> BDB2053 Freeing read locks for locker 0xf2: 13697/3061184384
>>> BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13697/0
>>> BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13697/0
>>> BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13697/0
>>> BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13697/0
>>> BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13697/0
>>> BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13697/0
>>> BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13697/0
>>> BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13697/0
>>> BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13697/0
>>> BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13697/0
>>> BDB2017 Freeing mutex for process: 13697/0
>>> rpm: rpmdb.c:2742: rpmmiInit: Assertion `keylen == sizeof(he->p.ui32p[0])' failed.
>>> zsh: abort      rpm -Uvh --rollback '20 minutes ago'
>>> 
> 
>> Are you actually using --rollback? If so, you are the
>> only person on the planet using --rollback.
> 
> Well,  so  remove this option from rpm if it isn't usable. What for is
> it  now  ?  I  think  it is/was nice, fast and proper way to return to
> working  set  of  last updated set of packagaes. For what is repackage
> (from where I took the old version in this case) ?
> 

The --rollback option needs to be reconnected to
a beter mechanism rather than removed.

Repackaging works same as always. Set
    # If non-zero, all erasures will be automagically repackaged.
    %_repackage_all_erasures 1 

>> There are no plans to support the previous --rollback
>> mechanism @rpm5.org: WYSIWYG (and the entire mechanism
>> is too cumbersome to use, you can find my analysis
>> on some Mancoosi WP3 mailing list a couple years ago
>> if so inclined).
> 
> OK.  Do  You  have/see  some  other  way  to  manage  transactions and
> repackeged rpms ?
> 

Nope. Everyone is too busy telling me how important
--rollback is/was, too busy to actually use.

The expectation has always been of partial rollbacks,
as in upgrading everything but some buggy package
and perhaps its dependents. The "partial" is plain
and simply _NOT_ how any serious transactional logging
system is architected.

>> Much better is/was possible/planned in rpm-5.3.x. Sadly
>> the Mancoosi project decided to "fix" apt instead of rpm
>> and --rollback efforts with TPPM in RPM were never finished.
> 
> And there is no plans for finish them ?
> 

Noone is asking for --ropllback: why should I bother? I
certainly know what is/was intended and implemented.

Adding logs for all file system content ends up
saving (at least) 3 copies of all content:
	1) the copy installed on the file system
	2) the initial copy when first installed
	3) the final copy when last erased
which just leads to complaints of Bloat! Bloat! Bloat!
and manual erasures that destroy log continuity.

The whole idea of ACID behavior is based on duplication
in logs that _MUSGT_ be preserved in order to repair
any damage.

Since most "systems" (or configurations) just have a single
root partition, useful ACID behavior also expects off-line
backups and sysadmin awareness/maintenance.

In reality, a hard disk failure tends to destroy not
only rpmdb/content, but also the logs from which the
stateful content might be recreated.

rpm-5.3.x includes a MongoDB client, which could/would
eliminate the need for saving state on clients where
a hard disk failure also loses logs, but so far, no
distro is willing to host a MongoDB server.

I have hosted my own mongodb servers, but there is literally
zero interest, and I'm tired of wasting time if
noone is currently interested.

>> These days BTRS! BTRFS! BTRFS! snapshot management
>> (which isn't --rollback transactional package management) is likely
>> what most users want/need/expect. Inserting the necessary
>> BTRFS ioctls is a very simple implementation waiting
>> for BTRFS to become usefully/stably deployed in linux.
> 
> OK.  I  don't know what to say here. I don't know why rollback need to
> be  connected  with  any  file  system,  for  me  it  is  some kind of
> overreacting :P.
> 

Until client state is kept remotely -- immune to hard
drive failures -- there is only the local file system
that can be used to preserve the state changes over time.

That should be obvious; the naive simplicity of a
BTRFS (or other file system) "snapshot" that Just Works
with no other application changes than performing a before
snapshot and commit/discard based on success/failure 
should also be obvious.

What is less obvious is the complexity introduced by
mount points, and that snapshots include all changes,
not just package management changes.

hth

73 de Jeff
> -- 
> Regards,
> brushek
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pld-devel-en mailing list
> pld-devel-en at lists.pld-linux.org
> http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en



From gotar at polanet.pl  Sun Sep 23 10:43:08 2012
From: gotar at polanet.pl (Tomasz Pala)
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 10:43:08 +0200
Subject: rpm 5.x in Th
In-Reply-To: <1FF06B47-7329-44B6-BD76-2AC7B9585063@me.com>
References: <20120922084736.GA1623@home.lan>
 <772713033.20120922185940@chrustek.net>
 <2E5E2840-C6C1-4C8E-9444-E145CEE5ECFA@me.com>
 <1012833912.20120922220045@chrustek.net>
 <1FF06B47-7329-44B6-BD76-2AC7B9585063@me.com>
Message-ID: <20120923084306.GA6218@polanet.pl>

On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 16:21:22 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:

> Noone is asking for --ropllback: why should I bother? I
> certainly know what is/was intended and implemented.
> 
> Adding logs for all file system content ends up
> saving (at least) 3 copies of all content:

Well, I might be wrong, but I think Lukasz expects something like
rpm -Uvh /var/spool/repackage/[date range reversed]*/* --force --nomd5
only - i.e. not actual transactions rollback, but package set restore
(in proper order, thus preserving dependencies).

Restoring filesystem state (including things altered by triggers etc.)
is indeed dm/filesystem/backup software job and there's no point simulating
it on one more level.

-- 
Tomasz Pala <gotar at pld-linux.org>


From lordblick at gmail.com  Sun Sep 23 11:21:23 2012
From: lordblick at gmail.com (LordBlick)
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 11:21:23 +0200
Subject: [TH][patch] Network rc script pand friendly
Message-ID: <505ED493.1070402@gmail.com>

It allows starting empty pan0...panN interface for allowing any dhcpd 
daemon to serve on it - bnepX appears as part of panX bridge. This patch 
has no interference on other iterfaces, just other bridge name added. 
Withoit it, at every update I need to patch it...
Please test and apply. Any comments also welcome.
-- 
Best Regards,
Lord Blick
-------------- next part --------------
--- /etc/rc.d/init.d/network	2012-09-23 10:37:47.000000000 +0200
+++ /etc/rc.d/init.d/network.oryg	2012-04-04 08:25:55.000000000 +0200
@@ -144,7 +144,7 @@
 		interfaces_boot=`
 			for i in $ifcfg_files; do
 				case ${i##*/} in
-					ifcfg-lo|ifcfg-sit*|ifcfg-atm*|ifcfg-lec*|ifcfg-nas*|ifcfg-br*|ifcfg-pan*|ifcfg-macvlan*|ifcfg-macvtap*|ifcfg-*.*) continue ;;
+					ifcfg-lo|ifcfg-sit*|ifcfg-atm*|ifcfg-lec*|ifcfg-nas*|ifcfg-br*|ifcfg-macvlan*|ifcfg-macvtap*|ifcfg-*.*) continue ;;
 				esac
 				ONBOOT=""; USERS=""; . "$i" 2>/dev/null
 				[ ${USERS:-no} != no ] && continue
@@ -167,7 +167,7 @@
 		interfaces_br_boot=`
 			for i in $ifcfg_files; do
 				case ${i##*/} in
-					ifcfg-br*|ifcfg-pan*) ;;
+					ifcfg-br*) ;;
 					*) continue ;;
 				esac
 				ONBOOT=""; USERS=""; . "$i" 2>/dev/null

From lordblick at gmail.com  Sun Sep 23 13:25:04 2012
From: lordblick at gmail.com (LordBlick)
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 13:25:04 +0200
Subject: [TH][patch] Network rc script pand friendly
In-Reply-To: <505ED493.1070402@gmail.com>
References: <505ED493.1070402@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <505EF190.8040209@gmail.com>

W odpowiedzi na wiadomo?? z dnia 23.09.2012 11:21, od LordBlick:
> It allows starting empty pan0...panN interface for allowing any dhcpd
> daemon to serve on it - bnepX appears as part of panX bridge. This patch
> has no interference on other iterfaces, just other bridge name added.
> Withoit it, at every update I need to patch it...
> Please test and apply. Any comments also welcome.
I'm sorry, previous file is incorect, reverse patch. This mail 
attachment is correct.
Also its need to add some symlinks:
# ln -s ifup-br /lib/rc-scripts/ifup-pan
# ln -s ifdown-br /lib/rc-scripts/ifdown-pan


-- 
Best Regards,
Lord Blick
-------------- next part --------------
--- /etc/rc.d/init.d/network	2012-09-23 10:37:47.000000000 +0200
+++ /etc/rc.d/init.d/network.oryg	2012-04-04 08:25:55.000000000 +0200
@@ -144,7 +144,7 @@
 		interfaces_boot=`
 			for i in $ifcfg_files; do
 				case ${i##*/} in
-					ifcfg-lo|ifcfg-sit*|ifcfg-atm*|ifcfg-lec*|ifcfg-nas*|ifcfg-br*|ifcfg-macvlan*|ifcfg-macvtap*|ifcfg-*.*) continue ;;
+					ifcfg-lo|ifcfg-sit*|ifcfg-atm*|ifcfg-lec*|ifcfg-nas*|ifcfg-br*|ifcfg-pan*|ifcfg-macvlan*|ifcfg-macvtap*|ifcfg-*.*) continue ;;
 				esac
 				ONBOOT=""; USERS=""; . "$i" 2>/dev/null
 				[ ${USERS:-no} != no ] && continue
@@ -167,7 +167,7 @@
 		interfaces_br_boot=`
 			for i in $ifcfg_files; do
 				case ${i##*/} in
-					ifcfg-br*) ;;
+					ifcfg-br*|ifcfg-pan*) ;;
 					*) continue ;;
 				esac
 				ONBOOT=""; USERS=""; . "$i" 2>/dev/null

From lordblick at gmail.com  Sun Sep 23 14:02:24 2012
From: lordblick at gmail.com (LordBlick)
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 14:02:24 +0200
Subject: [TH][patch] Network rc script pand friendly
In-Reply-To: <505EF190.8040209@gmail.com>
References: <505ED493.1070402@gmail.com> <505EF190.8040209@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <505EFA50.5050901@gmail.com>

In reply on:
>> It allows starting empty pan0...panN interface for allowing any dhcpd
>> daemon to serve on it - bnepX appears as part of panX bridge. This patch
>> has no interference on other iterfaces, just other bridge name added.
>> Withoit it, at every update I need to patch it...
>> Please test and apply. Any comments also welcome.
> I'm sorry, previous file is incorect, reverse patch. This mail
> attachment is correct.
> Also its need to add some symlinks:
> # ln -s ifup-br /lib/rc-scripts/ifup-pan
> # ln -s ifdown-br /lib/rc-scripts/ifdown-pan
Also its needed to set in /etc/sysconfig/network:

DEFAULTHANDLING=yes

-- 
Best Regards,
Lord Blick


From arekm at maven.pl  Sun Sep 23 14:13:34 2012
From: arekm at maven.pl (Arkadiusz =?utf-8?q?Mi=C5=9Bkiewicz?=)
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 14:13:34 +0200
Subject: [TH][patch] Network rc script pand friendly
In-Reply-To: <505EFA50.5050901@gmail.com>
References: <505ED493.1070402@gmail.com> <505EF190.8040209@gmail.com>
 <505EFA50.5050901@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <201209231413.34800.arekm@maven.pl>

On Sunday 23 of September 2012, LordBlick wrote:
> In reply on:
> >> It allows starting empty pan0...panN interface for allowing any dhcpd
> >> daemon to serve on it - bnepX appears as part of panX bridge. This patch
> >> has no interference on other iterfaces, just other bridge name added.
> >> Withoit it, at every update I need to patch it...
> >> Please test and apply. Any comments also welcome.
> > 
> > I'm sorry, previous file is incorect, reverse patch. This mail
> > attachment is correct.
> > Also its need to add some symlinks:
> > # ln -s ifup-br /lib/rc-scripts/ifup-pan
> > # ln -s ifdown-br /lib/rc-scripts/ifdown-pan
> 
> Also its needed to set in /etc/sysconfig/network:
> 
> DEFAULTHANDLING=yes

That's wrong. It's per ifcfg config and not global.

-- 
Arkadiusz Mi?kiewicz, arekm / maven.pl


From lordblick at gmail.com  Sun Sep 23 14:56:09 2012
From: lordblick at gmail.com (LordBlick)
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 14:56:09 +0200
Subject: [TH][patch] Network rc script pand friendly
In-Reply-To: <201209231413.34800.arekm@maven.pl>
References: <505ED493.1070402@gmail.com> <505EF190.8040209@gmail.com>
 <505EFA50.5050901@gmail.com> <201209231413.34800.arekm@maven.pl>
Message-ID: <505F06E9.80202@gmail.com>

In reply on message from Arkadiusz Mi?kiewicz:
>> DEFAULTHANDLING=yes
>
> That's wrong. It's per ifcfg config and not global.
>
Ok, thanks for your advice.
Anyone has some words to set NAP on system side ?
blueman-projest is nice, but don't recorganise system-wide dns-masq
config...
-- 
Best Regards,
Lord Blick



From n3npq at me.com  Sun Sep 23 17:48:53 2012
From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson)
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 11:48:53 -0400
Subject: rpm 5.x in Th
In-Reply-To: <20120923084306.GA6218@polanet.pl>
References: <20120922084736.GA1623@home.lan>
 <772713033.20120922185940@chrustek.net>
 <2E5E2840-C6C1-4C8E-9444-E145CEE5ECFA@me.com>
 <1012833912.20120922220045@chrustek.net>
 <1FF06B47-7329-44B6-BD76-2AC7B9585063@me.com>
 <20120923084306.GA6218@polanet.pl>
Message-ID: <3548537E-EF6B-4948-B57C-B9C71D976695@me.com>


On Sep 23, 2012, at 4:43 AM, Tomasz Pala <gotar at polanet.pl> wrote:

> 
> Well, I might be wrong, but I think Lukasz expects something like
> rpm -Uvh /var/spool/repackage/[date range reversed]*/* --force --nomd5
> only - i.e. not actual transactions rollback, but package set restore
> (in proper order, thus preserving dependencies).
> 

One might expect whatever outcome one wishes ?
\
> Restoring filesystem state (including things altered by triggers etc.)
> is indeed dm/filesystem/backup software job and there's no point simulating
> it on one more level.
> 

? but triggers are executed as part of package management,
changing file system state, and are not simply invertible.

I do not understand your distinction.

How is --rollback to be performed if operations are
only partially reversed?

73 de Jeff

From glen at pld-linux.org  Sun Sep 23 20:05:01 2012
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?windows-1252?Q?Elan_Ruusam=E4e?=)
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 21:05:01 +0300
Subject: rpm 5.x in Th
In-Reply-To: <3548537E-EF6B-4948-B57C-B9C71D976695@me.com>
References: <20120922084736.GA1623@home.lan>
 <772713033.20120922185940@chrustek.net>
 <2E5E2840-C6C1-4C8E-9444-E145CEE5ECFA@me.com>
 <1012833912.20120922220045@chrustek.net>
 <1FF06B47-7329-44B6-BD76-2AC7B9585063@me.com>
 <20120923084306.GA6218@polanet.pl>
 <3548537E-EF6B-4948-B57C-B9C71D976695@me.com>
Message-ID: <505F4F4D.4040404@pld-linux.org>

On 23/09/12 18:48, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
> On Sep 23, 2012, at 4:43 AM, Tomasz Pala<gotar at polanet.pl>  wrote:
>
>> >
>> >Well, I might be wrong, but I think Lukasz expects something like
>> >rpm -Uvh/var/spool/repackage/[date range reversed]*/* --force --nomd5
>> >only - i.e. not actual transactions rollback, but package set restore
>> >(in proper order, thus preserving dependencies).
>> >
> One might expect whatever outcome one wishes ?
> \
>> >Restoring filesystem state (including things altered by triggers etc.)
>> >is indeed dm/filesystem/backup software job and there's no point simulating
>> >it on one more level.
>> >
> ? but triggers are executed as part of package management,
> changing file system state, and are not simply invertible.
>
> I do not understand your distinction.
>
> How is --rollback to be performed if operations are
> only partially reversed?
>

i'm sure people want just to get old package back, to revert human 
mistake of upgrading or some other reason for downgrade, because package 
is misbehaving, not wanting perfect rollback like filesystem rollback.

rolling back filesystem state really assumes nothing else happens in 
your filesystem than rpm packages. this is rarely true, there are logs, 
other writable data that you expect not to be "rolled back" if you just 
downgrade package.

call it something else than "rollback", if it hurts your perfect world

i my world, where i deploy software with rpm packages, i do poldek -u 
package-old-version --downgrade as i do have old versions available in 
package manager repository. but distro packages are not available that 
easily, therefore people look into /var/spool/repackage dir

-- 
glen



From n3npq at me.com  Sun Sep 23 20:18:45 2012
From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson)
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 14:18:45 -0400
Subject: rpm 5.x in Th
In-Reply-To: <505F4F4D.4040404@pld-linux.org>
References: <20120922084736.GA1623@home.lan>
 <772713033.20120922185940@chrustek.net>
 <2E5E2840-C6C1-4C8E-9444-E145CEE5ECFA@me.com>
 <1012833912.20120922220045@chrustek.net>
 <1FF06B47-7329-44B6-BD76-2AC7B9585063@me.com>
 <20120923084306.GA6218@polanet.pl>
 <3548537E-EF6B-4948-B57C-B9C71D976695@me.com> <505F4F4D.4040404@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <B8185E4A-1554-4EC5-A6F4-A2433503218B@me.com>


On Sep 23, 2012, at 2:05 PM, Elan Ruusam?e wrote:

> 
> i'm sure people want just to get old package back, to revert human mistake of upgrading or some other reason for downgrade, because package is misbehaving, not wanting perfect rollback like filesystem rollback.
> 

RPM isn't responsible for human mistakes: no implementation can save users from mistakes:
	When the data is gone, you lose.
This applies to erased files, removed packages, and dead disk drives.

Packages don't misbehave, package monkeys make mistakes and distros
don't do sufficient QA so users are affected by the errors.

I'm not at all sure what people want, other than to complain.

> rolling back filesystem state really assumes nothing else happens in your filesystem than rpm packages. this is rarely true, there are logs, other writable data that you expect not to be "rolled back" if you just downgrade package.
> 

Yes. You do realize I designed a
	"Transactionally Protected Package Management"
to handle exactly and only package manager initiated operations?

There is zero detectable interest several years later, measured by any of discussion or patch
submission or attempts at using.

> call it something else than "rollback", if it hurts your perfect world
> 

Call its whatever you want, rpm has been able to repackage existing
content when erasing for most of this century. Users and distros are not
enabling the functionality, and the RFE's for better continue incessantly.

> i my world, where i deploy software with rpm packages, i do poldek -u package-old-version --downgrade as i do have old versions available in package manager repository. but distro packages are not available that easily, therefore people look into /var/spool/repackage dir
> 

So implement --rollback in poldek or yum or urpmi or apt or dpkg or smart or zypper
or BTRFS or even the linux kernel if you wish.

73 de Jeff



From mike at osdn.org.ua  Sun Sep 23 22:49:52 2012
From: mike at osdn.org.ua (Michael Shigorin)
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 23:49:52 +0300
Subject: rpm 5.x in Th
In-Reply-To: <B8185E4A-1554-4EC5-A6F4-A2433503218B@me.com>
References: <20120922084736.GA1623@home.lan>
 <772713033.20120922185940@chrustek.net>
 <2E5E2840-C6C1-4C8E-9444-E145CEE5ECFA@me.com>
 <1012833912.20120922220045@chrustek.net>
 <1FF06B47-7329-44B6-BD76-2AC7B9585063@me.com>
 <20120923084306.GA6218@polanet.pl>
 <3548537E-EF6B-4948-B57C-B9C71D976695@me.com>
 <505F4F4D.4040404@pld-linux.org>
 <B8185E4A-1554-4EC5-A6F4-A2433503218B@me.com>
Message-ID: <20120923204952.GW28064@osdn.org.ua>

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 02:18:45PM -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
> > i'm sure people want just to get old package back

rpm -Uvh --oldpackage, no?

> I'm not at all sure what people want, other than to complain.

:]

> Yes. You do realize I designed a
> 	"Transactionally Protected Package Management"
> to handle exactly and only package manager initiated operations?
> 
> There is zero detectable interest several years later, measured
> by any of discussion or patch submission or attempts at using.

Guess it's rather a "choice of upstream" issue than a technical one.

-- 
 ---- WBR, Michael Shigorin <mike at altlinux.ru>
  ------ Linux.Kiev http://www.linux.kiev.ua/
 ----        Sep 29, Kiev, Ukraine:
--       http://conference.osdn.org.ua


From gotar at polanet.pl  Sun Sep 23 23:07:51 2012
From: gotar at polanet.pl (Tomasz Pala)
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 23:07:51 +0200
Subject: rpm 5.x in Th
In-Reply-To: <20120923204952.GW28064@osdn.org.ua>
References: <20120922084736.GA1623@home.lan>
 <772713033.20120922185940@chrustek.net>
 <2E5E2840-C6C1-4C8E-9444-E145CEE5ECFA@me.com>
 <1012833912.20120922220045@chrustek.net>
 <1FF06B47-7329-44B6-BD76-2AC7B9585063@me.com>
 <20120923084306.GA6218@polanet.pl>
 <3548537E-EF6B-4948-B57C-B9C71D976695@me.com>
 <505F4F4D.4040404@pld-linux.org>
 <B8185E4A-1554-4EC5-A6F4-A2433503218B@me.com>
 <20120923204952.GW28064@osdn.org.ua>
Message-ID: <20120923210751.GA6629@polanet.pl>

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 23:49:52 +0300, Michael Shigorin wrote:

>> > i'm sure people want just to get old package back
> 
> rpm -Uvh --oldpackage, no?

Yeah, good luck after some heimdal/openldap-invoked update with dozens
of transactions and hundreds of rpm packages repackaged. Of course one
can write a 1-liner sh to process this - just another thing Jeff doesn't
understand completely.

-- 
Tomasz Pala <gotar at pld-linux.org>


From n3npq at me.com  Sun Sep 23 23:11:16 2012
From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson)
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 17:11:16 -0400
Subject: rpm 5.x in Th
In-Reply-To: <20120923210751.GA6629@polanet.pl>
References: <20120922084736.GA1623@home.lan>
 <772713033.20120922185940@chrustek.net>
 <2E5E2840-C6C1-4C8E-9444-E145CEE5ECFA@me.com>
 <1012833912.20120922220045@chrustek.net>
 <1FF06B47-7329-44B6-BD76-2AC7B9585063@me.com>
 <20120923084306.GA6218@polanet.pl>
 <3548537E-EF6B-4948-B57C-B9C71D976695@me.com> <505F4F4D.4040404@pld-linux.org>
 <B8185E4A-1554-4EC5-A6F4-A2433503218B@me.com>
 <20120923204952.GW28064@osdn.org.ua> <20120923210751.GA6629@polanet.pl>
Message-ID: <9805A9C5-556C-40A3-AF3F-3A41AF70AB79@me.com>


On Sep 23, 2012, at 5:07 PM, Tomasz Pala <gotar at polanet.pl> wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 23:49:52 +0300, Michael Shigorin wrote:
> 
>>>> i'm sure people want just to get old package back
>> 
>> rpm -Uvh --oldpackage, no?
> 
> Yeah, good luck after some heimdal/openldap-invoked update with dozens
> of transactions and hundreds of rpm packages repackaged. Of course one
> can write a 1-liner sh to process this - just another thing Jeff doesn't
> understand completely.
> 

I supplied accurate information regarding --rollback functionality
in this thread.

Something that none of you understand at all.

I will refrain from answering in the future; I'm not here
to be trolled.

73 de Jeff



From n3npq at me.com  Sun Sep 23 23:17:27 2012
From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson)
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 17:17:27 -0400
Subject: rpm 5.x in Th
In-Reply-To: <20120923204952.GW28064@osdn.org.ua>
References: <20120922084736.GA1623@home.lan>
 <772713033.20120922185940@chrustek.net>
 <2E5E2840-C6C1-4C8E-9444-E145CEE5ECFA@me.com>
 <1012833912.20120922220045@chrustek.net>
 <1FF06B47-7329-44B6-BD76-2AC7B9585063@me.com>
 <20120923084306.GA6218@polanet.pl>
 <3548537E-EF6B-4948-B57C-B9C71D976695@me.com> <505F4F4D.4040404@pld-linux.org>
 <B8185E4A-1554-4EC5-A6F4-A2433503218B@me.com>
 <20120923204952.GW28064@osdn.org.ua>
Message-ID: <66125F63-4925-4AE7-973B-5EF7BE7C39C0@me.com>


On Sep 23, 2012, at 4:49 PM, Michael Shigorin wrote:

> 
> Guess it's rather a "choice of upstream" issue than a technical one.
> 

So shop a a different upstream for --rollbackm ? its _YOUR_ choice.

I will leave the technical details researching how many "upstreams"
have --rollback to your Google searching abilities.

I predict that BTRFS! BTRFS! BTRFS! will be your answer. *shrug*

73 de Jeff



From gotar at polanet.pl  Sun Sep 23 23:18:21 2012
From: gotar at polanet.pl (Tomasz Pala)
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 23:18:21 +0200
Subject: rpm 5.x in Th
In-Reply-To: <3548537E-EF6B-4948-B57C-B9C71D976695@me.com>
References: <20120922084736.GA1623@home.lan>
 <772713033.20120922185940@chrustek.net>
 <2E5E2840-C6C1-4C8E-9444-E145CEE5ECFA@me.com>
 <1012833912.20120922220045@chrustek.net>
 <1FF06B47-7329-44B6-BD76-2AC7B9585063@me.com>
 <20120923084306.GA6218@polanet.pl>
 <3548537E-EF6B-4948-B57C-B9C71D976695@me.com>
Message-ID: <20120923211821.GB6629@polanet.pl>

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 11:48:53 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:

> ? but triggers are executed as part of package management,
> changing file system state, and are not simply invertible.

Thus noone expect this to work or even exists.

> I do not understand your distinction.
>
> How is --rollback to be performed if operations are
> only partially reversed?

cd /var/spool/repackage; ls | perl -ne 'use Time::Local; my ($mday,$mon,$year,$hour,$min,$sec) = split(/[\s.:]+/, "23.04.2012 12:00:00"); my $time = timelocal($sec,$min,$hour,$mday,$mon-1,$year); print if $_>=$time' | sort -r | while read dir; do rpm -Uvh --oldpackage --force $dir/*; done

-- 
Tomasz Pala <gotar at pld-linux.org>


From mike at osdn.org.ua  Sun Sep 23 23:22:19 2012
From: mike at osdn.org.ua (Michael Shigorin)
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 00:22:19 +0300
Subject: rpm 5.x in Th
In-Reply-To: <20120923210751.GA6629@polanet.pl>
References: <772713033.20120922185940@chrustek.net>
 <2E5E2840-C6C1-4C8E-9444-E145CEE5ECFA@me.com>
 <1012833912.20120922220045@chrustek.net>
 <1FF06B47-7329-44B6-BD76-2AC7B9585063@me.com>
 <20120923084306.GA6218@polanet.pl>
 <3548537E-EF6B-4948-B57C-B9C71D976695@me.com>
 <505F4F4D.4040404@pld-linux.org>
 <B8185E4A-1554-4EC5-A6F4-A2433503218B@me.com>
 <20120923204952.GW28064@osdn.org.ua> <20120923210751.GA6629@polanet.pl>
Message-ID: <20120923212219.GN14520@osdn.org.ua>

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 11:07:51PM +0200, Tomasz Pala wrote:
> >> > i'm sure people want just to get old package back
> > rpm -Uvh --oldpackage, no?
> Yeah, good luck after some heimdal/openldap-invoked update with
> dozens of transactions and hundreds of rpm packages repackaged.

Well I've actually got some good luck with apt-rpm pins
but rather prefer a backup in the uncertain cases given
that virtual machine/environment testing didn't veto it
in the first place...

If e.g. some databases get upgraded during the process then
I don't get how anything but a snapshot/backup would help.
Except for a stable magic wand but mine is just not there. :)

-- 
 ---- WBR, Michael Shigorin <mike at altlinux.ru>
  ------ Linux.Kiev http://www.linux.kiev.ua/
 ----        Sep 29, Kiev, Ukraine:
--       http://conference.osdn.org.ua


From gotar at polanet.pl  Sun Sep 23 23:28:17 2012
From: gotar at polanet.pl (Tomasz Pala)
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 23:28:17 +0200
Subject: rpm 5.x in Th
In-Reply-To: <9805A9C5-556C-40A3-AF3F-3A41AF70AB79@me.com>
References: <2E5E2840-C6C1-4C8E-9444-E145CEE5ECFA@me.com>
 <1012833912.20120922220045@chrustek.net>
 <1FF06B47-7329-44B6-BD76-2AC7B9585063@me.com>
 <20120923084306.GA6218@polanet.pl>
 <3548537E-EF6B-4948-B57C-B9C71D976695@me.com>
 <505F4F4D.4040404@pld-linux.org>
 <B8185E4A-1554-4EC5-A6F4-A2433503218B@me.com>
 <20120923204952.GW28064@osdn.org.ua>
 <20120923210751.GA6629@polanet.pl>
 <9805A9C5-556C-40A3-AF3F-3A41AF70AB79@me.com>
Message-ID: <20120923212816.GC6629@polanet.pl>

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 17:11:16 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:

> I supplied accurate information regarding --rollback functionality
> in this thread.

Can't you understand that noone gives a shit about literal rollback? glen
already told you - just rename this to
--downgrade-with-available-rolled-back-packages-till-specified-timestamp
and get rid of all the bloat.

> Something that none of you understand at all.

It's you who don't understand a _simple_ function that IS expected,
instead trying to implement some complex feature doomed to be broken.
Just like Hurd story.


-- 
Tomasz Pala <gotar at pld-linux.org>


From n3npq at me.com  Sun Sep 23 23:30:04 2012
From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson)
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 17:30:04 -0400
Subject: rpm 5.x in Th
In-Reply-To: <20120923211821.GB6629@polanet.pl>
References: <20120922084736.GA1623@home.lan>
 <772713033.20120922185940@chrustek.net>
 <2E5E2840-C6C1-4C8E-9444-E145CEE5ECFA@me.com>
 <1012833912.20120922220045@chrustek.net>
 <1FF06B47-7329-44B6-BD76-2AC7B9585063@me.com>
 <20120923084306.GA6218@polanet.pl>
 <3548537E-EF6B-4948-B57C-B9C71D976695@me.com>
 <20120923211821.GB6629@polanet.pl>
Message-ID: <7DA3C234-1C12-4CEF-B400-08942F4204A4@me.com>


On Sep 23, 2012, at 5:18 PM, Tomasz Pala wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 11:48:53 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
> 
>> ? but triggers are executed as part of package management,
>> changing file system state, and are not simply invertible.
> 
> Thus noone expect this to work or even exists.
> 

What am I, chopped liver?

I said exactly that I do not expect --rollback to Just Work, with additional
history/context information regarding the history/rationale on a Mancoosi WP3 mailing list
when the decision was made to _NOT_ continue with the previous
implementation of --rollback.

>> I do not understand your distinction.
>> 
>> How is --rollback to be performed if operations are
>> only partially reversed?
> 
> cd /var/spool/repackage; ls | perl -ne 'use Time::Local; my ($mday,$mon,$year,$hour,$min,$sec) = split(/[\s.:]+/, "23.04.2012 12:00:00"); my $time = timelocal($sec,$min,$hour,$mday,$mon-1,$year); print if $_>=$time' | sort -r | while read dir; do rpm -Uvh --oldpackage --force $dir/*; done
> 

Hint: Your script is utterly useless when the clock isn't/wasn't correct.

73 de Jeff


From gotar at polanet.pl  Sun Sep 23 23:40:08 2012
From: gotar at polanet.pl (Tomasz Pala)
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 23:40:08 +0200
Subject: rpm 5.x in Th
In-Reply-To: <B8185E4A-1554-4EC5-A6F4-A2433503218B@me.com>
References: <20120922084736.GA1623@home.lan>
 <772713033.20120922185940@chrustek.net>
 <2E5E2840-C6C1-4C8E-9444-E145CEE5ECFA@me.com>
 <1012833912.20120922220045@chrustek.net>
 <1FF06B47-7329-44B6-BD76-2AC7B9585063@me.com>
 <20120923084306.GA6218@polanet.pl>
 <3548537E-EF6B-4948-B57C-B9C71D976695@me.com>
 <505F4F4D.4040404@pld-linux.org>
 <B8185E4A-1554-4EC5-A6F4-A2433503218B@me.com>
Message-ID: <20120923214008.GD6629@polanet.pl>

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 14:18:45 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:

>> i'm sure people want just to get old package back, to revert human mistake of upgrading or some other reason for downgrade, because package is misbehaving, not wanting perfect rollback like filesystem rollback.
> 
> RPM isn't responsible for human mistakes: no implementation can save users from mistakes:
> 	When the data is gone, you lose.
> This applies to erased files, removed packages, and dead disk drives.

The data is not gone - it exists in repackage. The _only_ thing that's
missing is some syntax sugar to ease downgrades.

> Yes. You do realize I designed a
> 	"Transactionally Protected Package Management"
> to handle exactly and only package manager initiated operations?
> 
> There is zero detectable interest several years later, measured by any of discussion or patch
> submission or attempts at using.

What a surprise! - as I already told you, noone expects ACID-style
rollback from package manager, as this idea is broken by design. Rolling
back filesystem requires tool operating on filesystem (not application)
level.

>> call it something else than "rollback", if it hurts your perfect world
> 
> Call its whatever you want, rpm has been able to repackage existing
> content when erasing for most of this century. Users and distros are not
> enabling the functionality, and the RFE's for better continue incessantly.

Apparently you completely don't understand this discussion. In short:
	it is about using these repackages in comfortable way
Nothing more. No undoing triggers. No 'rollback'. Simple downgrade
_package set_ to the state at specified time.

>> i my world, where i deploy software with rpm packages, i do poldek -u package-old-version --downgrade as i do have old versions available in package manager repository. but distro packages are not available that easily, therefore people look into /var/spool/repackage dir
> 
> So implement --rollback in poldek or yum or urpmi or apt or dpkg or smart or zypper
> or BTRFS or even the linux kernel if you wish.

Indeed, this should be implemented in poldek. But rpm itself shouldn't
suggest having function, that doesn't and won't work - so remove this 'rollback'
and don't confuse users.

-- 
Tomasz Pala <gotar at pld-linux.org>


From n3npq at me.com  Sun Sep 23 23:45:08 2012
From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson)
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 17:45:08 -0400
Subject: rpm 5.x in Th
In-Reply-To: <20120923214008.GD6629@polanet.pl>
References: <20120922084736.GA1623@home.lan>
 <772713033.20120922185940@chrustek.net>
 <2E5E2840-C6C1-4C8E-9444-E145CEE5ECFA@me.com>
 <1012833912.20120922220045@chrustek.net>
 <1FF06B47-7329-44B6-BD76-2AC7B9585063@me.com>
 <20120923084306.GA6218@polanet.pl>
 <3548537E-EF6B-4948-B57C-B9C71D976695@me.com> <505F4F4D.4040404@pld-linux.org>
 <B8185E4A-1554-4EC5-A6F4-A2433503218B@me.com>
 <20120923214008.GD6629@polanet.pl>
Message-ID: <701EE9FF-DCE3-4922-AB47-16DB31EF2987@me.com>


On Sep 23, 2012, at 5:40 PM, Tomasz Pala <gotar at polanet.pl> wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 14:18:45 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
> 
>>> i'm sure people want just to get old package back, to revert human mistake of upgrading or some other reason for downgrade, because package is misbehaving, not wanting perfect rollback like filesystem rollback.
>> 
>> RPM isn't responsible for human mistakes: no implementation can save users from mistakes:
>> 	When the data is gone, you lose.
>> This applies to erased files, removed packages, and dead disk drives.
> 
> The data is not gone - it exists in repackage. The _only_ thing that's
> missing is some syntax sugar to ease downgrades.
> 

It doesn't exist in /var/spool/repackage if not enabled,
or when bloat has been manually removed.

>> Yes. You do realize I designed a
>> 	"Transactionally Protected Package Management"
>> to handle exactly and only package manager initiated operations?
>> 
>> There is zero detectable interest several years later, measured by any of discussion or patch
>> submission or attempts at using.
> 
> What a surprise! - as I already told you, noone expects ACID-style
> rollback from package manager, as this idea is broken by design. Rolling
> back filesystem requires tool operating on filesystem (not application)
> level.
> 

So don't use ACID-style rollback. Alternatively,
go honk your own Newer! Better! Bestest! implementation
as you wish.

>>> call it something else than "rollback", if it hurts your perfect world
>> 
>> Call its whatever you want, rpm has been able to repackage existing
>> content when erasing for most of this century. Users and distros are not
>> enabling the functionality, and the RFE's for better continue incessantly.
> 
> Apparently you completely don't understand this discussion. In short:
> 	it is about using these repackages in comfortable way
> Nothing more. No undoing triggers. No 'rollback'. Simple downgrade
> _package set_ to the state at specified time.
> 

This isn't a discussion, there is nothing to understand
from ignorant trolls.

>>> i my world, where i deploy software with rpm packages, i do poldek -u package-old-version --downgrade as i do have old versions available in package manager repository. but distro packages are not available that easily, therefore people look into /var/spool/repackage dir
>> 
>> So implement --rollback in poldek or yum or urpmi or apt or dpkg or smart or zypper
>> or BTRFS or even the linux kernel if you wish.
> 
> Indeed, this should be implemented in poldek. But rpm itself shouldn't
> suggest having function, that doesn't and won't work - so remove this 'rollback'
> and don't confuse users.
> 

You are a deluded idiot claiming that RPM --rollback
is false advertising.

73 de Jeff



From gotar at polanet.pl  Sun Sep 23 23:50:32 2012
From: gotar at polanet.pl (Tomasz Pala)
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 23:50:32 +0200
Subject: rpm 5.x in Th
In-Reply-To: <7DA3C234-1C12-4CEF-B400-08942F4204A4@me.com>
References: <20120922084736.GA1623@home.lan>
 <772713033.20120922185940@chrustek.net>
 <2E5E2840-C6C1-4C8E-9444-E145CEE5ECFA@me.com>
 <1012833912.20120922220045@chrustek.net>
 <1FF06B47-7329-44B6-BD76-2AC7B9585063@me.com>
 <20120923084306.GA6218@polanet.pl>
 <3548537E-EF6B-4948-B57C-B9C71D976695@me.com>
 <20120923211821.GB6629@polanet.pl>
 <7DA3C234-1C12-4CEF-B400-08942F4204A4@me.com>
Message-ID: <20120923215032.GE6629@polanet.pl>

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 17:30:04 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:

>> Thus noone expect this to work or even exists.
> 
> What am I, chopped liver?
> 
> I said exactly that I do not expect --rollback to Just Work, with additional
> history/context information regarding the history/rationale on a Mancoosi WP3 mailing list
> when the decision was made to _NOT_ continue with the previous
> implementation of --rollback.

Blablabla - for the last time: I don't care. I don't know anyone who
cares. If you had no feedback for years, apparently no rpm user cares.
We are not talking about SUCH feature. If THIS doesn't work > /dev/null.

>>> I do not understand your distinction.
>>> 
>>> How is --rollback to be performed if operations are
>>> only partially reversed?
>> 
>> cd /var/spool/repackage; ls | perl -ne 'use Time::Local; my ($mday,$mon,$year,$hour,$min,$sec) = split(/[\s.:]+/, "23.04.2012 12:00:00"); my $time = timelocal($sec,$min,$hour,$mday,$mon-1,$year); print if $_>=$time' | sort -r | while read dir; do rpm -Uvh --oldpackage --force $dir/*; done
> 
> Hint: Your script is utterly useless when the clock isn't/wasn't correct.

1. do you still not understand this distinction?
2. do you know how package manager could restore packages now?
3. "when the disk isn't/wasn't working properly, every solution is utterly useless"
4. I've written this for this conversation as simplest demonstration of what is missing.

-- 
Tomasz Pala <gotar at pld-linux.org>


From lukasz at chrustek.net  Sun Sep 23 23:54:27 2012
From: lukasz at chrustek.net (=?utf-8?Q?=C5=81ukasz_Chrustek?=)
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 23:54:27 +0200
Subject: rpm 5.x in Th
In-Reply-To: <505F4F4D.4040404@pld-linux.org>
References: <20120922084736.GA1623@home.lan>
 <772713033.20120922185940@chrustek.net>
 <2E5E2840-C6C1-4C8E-9444-E145CEE5ECFA@me.com>
 <1012833912.20120922220045@chrustek.net>
 <1FF06B47-7329-44B6-BD76-2AC7B9585063@me.com>
 <20120923084306.GA6218@polanet.pl>
 <3548537E-EF6B-4948-B57C-B9C71D976695@me.com>
 <505F4F4D.4040404@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <1097084703.20120923235427@chrustek.net>

Hello,

>> I do not understand your distinction.
>>
>> How is --rollback to be performed if operations are
>> only partially reversed?
>>

> i'm sure people want just to get old package back, to revert human 
> mistake of upgrading or some other reason for downgrade, because package
> is misbehaving, not wanting perfect rollback like filesystem rollback.

Yes,  that  was exacly the point. I simply forget to dump databases on
testing  env  when upgrading postgres from 9.1 to 9.2. In this (rather
simple)  case  I  took the three repackaged rpms and did --oldpackage.
With  --rollback,  I  could  earlier do this without searching rpms in
/var/spool/repackage.

> call it something else than "rollback", if it hurts your perfect world

Or  remove  -  if  leaving this option would lead to making some magic
with some filesystems :).

-- 
Pozdrawiam,
 ?ukasz Chrustek



From n3npq at me.com  Sun Sep 23 23:56:55 2012
From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson)
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 17:56:55 -0400
Subject: rpm 5.x in Th
In-Reply-To: <20120923215032.GE6629@polanet.pl>
References: <20120922084736.GA1623@home.lan>
 <772713033.20120922185940@chrustek.net>
 <2E5E2840-C6C1-4C8E-9444-E145CEE5ECFA@me.com>
 <1012833912.20120922220045@chrustek.net>
 <1FF06B47-7329-44B6-BD76-2AC7B9585063@me.com>
 <20120923084306.GA6218@polanet.pl>
 <3548537E-EF6B-4948-B57C-B9C71D976695@me.com>
 <20120923211821.GB6629@polanet.pl>
 <7DA3C234-1C12-4CEF-B400-08942F4204A4@me.com>
 <20120923215032.GE6629@polanet.pl>
Message-ID: <D71F32B3-9BDA-4F42-AEF0-248FD06B0C63@me.com>


On Sep 23, 2012, at 5:50 PM, Tomasz Pala <gotar at polanet.pl> wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 17:30:04 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
> 
>>> Thus noone expect this to work or even exists.
>> 
>> What am I, chopped liver?
>> 
>> I said exactly that I do not expect --rollback to Just Work, with additional
>> history/context information regarding the history/rationale on a Mancoosi WP3 mailing list
>> when the decision was made to _NOT_ continue with the previous
>> implementation of --rollback.
> 
> Blablabla - for the last time: I don't care. I don't know anyone who
> cares. If you had no feedback for years, apparently no rpm user cares.
> We are not talking about SUCH feature. If THIS doesn't work > /dev/null.
> 

Which is what I said *repeatedly* in an attempt to adjust expectations of --rollback. Go read the Blablabla ...


>>>> I do not understand your distinction.
>>>> 
>>>> How is --rollback to be performed if operations are
>>>> only partially reversed?
>>> 
>>> cd /var/spool/repackage; ls | perl -ne 'use Time::Local; my ($mday,$mon,$year,$hour,$min,$sec) = split(/[\s.:]+/, "23.04.2012 12:00:00"); my $time = timelocal($sec,$min,$hour,$mday,$mon-1,$year); print if $_>=$time' | sort -r | while read dir; do rpm -Uvh --oldpackage --force $dir/*; done
>> 
>> Hint: Your script is utterly useless when the clock isn't/wasn't correct.
> 
> 1. do you still not understand this distinction?

troll++

> 2. do you know how package manager could restore packages now?

troll++

> 3. "when the disk isn't/wasn't working properly, every solution is utterly useless"

You are clueless: saving state remotely permits an
entire machine to be recreated when hard drives fail.

Backups and off-site storage are well known remedies
for hard drive failures.

> 4. I've written this for this conversation as simplest demonstration of what is missing.
> 

Yes: you are a simpleton.

73 de Jeff
> -- 
> Tomasz Pala <gotar at pld-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 gotar at polanet.pl  Sun Sep 23 23:58:32 2012
From: gotar at polanet.pl (Tomasz Pala)
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 23:58:32 +0200
Subject: rpm 5.x in Th
In-Reply-To: <701EE9FF-DCE3-4922-AB47-16DB31EF2987@me.com>
References: <772713033.20120922185940@chrustek.net>
 <2E5E2840-C6C1-4C8E-9444-E145CEE5ECFA@me.com>
 <1012833912.20120922220045@chrustek.net>
 <1FF06B47-7329-44B6-BD76-2AC7B9585063@me.com>
 <20120923084306.GA6218@polanet.pl>
 <3548537E-EF6B-4948-B57C-B9C71D976695@me.com>
 <505F4F4D.4040404@pld-linux.org>
 <B8185E4A-1554-4EC5-A6F4-A2433503218B@me.com>
 <20120923214008.GD6629@polanet.pl>
 <701EE9FF-DCE3-4922-AB47-16DB31EF2987@me.com>
Message-ID: <20120923215832.GF6629@polanet.pl>

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 17:45:08 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:

>> The data is not gone - it exists in repackage. The _only_ thing that's
>> missing is some syntax sugar to ease downgrades.
> 
> It doesn't exist in /var/spool/repackage if not enabled,
> or when bloat has been manually removed.

Or when the earth is hit by a meteor.
That's not the case we're talking about. That's funny you still can't
understant, that:

he - wants - to - 'rollback' - using - his - repackages. ONLY

> So don't use ACID-style rollback. Alternatively,

Which one, this broken?

> You are a deluded idiot claiming that RPM --rollback
> is false advertising.

Oh, so it was deliberately designed to break, right?

-- 
Tomasz Pala <gotar at pld-linux.org>


From lukasz at chrustek.net  Sun Sep 23 23:59:48 2012
From: lukasz at chrustek.net (=?iso-8859-2?Q?=A3ukasz_Chrustek?=)
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 23:59:48 +0200
Subject: rpm 5.x in Th
In-Reply-To: <20120923211821.GB6629@polanet.pl>
References: <20120922084736.GA1623@home.lan>
 <772713033.20120922185940@chrustek.net>
 <2E5E2840-C6C1-4C8E-9444-E145CEE5ECFA@me.com>
 <1012833912.20120922220045@chrustek.net>
 <1FF06B47-7329-44B6-BD76-2AC7B9585063@me.com>
 <20120923084306.GA6218@polanet.pl>
 <3548537E-EF6B-4948-B57C-B9C71D976695@me.com>
 <20120923211821.GB6629@polanet.pl>
Message-ID: <1671643141.20120923235948@chrustek.net>

Hello,

> cd /var/spool/repackage; ls | perl -ne 'use Time::Local; my
> ($mday,$mon,$year,$hour,$min,$sec) = split(/[\s.:]+/, "23.04.2012
> 12:00:00"); my $time =
> timelocal($sec,$min,$hour,$mday,$mon-1,$year); print if $_>=$time' |
> sort -r | while read dir; do rpm -Uvh --oldpackage --force $dir/*; done


Thank You, Tomek, this 1-liner will be usefull with some more packages
:).

-- 
Pozdrawiam,
 ?ukasz Chrustek



From gotar at polanet.pl  Mon Sep 24 00:02:49 2012
From: gotar at polanet.pl (Tomasz Pala)
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 00:02:49 +0200
Subject: rpm 5.x in Th
In-Reply-To: <1671643141.20120923235948@chrustek.net>
References: <20120922084736.GA1623@home.lan>
 <772713033.20120922185940@chrustek.net>
 <2E5E2840-C6C1-4C8E-9444-E145CEE5ECFA@me.com>
 <1012833912.20120922220045@chrustek.net>
 <1FF06B47-7329-44B6-BD76-2AC7B9585063@me.com>
 <20120923084306.GA6218@polanet.pl>
 <3548537E-EF6B-4948-B57C-B9C71D976695@me.com>
 <20120923211821.GB6629@polanet.pl>
 <1671643141.20120923235948@chrustek.net>
Message-ID: <20120923220249.GG6629@polanet.pl>

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 23:59:48 +0200, ?ukasz Chrustek wrote:

>> cd /var/spool/repackage; ls | perl -ne 'use Time::Local; my
>> ($mday,$mon,$year,$hour,$min,$sec) = split(/[\s.:]+/, "23.04.2012
>> 12:00:00"); my $time =
>> timelocal($sec,$min,$hour,$mday,$mon-1,$year); print if $_>=$time' |
>> sort -r | while read dir; do rpm -Uvh --oldpackage --force $dir/*; done
> 
> 
> Thank You, Tomek, this 1-liner will be usefull with some more packages
> :).

Beware, as Jeff-the-Understandig said it will break if you have had your
clock skewed!
In contrary - his rpm will break always, so it's much more reliable! ;)


-- 
Tomasz Pala <gotar at pld-linux.org>


From n3npq at me.com  Mon Sep 24 00:03:06 2012
From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson)
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 18:03:06 -0400
Subject: rpm 5.x in Th
In-Reply-To: <20120923215832.GF6629@polanet.pl>
References: <772713033.20120922185940@chrustek.net>
 <2E5E2840-C6C1-4C8E-9444-E145CEE5ECFA@me.com>
 <1012833912.20120922220045@chrustek.net>
 <1FF06B47-7329-44B6-BD76-2AC7B9585063@me.com>
 <20120923084306.GA6218@polanet.pl>
 <3548537E-EF6B-4948-B57C-B9C71D976695@me.com> <505F4F4D.4040404@pld-linux.org>
 <B8185E4A-1554-4EC5-A6F4-A2433503218B@me.com>
 <20120923214008.GD6629@polanet.pl>
 <701EE9FF-DCE3-4922-AB47-16DB31EF2987@me.com>
 <20120923215832.GF6629@polanet.pl>
Message-ID: <37F7CF34-3EB5-4410-B845-B7BC1B0D905C@me.com>


On Sep 23, 2012, at 5:58 PM, Tomasz Pala wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 17:45:08 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
> 
>>> The data is not gone - it exists in repackage. The _only_ thing that's
>>> missing is some syntax sugar to ease downgrades.
>> 
>> It doesn't exist in /var/spool/repackage if not enabled,
>> or when bloat has been manually removed.
> 
> Or when the earth is hit by a meteor.
> That's not the case we're talking about. That's funny you still can't
> understant, that:
> 
> he - wants - to - 'rollback' - using - his - repackages. ONLY
> 

troll++

>> So don't use ACID-style rollback. Alternatively,
> 
> Which one, this broken?
> 

troll++

>> You are a deluded idiot claiming that RPM --rollback
>> is false advertising.
> 
> Oh, so it was deliberately designed to break, right?
> 

troll++

Get a grip: PLD decided to upgrade to rpm-5.4.x.

Now you can all bugger off ?

73 de Jeff
> -- 
> Tomasz Pala <gotar at pld-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 gotar at polanet.pl  Mon Sep 24 00:13:27 2012
From: gotar at polanet.pl (Tomasz Pala)
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 00:13:27 +0200
Subject: rpm 5.x in Th
In-Reply-To: <D71F32B3-9BDA-4F42-AEF0-248FD06B0C63@me.com>
References: <772713033.20120922185940@chrustek.net>
 <2E5E2840-C6C1-4C8E-9444-E145CEE5ECFA@me.com>
 <1012833912.20120922220045@chrustek.net>
 <1FF06B47-7329-44B6-BD76-2AC7B9585063@me.com>
 <20120923084306.GA6218@polanet.pl>
 <3548537E-EF6B-4948-B57C-B9C71D976695@me.com>
 <20120923211821.GB6629@polanet.pl>
 <7DA3C234-1C12-4CEF-B400-08942F4204A4@me.com>
 <20120923215032.GE6629@polanet.pl>
 <D71F32B3-9BDA-4F42-AEF0-248FD06B0C63@me.com>
Message-ID: <20120923221327.GH6629@polanet.pl>

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 17:56:55 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:

> Which is what I said *repeatedly* in an attempt to adjust expectations of --rollback. Go read the Blablabla ...

Whose expectations would you like to adjust? Seriously - you want _us_ to
expect rollback to work on global fs state? You must be an idiot then! The
question was: how to downgrade repackaged package set specifying the time factor.
You insist on irrevelant shit.

>> 3. "when the disk isn't/wasn't working properly, every solution is utterly useless"
> 
> You are clueless: saving state remotely permits an
> entire machine to be recreated when hard drives fail.

Try running replicated postgresql master node on failing drive and share
your results!

> Backups and off-site storage are well known remedies
> for hard drive failures.

Only when drive fails _after_ the backup was made. If my clock was set
properly during upgrades, my perl would select proper directories.

-- 
Tomasz Pala <gotar at pld-linux.org>


From lukasz at chrustek.net  Mon Sep 24 00:13:38 2012
From: lukasz at chrustek.net (=?iso-8859-2?Q?=A3ukasz_Chrustek?=)
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 00:13:38 +0200
Subject: rpm 5.x in Th
In-Reply-To: <D71F32B3-9BDA-4F42-AEF0-248FD06B0C63@me.com>
References: <20120922084736.GA1623@home.lan>
 <772713033.20120922185940@chrustek.net>
 <2E5E2840-C6C1-4C8E-9444-E145CEE5ECFA@me.com>
 <1012833912.20120922220045@chrustek.net>
 <1FF06B47-7329-44B6-BD76-2AC7B9585063@me.com>
 <20120923084306.GA6218@polanet.pl>
 <3548537E-EF6B-4948-B57C-B9C71D976695@me.com>
 <20120923211821.GB6629@polanet.pl>
 <7DA3C234-1C12-4CEF-B400-08942F4204A4@me.com>
 <20120923215032.GE6629@polanet.pl>
 <D71F32B3-9BDA-4F42-AEF0-248FD06B0C63@me.com>
Message-ID: <1351296484.20120924001338@chrustek.net>

Hello,

>> 3. "when the disk isn't/wasn't working properly, every solution is utterly useless"

> You are clueless: saving state remotely permits an
> entire machine to be recreated when hard drives fail.

> Backups and off-site storage are well known remedies
> for hard drive failures.

You  are  writing  about  some  strange  (complicated  and not easy to
implement)  solutions. I like the rollback behavior in old rpm, it was
working  in  the way I expect. Now You, as author of rpm, are writing,
that  I'm  only  person in the world, which is using this option... If
so,  don't  bother  anymore,  but  leaving  this  option  in --help is
missleading for me, but as You stated earlier - only for me.

Do  You  (other PLD users/devs) use repackege only with --oldpackage ?
Noone  is/were  using  --rollback  ? Or - You don't use repackage :P ?
You never regret installing new versions of some rpms :) ?

>> 4. I've written this for this conversation as simplest demonstration of what is missing.
>> 

> Yes: you are a simpleton.

Jeff, I think You are going to far. Peace, men.

-- 
Pozdrawiam,
 ?ukasz Chrustek



From n3npq at me.com  Mon Sep 24 00:17:38 2012
From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson)
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 18:17:38 -0400
Subject: rpm 5.x in Th
In-Reply-To: <20120923221327.GH6629@polanet.pl>
References: <772713033.20120922185940@chrustek.net>
 <2E5E2840-C6C1-4C8E-9444-E145CEE5ECFA@me.com>
 <1012833912.20120922220045@chrustek.net>
 <1FF06B47-7329-44B6-BD76-2AC7B9585063@me.com>
 <20120923084306.GA6218@polanet.pl>
 <3548537E-EF6B-4948-B57C-B9C71D976695@me.com>
 <20120923211821.GB6629@polanet.pl>
 <7DA3C234-1C12-4CEF-B400-08942F4204A4@me.com>
 <20120923215032.GE6629@polanet.pl>
 <D71F32B3-9BDA-4F42-AEF0-248FD06B0C63@me.com>
 <20120923221327.GH6629@polanet.pl>
Message-ID: <040CA4CE-D1BF-46A9-941F-8AC41B56C973@me.com>


On Sep 23, 2012, at 6:13 PM, Tomasz Pala <gotar at polanet.pl> wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 17:56:55 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
> 
>> Which is what I said *repeatedly* in an attempt to adjust expectations of --rollback. Go read the Blablabla ...
> 
> Whose expectations would you like to adjust? Seriously - you want _us_ to
> expect rollback to work on global fs state? You must be an idiot then! The
> question was: how to downgrade repackaged package set specifying the time factor.
> You insist on irrevelant shit.
> 

troll++

>>> 3. "when the disk isn't/wasn't working properly, every solution is utterly useless"
>> 
>> You are clueless: saving state remotely permits an
>> entire machine to be recreated when hard drives fail.
> 
> Try running replicated postgresql master node on failing drive and share
> your results!
> 

Why? The issue(s) involved with maintaining databases
consistently with package manager upgrades are non-trivial
to solve with a perl script like yours.

>> Backups and off-site storage are well known remedies
>> for hard drive failures.
> 
> Only when drive fails _after_ the backup was made. If my clock was set
> properly during upgrades, my perl would select proper directories.
> 

So write a perl sc riot that permits upgrading postgresql
masters now that you have solved --rollback with one line of perl.

Surely you can hack out a postgresql master software upgrade
by next week instead of wasting time trolling me.

73 de Jeff


> -- 
> Tomasz Pala <gotar at pld-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 gotar at polanet.pl  Mon Sep 24 00:18:46 2012
From: gotar at polanet.pl (Tomasz Pala)
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 00:18:46 +0200
Subject: rpm 5.x in Th
In-Reply-To: <37F7CF34-3EB5-4410-B845-B7BC1B0D905C@me.com>
References: <1012833912.20120922220045@chrustek.net>
 <1FF06B47-7329-44B6-BD76-2AC7B9585063@me.com>
 <20120923084306.GA6218@polanet.pl>
 <3548537E-EF6B-4948-B57C-B9C71D976695@me.com>
 <505F4F4D.4040404@pld-linux.org>
 <B8185E4A-1554-4EC5-A6F4-A2433503218B@me.com>
 <20120923214008.GD6629@polanet.pl>
 <701EE9FF-DCE3-4922-AB47-16DB31EF2987@me.com>
 <20120923215832.GF6629@polanet.pl>
 <37F7CF34-3EB5-4410-B845-B7BC1B0D905C@me.com>
Message-ID: <20120923221846.GI6629@polanet.pl>

In this episode...

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 18:03:06 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:

>> he - wants - to - 'rollback' - using - his - repackages. ONLY
> 
> troll++

...Jeff-the-Omniscient knows better what user wanted to acomplish!

>>> So don't use ACID-style rollback. Alternatively,
>> 
>> Which one, this broken?
> 
> troll++

...Jeff-almighty can run broken code!

>>> You are a deluded idiot claiming that RPM --rollback
>>> is false advertising.
>> 
>> Oh, so it was deliberately designed to break, right?
> 
> troll++
> 
> Get a grip: PLD decided to upgrade to rpm-5.4.x.

So is it broken or not?

> Now you can all bugger off ?

Last time I've checked we were on PLD maillist not rpm one, so if anyone
it's you who should go fuck himself.

-- 
Tomasz Pala <gotar at pld-linux.org>


From n3npq at me.com  Mon Sep 24 00:22:49 2012
From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson)
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 18:22:49 -0400
Subject: rpm 5.x in Th
In-Reply-To: <1351296484.20120924001338@chrustek.net>
References: <20120922084736.GA1623@home.lan>
 <772713033.20120922185940@chrustek.net>
 <2E5E2840-C6C1-4C8E-9444-E145CEE5ECFA@me.com>
 <1012833912.20120922220045@chrustek.net>
 <1FF06B47-7329-44B6-BD76-2AC7B9585063@me.com>
 <20120923084306.GA6218@polanet.pl>
 <3548537E-EF6B-4948-B57C-B9C71D976695@me.com>
 <20120923211821.GB6629@polanet.pl>
 <7DA3C234-1C12-4CEF-B400-08942F4204A4@me.com>
 <20120923215032.GE6629@polanet.pl>
 <D71F32B3-9BDA-4F42-AEF0-248FD06B0C63@me.com>
 <1351296484.20120924001338@chrustek.net>
Message-ID: <9FAE2C10-DA38-40CC-B389-D9C139A9C9E3@me.com>


On Sep 23, 2012, at 6:13 PM, ?ukasz Chrustek <lukasz at chrustek.net> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
>>> 3. "when the disk isn't/wasn't working properly, every solution is utterly useless"
> 
>> You are clueless: saving state remotely permits an
>> entire machine to be recreated when hard drives fail.
> 
>> Backups and off-site storage are well known remedies
>> for hard drive failures.
> 
> You  are  writing  about  some  strange  (complicated  and not easy to
> implement)  solutions. I like the rollback behavior in old rpm, it was
> working  in  the way I expect. Now You, as author of rpm, are writing,
> that  I'm  only  person in the world, which is using this option... If
> so,  don't  bother  anymore,  but  leaving  this  option  in --help is
> missleading for me, but as You stated earlier - only for me.
> 

I am trying to warn -- politely -- that you are in uncharted
and unsupported waters if relying on --rollback as it used to
exist in RPM.

> Do  You  (other PLD users/devs) use repackege only with --oldpackage ?
> Noone  is/were  using  --rollback  ? Or - You don't use repackage :P ?
> You never regret installing new versions of some rpms :) ?
> 

Hint: I release @rpm5.org (and run continuous integration
in buildbots) with repackaging enabled.

Every distro I am aware of disables repackaging, and most
user comments I have read suggest disabling to save disk space.

>>> 4. I've written this for this conversation as simplest demonstration of what is missing.
>>> 
> 
>> Yes: you are a simpleton.
> 
> Jeff, I think You are going to far. Peace, men.
> 

Sorry: I get gang-raped repeatedly by trolls. These
days I have zero tolerance:
	You want a flamefest? Fine by me ?

But yes this thread is a total waste of time trivially solved
by some minor thought and scripting.

But --rollback in an RPM context is something other than a perl
1-liner.

73 de Jeff
> -- 
> Pozdrawiam,
> ?ukasz Chrustek
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Sep 24 00:25:13 2012
From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson)
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 18:25:13 -0400
Subject: rpm 5.x in Th
In-Reply-To: <20120923221846.GI6629@polanet.pl>
References: <1012833912.20120922220045@chrustek.net>
 <1FF06B47-7329-44B6-BD76-2AC7B9585063@me.com>
 <20120923084306.GA6218@polanet.pl>
 <3548537E-EF6B-4948-B57C-B9C71D976695@me.com> <505F4F4D.4040404@pld-linux.org>
 <B8185E4A-1554-4EC5-A6F4-A2433503218B@me.com>
 <20120923214008.GD6629@polanet.pl>
 <701EE9FF-DCE3-4922-AB47-16DB31EF2987@me.com>
 <20120923215832.GF6629@polanet.pl>
 <37F7CF34-3EB5-4410-B845-B7BC1B0D905C@me.com>
 <20120923221846.GI6629@polanet.pl>
Message-ID: <5CA9FE09-AFF4-40FC-8AD7-5B21CFC29566@me.com>


On Sep 23, 2012, at 6:18 PM, Tomasz Pala <gotar at polanet.pl> wrote:

> In this episode...
> 
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 18:03:06 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
> 
>>> he - wants - to - 'rollback' - using - his - repackages. ONLY
>> 
>> troll++
> 
> ...Jeff-the-Omniscient knows better what user wanted to accomplish!

(troll++)++

>>>> So don't use ACID-style rollback. Alternatively,
>>> 
>>> Which one, this broken?
>> 
>> troll++
> 
> ...Jeff-almighty can run broken code!
> 

(troll++)++

>>>> You are a deluded idiot claiming that RPM --rollback
>>>> is false advertising.
>>> 
>>> Oh, so it was deliberately designed to break, right?
>> 
>> troll++
>> 
>> Get a grip: PLD decided to upgrade to rpm-5.4.x.
> 
> So is it broken or not?
> 

Depends on whether you were born a bastard (or not). I do
not know you genealogy sufficiently well to say whether
it is broken or not ...

>> Now you can all bugger off ?
> 
> Last time I've checked we were on PLD maillist not rpm one, so if anyone
> it's you who should go fuck himself.
> 

troll++

73 de Jeff

> -- 
> Tomasz Pala <gotar at pld-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 gotar at polanet.pl  Mon Sep 24 00:32:52 2012
From: gotar at polanet.pl (Tomasz Pala)
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 00:32:52 +0200
Subject: rpm 5.x in Th
In-Reply-To: <040CA4CE-D1BF-46A9-941F-8AC41B56C973@me.com>
References: <1012833912.20120922220045@chrustek.net>
 <1FF06B47-7329-44B6-BD76-2AC7B9585063@me.com>
 <20120923084306.GA6218@polanet.pl>
 <3548537E-EF6B-4948-B57C-B9C71D976695@me.com>
 <20120923211821.GB6629@polanet.pl>
 <7DA3C234-1C12-4CEF-B400-08942F4204A4@me.com>
 <20120923215032.GE6629@polanet.pl>
 <D71F32B3-9BDA-4F42-AEF0-248FD06B0C63@me.com>
 <20120923221327.GH6629@polanet.pl>
 <040CA4CE-D1BF-46A9-941F-8AC41B56C973@me.com>
Message-ID: <20120923223252.GJ6629@polanet.pl>

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 18:17:38 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:

>> Try running replicated postgresql master node on failing drive and share
>> your results!
> 
> Why?

Just try it.

> The issue(s) involved with maintaining databases
> consistently with package manager upgrades are non-trivial
> to solve with a perl script like yours.

My script does (well, should - it was 1-minute typing and might be
error-prone) exactly what shall be done. It doesn't alter any
database more than every other legitimate invocation, as it doesn't use
any hacks except reversing order of transactions performed.
In term of databases it's not rollback - but contrary to RDBMSes here this
doesn't matter; primary difference is that standalone database has
strictly specified and controlled I/O vectors, while rpm in properly
used system cannot track data, but metadata only; in *sql it's not normal
usage-scenario when someone replaces blob using filesystem tools, so the
assumption of data consistency is solid.

> So write a perl sc riot that permits upgrading postgresql
> masters now that you have solved --rollback with one line of perl.

I ain't solved --rollback, just replaced it with something usable.

-- 
Tomasz Pala <gotar at pld-linux.org>


From n3npq at me.com  Mon Sep 24 00:39:56 2012
From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson)
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 18:39:56 -0400
Subject: rpm 5.x in Th
In-Reply-To: <20120923223252.GJ6629@polanet.pl>
References: <1012833912.20120922220045@chrustek.net>
 <1FF06B47-7329-44B6-BD76-2AC7B9585063@me.com>
 <20120923084306.GA6218@polanet.pl>
 <3548537E-EF6B-4948-B57C-B9C71D976695@me.com>
 <20120923211821.GB6629@polanet.pl>
 <7DA3C234-1C12-4CEF-B400-08942F4204A4@me.com>
 <20120923215032.GE6629@polanet.pl>
 <D71F32B3-9BDA-4F42-AEF0-248FD06B0C63@me.com>
 <20120923221327.GH6629@polanet.pl>
 <040CA4CE-D1BF-46A9-941F-8AC41B56C973@me.com>
 <20120923223252.GJ6629@polanet.pl>
Message-ID: <11881C5E-3222-49E4-ACBA-3A5AEE3771A2@me.com>


On Sep 23, 2012, at 6:32 PM, Tomasz Pala <gotar at polanet.pl> wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 18:17:38 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
> 
>>> Try running replicated postgresql master node on failing drive and share
>>> your results!
>> 
>> Why?
> 
> Just try it.
> 

Pay me $100/hour and I will.

>> The issue(s) involved with maintaining databases
>> consistently with package manager upgrades are non-trivial
>> to solve with a perl script like yours.
> 
> My script does (well, should - it was 1-minute typing and might be
> error-prone) exactly what shall be done. It doesn't alter any
> database more than every other legitimate invocation, as it doesn't use
> any hacks except reversing order of transactions performed.
> In term of databases it's not rollback - but contrary to RDBMSes here this
> doesn't matter; primary difference is that standalone database has
> strictly specified and controlled I/O vectors, while rpm in properly
> used system cannot track data, but metadata only; in *sql it's not normal
> usage-scenario when someone replaces blob using filesystem tools, so the
> assumption of data consistency is solid.
> 

*sigh*

You are so busy trolling me that you haven't bothered
to look at what is implemented in RPM.

For starters:

1) rpm-5.3.x+ embeds sqlite3 so that databases imports/exports
are integrated with package management. There is no reason why
postgresql cannot be implemented the same way, just that sqlite3
is a simpler API if/when attempting an embedding.

2) TPPM *uses* Berkeley DB ACID logs to extend to
file system and scriptlet operations.

Uts incoherent/inconsistent (and ignorant) to challeng
me to upgrade a postgresql master server with packaging
at the dame time you are claiming that a perl 1-liner
is an adequate replacement for --rollback.

>> So write a perl sc riot that permits upgrading postgresql
>> masters now that you have solved --rollback with one line of perl.
> 
> I ain't solved --rollback, just replaced it with something usable.
> 

Good: You are still an ignorant troll.

73 de Jeff
> -- 
> Tomasz Pala <gotar at pld-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 lukasz at chrustek.net  Mon Sep 24 00:45:26 2012
From: lukasz at chrustek.net (=?windows-1250?Q?=A3ukasz_Chrustek?=)
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 00:45:26 +0200
Subject: rpm 5.x in Th
In-Reply-To: <9FAE2C10-DA38-40CC-B389-D9C139A9C9E3@me.com>
References: <20120922084736.GA1623@home.lan>
 <772713033.20120922185940@chrustek.net>
 <2E5E2840-C6C1-4C8E-9444-E145CEE5ECFA@me.com>
 <1012833912.20120922220045@chrustek.net>
 <1FF06B47-7329-44B6-BD76-2AC7B9585063@me.com>
 <20120923084306.GA6218@polanet.pl>
 <3548537E-EF6B-4948-B57C-B9C71D976695@me.com>
 <20120923211821.GB6629@polanet.pl>
 <7DA3C234-1C12-4CEF-B400-08942F4204A4@me.com>
 <20120923215032.GE6629@polanet.pl>
 <D71F32B3-9BDA-4F42-AEF0-248FD06B0C63@me.com>
 <1351296484.20120924001338@chrustek.net>
 <9FAE2C10-DA38-40CC-B389-D9C139A9C9E3@me.com>
Message-ID: <68451307.20120924004526@chrustek.net>

Witam,


> On Sep 23, 2012, at 6:13 PM, ?ukasz Chrustek <lukasz at chrustek.net> wrote:

>> Hello,
>> 
>>>> 3. "when the disk isn't/wasn't working properly, every solution is utterly useless"
>> 
>>> You are clueless: saving state remotely permits an
>>> entire machine to be recreated when hard drives fail.
>> 
>>> Backups and off-site storage are well known remedies
>>> for hard drive failures.
>> 
>> You  are  writing  about  some  strange  (complicated  and not easy to
>> implement)  solutions. I like the rollback behavior in old rpm, it was
>> working  in  the way I expect. Now You, as author of rpm, are writing,
>> that  I'm  only  person in the world, which is using this option... If
>> so,  don't  bother  anymore,  but  leaving  this  option  in --help is
>> missleading for me, but as You stated earlier - only for me.
>> 

> I am trying to warn -- politely -- that you are in uncharted
> and unsupported waters if relying on --rollback as it used to
> exist in RPM.

OK,  understand. Now it isn't working anyway (and I think, that should
be  removed  -  but it is Your project), so I need to be more carefull
(to not have the reason to use --rollbacke) and write some scripts now
to make my own --rollback.


> Hint: I release @rpm5.org (and run continuous integration
> in buildbots) with repackaging enabled.

> Every distro I am aware of disables repackaging, and most
> user comments I have read suggest disabling to save disk space.

I'm  using  repackege,  and  I  think  that  in PLD there is more such
persons.  Now using repackege (FOR ME) will change, but I will use it,
because I'm testing some new versions, and sometimes I don't have time
to  finish  tests.  Then  I  ... yes - were using rollback to fast and
easly  return  to  working  version,  next day/night I could return to
testing  (this procedure were used by me _sometimes_ on production env
- after testing number of upgraded packeges by poldek -u -t package)

> Sorry: I get gang-raped repeatedly by trolls. These
> days I have zero tolerance:
>         You want a flamefest? Fine by me ?

I  don't  want/need  flamefest.  This  'piece'  of You take to another
mailing list.

> But yes this thread is a total waste of time trivially solved
> by some minor thought and scripting.

> But --rollback in an RPM context is something other than a perl
> 1-liner.

Yes.  I  can  see.  But,  please  do  not  involve  some  file  system
transaction into it :)

-- 
regards,
 ?ukasz Chrustek



From n3npq at me.com  Mon Sep 24 00:53:45 2012
From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson)
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 18:53:45 -0400
Subject: rpm 5.x in Th
In-Reply-To: <68451307.20120924004526@chrustek.net>
References: <20120922084736.GA1623@home.lan>
 <772713033.20120922185940@chrustek.net>
 <2E5E2840-C6C1-4C8E-9444-E145CEE5ECFA@me.com>
 <1012833912.20120922220045@chrustek.net>
 <1FF06B47-7329-44B6-BD76-2AC7B9585063@me.com>
 <20120923084306.GA6218@polanet.pl>
 <3548537E-EF6B-4948-B57C-B9C71D976695@me.com>
 <20120923211821.GB6629@polanet.pl>
 <7DA3C234-1C12-4CEF-B400-08942F4204A4@me.com>
 <20120923215032.GE6629@polanet.pl>
 <D71F32B3-9BDA-4F42-AEF0-248FD06B0C63@me.com>
 <1351296484.20120924001338@chrustek.net>
 <9FAE2C10-DA38-40CC-B389-D9C139A9C9E3@me.com>
 <68451307.20120924004526@chrustek.net>
Message-ID: <DA436AA9-6C94-4FBC-95F4-40D095E91429@me.com>


On Sep 23, 2012, at 6:45 PM, ?ukasz Chrustek <lukasz at chrustek.net> wrote:

> 
>> I am trying to warn -- politely -- that you are in uncharted
>> and unsupported waters if relying on --rollback as it used to
>> exist in RPM.
> 
> OK,  understand. Now it isn't working anyway (and I think, that should
> be  removed  -  but it is Your project), so I need to be more carefull
> (to not have the reason to use --rollbacke) and write some scripts now
> to make my own --rollback.
> 

Hint: if you asked -- nicely -- and gave me a reproducer
I could likely repair whatever (likely modest) damage exists
with --rollback. There's nothing in the rpm C implementation
that isn't in the perl 1-liner, just untested.

Or rip out --rollback in RPM if "false advertising"
is the problem. Deleting code is utterly simple patching.

> 
>> Hint: I release @rpm5.org (and run continuous integration
>> in buildbots) with repackaging enabled.
> 
>> Every distro I am aware of disables repackaging, and most
>> user comments I have read suggest disabling to save disk space.
> 
> I'm  using  repackege,  and  I  think  that  in PLD there is more such
> persons.  Now using repackege (FOR ME) will change, but I will use it,
> because I'm testing some new versions, and sometimes I don't have time
> to  finish  tests.  Then  I  ... yes - were using rollback to fast and
> easly  return  to  working  version,  next day/night I could return to
> testing  (this procedure were used by me _sometimes_ on production env
> - after testing number of upgraded packeges by poldek -u -t package)
> 

There are usage cases for repackaging no matter how/why --rollback
is implemented.

>> Sorry: I get gang-raped repeatedly by trolls. These
>> days I have zero tolerance:
>>        You want a flamefest? Fine by me ?
> 
> I  don't  want/need  flamefest.  This  'piece'  of You take to another
> mailing list.
> 

I don't want a flamefest either. Howvere, I am entirely in
reactive mode: PLD chose when to upgrade to @rpm5.org, and
bugs appear outside of my control.

Hint: try launchpad.net/rpm bug reporting (and/or blueprints)
if you wish to avoid flamefests.

>> But yes this thread is a total waste of time trivially solved
>> by some minor thought and scripting.
> 
>> But --rollback in an RPM context is something other than a perl
>> 1-liner.
> 
> Yes.  I  can  see.  But,  please  do  not  involve  some  file  system
> transaction into it :)
> 

The issues involved in logging 10-20 system calls are
rather trivial compared to the issues of transactionally
protecting (possibly buggy!) scriptlet operations.

73 de Jeff

> -- 
> regards,
> ?ukasz Chrustek
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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  Mon Sep 24 10:17:01 2012
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?ISO-8859-2?Q?Elan_Ruusam=E4e?=)
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 11:17:01 +0300
Subject: rpm 5.x in Th
In-Reply-To: <1351296484.20120924001338@chrustek.net>
References: <20120922084736.GA1623@home.lan>
 <772713033.20120922185940@chrustek.net>
 <2E5E2840-C6C1-4C8E-9444-E145CEE5ECFA@me.com>
 <1012833912.20120922220045@chrustek.net>
 <1FF06B47-7329-44B6-BD76-2AC7B9585063@me.com>
 <20120923084306.GA6218@polanet.pl>
 <3548537E-EF6B-4948-B57C-B9C71D976695@me.com>
 <20120923211821.GB6629@polanet.pl>
 <7DA3C234-1C12-4CEF-B400-08942F4204A4@me.com>
 <20120923215032.GE6629@polanet.pl>
 <D71F32B3-9BDA-4F42-AEF0-248FD06B0C63@me.com>
 <1351296484.20120924001338@chrustek.net>
Message-ID: <506016FD.9000707@pld-linux.org>

On 24.09.2012 01:13, ?ukasz Chrustek wrote:
> Do  You  (other PLD users/devs) use repackege only with --oldpackage ?
> Noone  is/were  using  --rollback  ? Or - You don't use repackage :P ?
> You never regret installing new versions of some rpms:)  ?
i never knew --rollback option existed, so haven't used it. but i knew 
about repackage.

so i've manually added packages to commandline until the dependencies 
satisfy again, and then the --nomd5 option.

last time i had upgraded python and found that moinmoin stopped working 
on it, so some symlinks (it was easier to symlink files and then rm ones 
i did not want to downgrade) and rpm -Fhv *.rpm --downgrade --nomd5

lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   46 sept  16 16:02 
apache-mod_python-3.3.1-10.i686.rpm -> 
1347802776/apache-mod_python-3.3.1-10.i686.rpm
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   38 sept  16 16:01 moinmoin-1.5.8-1.noarch.rpm 
-> 1347802449/moinmoin-1.5.8-1.noarch.rpm
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   33 sept  16 16:01 pydoc-2.6.5-3.i686.rpm -> 
1347802776/pydoc-2.6.5-3.i686.rpm
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   34 sept  16 16:01 python-2.6.5-3.i686.rpm -> 
1347802776/python-2.6.5-3.i686.rpm
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   46 sept  16 16:01 
python-configobj-4.5.3-2.noarch.rpm -> 
1347802776/python-configobj-4.5.3-2.noarch.rpm
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   46 sept  16 16:01 
python-devel-tools-2.6.5-3.i686.rpm -> 
1347802776/python-devel-tools-2.6.5-3.i686.rpm
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   44 sept  16 16:01 
python-itools-0.13.2-2.noarch.rpm -> 
1347802776/python-itools-0.13.2-2.noarch.rpm
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   39 sept  16 16:01 python-libs-2.6.5-3.i686.rpm 
-> 1347802776/python-libs-2.6.5-3.i686.rpm
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   42 sept  16 16:01 
python-modules-2.6.5-3.i686.rpm -> 
1347802776/python-modules-2.6.5-3.i686.rpm
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   43 sept  16 16:01 
python-pylibacl-0.2.2-2.i686.rpm -> 
1347802776/python-pylibacl-0.2.2-2.i686.rpm
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   42 sept  16 16:01 
python-pyxattr-0.4.0-2.i686.rpm -> 
1347802776/python-pyxattr-0.4.0-2.i686.rpm
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   40 sept  16 16:01 python-PyXML-0.8.4-8.i686.rpm 
-> 1347802776/python-PyXML-0.8.4-8.i686.rpm
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   40 sept  16 16:02 rdiff-backup-1.2.8-1.i686.rpm 
-> 1347802776/rdiff-backup-1.2.8-1.i686.rpm


and a result:
$ pkgbytime |grep 'Sun Sep 16 16'
Sun Sep 16 16:02:38 2012 python-libs-2.6.5-3.i686
Sun Sep 16 16:02:40 2012 python-modules-2.6.5-3.i686
Sun Sep 16 16:02:41 2012 python-2.6.5-3.i686
Sun Sep 16 16:02:42 2012 python-PyXML-0.8.4-8.i686
Sun Sep 16 16:02:43 2012 python-devel-tools-2.6.5-3.i686
Sun Sep 16 16:02:44 2012 pydoc-2.6.5-3.i686
Sun Sep 16 16:02:44 2012 python-pylibacl-0.2.2-2.i686
Sun Sep 16 16:02:44 2012 python-pyxattr-0.4.0-2.i686
Sun Sep 16 16:02:46 2012 python-itools-0.13.2-2.noarch
Sun Sep 16 16:02:47 2012 python-configobj-4.5.3-2.noarch
Sun Sep 16 16:02:47 2012 rdiff-backup-1.2.8-1.i686
Sun Sep 16 16:02:48 2012 apache-mod_python-3.3.1-10.i686
Sun Sep 16 16:07:00 2012 moinmoin-1.5.8-1.noarch

-- 
glen



From kiesiu at pld-linux.org  Mon Sep 24 11:52:55 2012
From: kiesiu at pld-linux.org (Lukasz Kies)
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 11:52:55 +0200
Subject: lists.pld-linux.org - ipv6 connection timed out
Message-ID: <CADDE8wNnd+Hc460wO6xVKV43YzSqhsmj+PeMk_w3n9OHfvUVtA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

Connection to lists.pld-linux.org on ipv6 doesn't work.

Resolving lists.pld-linux.org (lists.pld-linux.org)...
2001:1a68:0:a:20f::4, 217.149.246.4
Connecting to lists.pld-linux.org
(lists.pld-linux.org)|2001:1a68:0:a:20f::4|:80... failed: Connection
timed out.
Connecting to lists.pld-linux.org
(lists.pld-linux.org)|217.149.246.4|:80... connected.

-- 
Regards,
Lukasz


From arekm at maven.pl  Mon Sep 24 12:52:38 2012
From: arekm at maven.pl (Arkadiusz =?utf-8?q?Mi=C5=9Bkiewicz?=)
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 12:52:38 +0200
Subject: lists.pld-linux.org - ipv6 connection timed out
In-Reply-To: <CADDE8wNnd+Hc460wO6xVKV43YzSqhsmj+PeMk_w3n9OHfvUVtA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADDE8wNnd+Hc460wO6xVKV43YzSqhsmj+PeMk_w3n9OHfvUVtA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <201209241252.38697.arekm@maven.pl>

On Monday 24 of September 2012, Lukasz Kies wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Connection to lists.pld-linux.org on ipv6 doesn't work.
> 
> Resolving lists.pld-linux.org (lists.pld-linux.org)...
> 2001:1a68:0:a:20f::4, 217.149.246.4
> Connecting to lists.pld-linux.org
> (lists.pld-linux.org)|2001:1a68:0:a:20f::4|:80... failed: Connection
> timed out.
> Connecting to lists.pld-linux.org
> (lists.pld-linux.org)|217.149.246.4|:80... connected.

akcyza (machine where lists are hosted) lacks ipv6 gateway set (no RA send on 
operator side).

Unfortunately adamg is unreachable for weeks and we cannot fix this without 
him (or information from him).

-- 
Arkadiusz Mi?kiewicz, arekm / maven.pl


From glen at pld-linux.org  Mon Sep 24 13:21:54 2012
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Elan_Ruusam=E4e?=)
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 14:21:54 +0300
Subject: www.pld-linux.org new wiki
Message-ID: <50604252.20305@pld-linux.org>

The 6 year old unmaintained MoinMoin installation at 
http://www.pld-linux.org/
will be replaced with DokuWiki installation

the converted site is available for testing at https://www.pld-linux.org/

authentication is based on cvs password login hashes

if you want to play with dokuwiki, do it in playground

https://www.dokuwiki.org/playground:playground
https://www.pld-linux.org/playground/playground

actual switch is planned at the end of the week, maybe will be done
sooner depending on circumstances

-- 
glen



From n3npq at me.com  Mon Sep 24 15:34:47 2012
From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson)
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 09:34:47 -0400
Subject: rpm 5.x in Th
In-Reply-To: <506016FD.9000707@pld-linux.org>
References: <20120922084736.GA1623@home.lan>
 <772713033.20120922185940@chrustek.net>
 <2E5E2840-C6C1-4C8E-9444-E145CEE5ECFA@me.com>
 <1012833912.20120922220045@chrustek.net>
 <1FF06B47-7329-44B6-BD76-2AC7B9585063@me.com>
 <20120923084306.GA6218@polanet.pl>
 <3548537E-EF6B-4948-B57C-B9C71D976695@me.com>
 <20120923211821.GB6629@polanet.pl>
 <7DA3C234-1C12-4CEF-B400-08942F4204A4@me.com>
 <20120923215032.GE6629@polanet.pl>
 <D71F32B3-9BDA-4F42-AEF0-248FD06B0C63@me.com>
 <1351296484.20120924001338@chrustek.net> <506016FD.9000707@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <7A8E4655-1CB6-4B3C-93FE-7EADB1A359EE@me.com>


On Sep 24, 2012, at 4:17 AM, Elan Ruusam?e wrote:

> On 24.09.2012 01:13, ?ukasz Chrustek wrote:
>> Do  You  (other PLD users/devs) use repackege only with --oldpackage ?
>> Noone  is/were  using  --rollback  ? Or - You don't use repackage :P ?
>> You never regret installing new versions of some rpms:)  ?
> i never knew --rollback option existed, so haven't used it. but i knew about repackage.
> 
> so i've manually added packages to commandline until the dependencies satisfy again, and then the --nomd5 option.
> 

The --nomd5 option is now renamed to --nofdigests.

And there is a --nofsync option that will speed up installs more than --nofdigests will
(and entirely voids your ACID warranty: if logs/data aren't synced to disk sh*t WILL happen).

> last time i had upgraded python and found that moinmoin stopped working on it, so some symlinks (it was easier to symlink files and then rm ones i did not want to downgrade) and rpm -Fhv *.rpm --downgrade --nomd5
> 

Your symlink trick is clever but I don't recall any serious measurement of performance.

> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   46 sept  16 16:02 apache-mod_python-3.3.1-10.i686.rpm -> 1347802776/apache-mod_python-3.3.1-10.i686.rpm
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   38 sept  16 16:01 moinmoin-1.5.8-1.noarch.rpm -> 1347802449/moinmoin-1.5.8-1.noarch.rpm
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   33 sept  16 16:01 pydoc-2.6.5-3.i686.rpm -> 1347802776/pydoc-2.6.5-3.i686.rpm
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   34 sept  16 16:01 python-2.6.5-3.i686.rpm -> 1347802776/python-2.6.5-3.i686.rpm
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   46 sept  16 16:01 python-configobj-4.5.3-2.noarch.rpm -> 1347802776/python-configobj-4.5.3-2.noarch.rpm
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   46 sept  16 16:01 python-devel-tools-2.6.5-3.i686.rpm -> 1347802776/python-devel-tools-2.6.5-3.i686.rpm
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   44 sept  16 16:01 python-itools-0.13.2-2.noarch.rpm -> 1347802776/python-itools-0.13.2-2.noarch.rpm
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   39 sept  16 16:01 python-libs-2.6.5-3.i686.rpm -> 1347802776/python-libs-2.6.5-3.i686.rpm
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   42 sept  16 16:01 python-modules-2.6.5-3.i686.rpm -> 1347802776/python-modules-2.6.5-3.i686.rpm
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   43 sept  16 16:01 python-pylibacl-0.2.2-2.i686.rpm -> 1347802776/python-pylibacl-0.2.2-2.i686.rpm
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   42 sept  16 16:01 python-pyxattr-0.4.0-2.i686.rpm -> 1347802776/python-pyxattr-0.4.0-2.i686.rpm
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   40 sept  16 16:01 python-PyXML-0.8.4-8.i686.rpm -> 1347802776/python-PyXML-0.8.4-8.i686.rpm
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root   40 sept  16 16:02 rdiff-backup-1.2.8-1.i686.rpm -> 1347802776/rdiff-backup-1.2.8-1.i686.rpm
> 
> 
> and a result:
> $ pkgbytime |grep 'Sun Sep 16 16'
> Sun Sep 16 16:02:38 2012 python-libs-2.6.5-3.i686
> Sun Sep 16 16:02:40 2012 python-modules-2.6.5-3.i686
> Sun Sep 16 16:02:41 2012 python-2.6.5-3.i686
> Sun Sep 16 16:02:42 2012 python-PyXML-0.8.4-8.i686
> Sun Sep 16 16:02:43 2012 python-devel-tools-2.6.5-3.i686
> Sun Sep 16 16:02:44 2012 pydoc-2.6.5-3.i686
> Sun Sep 16 16:02:44 2012 python-pylibacl-0.2.2-2.i686
> Sun Sep 16 16:02:44 2012 python-pyxattr-0.4.0-2.i686
> Sun Sep 16 16:02:46 2012 python-itools-0.13.2-2.noarch
> Sun Sep 16 16:02:47 2012 python-configobj-4.5.3-2.noarch
> Sun Sep 16 16:02:47 2012 rdiff-backup-1.2.8-1.i686
> Sun Sep 16 16:02:48 2012 apache-mod_python-3.3.1-10.i686
> Sun Sep 16 16:07:00 2012 moinmoin-1.5.8-1.noarch
> 

Is this result successful or not?

73 de Jeff

> -- 
> 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 glen at pld-linux.org  Mon Sep 24 15:56:12 2012
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?ISO-8859-2?Q?Elan_Ruusam=E4e?=)
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 16:56:12 +0300
Subject: rpm 5.x in Th
In-Reply-To: <7A8E4655-1CB6-4B3C-93FE-7EADB1A359EE@me.com>
References: <20120922084736.GA1623@home.lan>
 <772713033.20120922185940@chrustek.net>
 <2E5E2840-C6C1-4C8E-9444-E145CEE5ECFA@me.com>
 <1012833912.20120922220045@chrustek.net>
 <1FF06B47-7329-44B6-BD76-2AC7B9585063@me.com>
 <20120923084306.GA6218@polanet.pl>
 <3548537E-EF6B-4948-B57C-B9C71D976695@me.com>
 <20120923211821.GB6629@polanet.pl>
 <7DA3C234-1C12-4CEF-B400-08942F4204A4@me.com>
 <20120923215032.GE6629@polanet.pl>
 <D71F32B3-9BDA-4F42-AEF0-248FD06B0C63@me.com>
 <1351296484.20120924001338@chrustek.net> <506016FD.9000707@pld-linux.org>
 <7A8E4655-1CB6-4B3C-93FE-7EADB1A359EE@me.com>
Message-ID: <5060667C.9050606@pld-linux.org>

On 24.09.2012 16:34, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
>> >last time i had upgraded python and found that moinmoin stopped working on it, so some symlinks (it was easier to symlink files and then rm ones i did not want to downgrade) and rpm -Fhv *.rpm --downgrade --nomd5
>> >
> Your symlink trick is clever but I don't recall any serious measurement of performance.

it's not because of performance, it's because this how i picked packages 
to downgrade:
0. cd /var/spool/repackage
1. ln -s */python*.rpm .
2. ln -s */somethingelse* .
3. rm *not*this*.rpm *not*that*.rpm
4. ls # to verify

or you mean my own performance? yes, i performed the upgrade a lot 
faster than looking each package which needed downgrade as well due new 
python bytecode dependency missing :)

i personally don't like --force & --nodeps (like gotar snippet),
so i tried to pick packages that resulted all dependencies remaining 
okay after downgrade.

> >
> >and a result:
> >$ pkgbytime |grep 'Sun Sep 16 16'
> >Sun Sep 16 16:02:38 2012 python-libs-2.6.5-3.i686
> >Sun Sep 16 16:02:40 2012 python-modules-2.6.5-3.i686
> >Sun Sep 16 16:02:41 2012 python-2.6.5-3.i686
> >Sun Sep 16 16:02:42 2012 python-PyXML-0.8.4-8.i686
> >Sun Sep 16 16:02:43 2012 python-devel-tools-2.6.5-3.i686
> >Sun Sep 16 16:02:44 2012 pydoc-2.6.5-3.i686
> >Sun Sep 16 16:02:44 2012 python-pylibacl-0.2.2-2.i686
> >Sun Sep 16 16:02:44 2012 python-pyxattr-0.4.0-2.i686
> >Sun Sep 16 16:02:46 2012 python-itools-0.13.2-2.noarch
> >Sun Sep 16 16:02:47 2012 python-configobj-4.5.3-2.noarch
> >Sun Sep 16 16:02:47 2012 rdiff-backup-1.2.8-1.i686
> >Sun Sep 16 16:02:48 2012 apache-mod_python-3.3.1-10.i686
> >Sun Sep 16 16:07:00 2012 moinmoin-1.5.8-1.noarch
> >
> Is this result successful or not?
yes py 2.7 -> py 2.6 downgrade was success


-- 
glen



From glen at pld-linux.org  Mon Sep 24 16:10:32 2012
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Elan_Ruusam=E4e?=)
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 17:10:32 +0300
Subject: git - renaming already existing package
In-Reply-To: <20120910174512.GA7192@mail>
References: <20120908200836.GA1790@mail> <20120910174512.GA7192@mail>
Message-ID: <506069D8.7010304@pld-linux.org>

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?

or the trash part should be done manually?

-- 
glen



From n3npq at me.com  Mon Sep 24 16:13:56 2012
From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson)
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 10:13:56 -0400
Subject: rpm 5.x in Th
In-Reply-To: <5060667C.9050606@pld-linux.org>
References: <20120922084736.GA1623@home.lan>
 <772713033.20120922185940@chrustek.net>
 <2E5E2840-C6C1-4C8E-9444-E145CEE5ECFA@me.com>
 <1012833912.20120922220045@chrustek.net>
 <1FF06B47-7329-44B6-BD76-2AC7B9585063@me.com>
 <20120923084306.GA6218@polanet.pl>
 <3548537E-EF6B-4948-B57C-B9C71D976695@me.com>
 <20120923211821.GB6629@polanet.pl>
 <7DA3C234-1C12-4CEF-B400-08942F4204A4@me.com>
 <20120923215032.GE6629@polanet.pl>
 <D71F32B3-9BDA-4F42-AEF0-248FD06B0C63@me.com>
 <1351296484.20120924001338@chrustek.net> <506016FD.9000707@pld-linux.org>
 <7A8E4655-1CB6-4B3C-93FE-7EADB1A359EE@me.com> <5060667C.9050606@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <571F6650-53C7-4585-9DE2-1C45A2B56617@me.com>


On Sep 24, 2012, at 9:56 AM, Elan Ruusam?e wrote:

> On 24.09.2012 16:34, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
>>> >last time i had upgraded python and found that moinmoin stopped working on it, so some symlinks (it was easier to symlink files and then rm ones i did not want to downgrade) and rpm -Fhv *.rpm --downgrade --nomd5
>>> >
>> Your symlink trick is clever but I don't recall any serious measurement of performance.
> 
> it's not because of performance, it's because this how i picked packages to downgrade:
> 0. cd /var/spool/repackage
> 1. ln -s */python*.rpm .
> 2. ln -s */somethingelse* .
> 3. rm *not*this*.rpm *not*that*.rpm
> 4. ls # to verify
> 

I am (mis-?)remembering a claim of using symlinks instead of copying file content
with paths from packages that you claimed speeded up installs from a few years back.

But using symlinks for packages (not package files) hasn't anything to do with package operations.

> or you mean my own performance? yes, i performed the upgrade a lot faster than looking each package which needed downgrade as well due new python bytecode dependency missing :)
> 
> i personally don't like --force & --nodeps (like gotar snippet),
> so i tried to pick packages that resulted all dependencies remaining okay after downgrade.
> 

Try --nofsync when setting up chroot's (or doing operations where you are prepared yo
discard everything the operation fails). The fsync() operation is as costly as --nofdigests).

>> 
>> Is this result successful or not?
> yes py 2.7 -> py 2.6 downgrade was success
> 
Good.
> 
> -- 
> 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 glen at pld-linux.org  Mon Sep 24 16:37:20 2012
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Elan_Ruusam=E4e?=)
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 17:37:20 +0300
Subject: (sym?-)links (Re: rpm 5.x in Th)
In-Reply-To: <571F6650-53C7-4585-9DE2-1C45A2B56617@me.com>
References: <20120922084736.GA1623@home.lan>
 <772713033.20120922185940@chrustek.net>
 <2E5E2840-C6C1-4C8E-9444-E145CEE5ECFA@me.com>
 <1012833912.20120922220045@chrustek.net>
 <1FF06B47-7329-44B6-BD76-2AC7B9585063@me.com>
 <20120923084306.GA6218@polanet.pl>
 <3548537E-EF6B-4948-B57C-B9C71D976695@me.com>
 <20120923211821.GB6629@polanet.pl>
 <7DA3C234-1C12-4CEF-B400-08942F4204A4@me.com>
 <20120923215032.GE6629@polanet.pl>
 <D71F32B3-9BDA-4F42-AEF0-248FD06B0C63@me.com>
 <1351296484.20120924001338@chrustek.net> <506016FD.9000707@pld-linux.org>
 <7A8E4655-1CB6-4B3C-93FE-7EADB1A359EE@me.com>
 <5060667C.9050606@pld-linux.org>
 <571F6650-53C7-4585-9DE2-1C45A2B56617@me.com>
Message-ID: <50607020.4030803@pld-linux.org>

On 24.09.2012 17:13, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
> I am (mis-?)remembering a claim of using symlinks instead of copying file content
> with paths from packages that you claimed speeded up installs from a few years back.
you probably remember case when links were used at PACKAGE BUILDING time

if that was the case, then there were used hardlinks instead of file 
copies to transfer files from BUILD-dir to $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

and it came up as discussion as when a symlink was hardlinked, weird 
behaviour was found that the hardlinked symlinks appeared nowhere after 
package install

and symlinks were hardlinked because the hardlinking procedure used cp 
-al DIR where DIR contained symlinks

-- 
glen



From n3npq at me.com  Mon Sep 24 17:28:38 2012
From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson)
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 11:28:38 -0400
Subject: (sym?-)links (Re: rpm 5.x in Th)
In-Reply-To: <50607020.4030803@pld-linux.org>
References: <20120922084736.GA1623@home.lan>
 <772713033.20120922185940@chrustek.net>
 <2E5E2840-C6C1-4C8E-9444-E145CEE5ECFA@me.com>
 <1012833912.20120922220045@chrustek.net>
 <1FF06B47-7329-44B6-BD76-2AC7B9585063@me.com>
 <20120923084306.GA6218@polanet.pl>
 <3548537E-EF6B-4948-B57C-B9C71D976695@me.com>
 <20120923211821.GB6629@polanet.pl>
 <7DA3C234-1C12-4CEF-B400-08942F4204A4@me.com>
 <20120923215032.GE6629@polanet.pl>
 <D71F32B3-9BDA-4F42-AEF0-248FD06B0C63@me.com>
 <1351296484.20120924001338@chrustek.net> <506016FD.9000707@pld-linux.org>
 <7A8E4655-1CB6-4B3C-93FE-7EADB1A359EE@me.com> <5060667C.9050606@pld-linux.org>
 <571F6650-53C7-4585-9DE2-1C45A2B56617@me.com> <50607020.4030803@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <185303B5-4068-43A9-806A-7032CBF67284@me.com>


On Sep 24, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Elan Ruusam?e wrote:

> On 24.09.2012 17:13, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
>> I am (mis-?)remembering a claim of using symlinks instead of copying file content
>> with paths from packages that you claimed speeded up installs from a few years back.
> you probably remember case when links were used at PACKAGE BUILDING time
> 
> if that was the case, then there were used hardlinks instead of file copies to transfer files from BUILD-dir to $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> 
> and it came up as discussion as when a symlink was hardlinked, weird behaviour was found that the hardlinked symlinks appeared nowhere after package install
> 
> and symlinks were hardlinked because the hardlinking procedure used cp -al DIR where DIR contained symlinks
> 

Ah he's hard linked symlinks not handled correctly by rpm.

Likely fixable now: at the time you reported, there was a re-release of
a CVE about removing hardlinks on files during erasure which trumped
your bug: the wiser course at the time seemed to be not to to disrupt
the paranoid security types with too much info regarding
	hardlink -> symlink -> setuid/setgid
so that the re-release of the CVE might deploy on schedule.

73 de Jeff

> -- 
> 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 qboosh at pld-linux.org  Tue Sep 25 06:40:13 2012
From: qboosh at pld-linux.org (Jakub Bogusz)
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 06:40:13 +0200
Subject: gstreamer 0.10/1.0 policy
Message-ID: <20120925044013.GA8999@mail>

gstreamer 1.0 has been released.
It's mostly (at least on libraries/plugins) level parallel-installable
with 0.10.
Every package targeted to gstreamer 0.10 would require some effort to switch
to 1.0 (at least change pkg-config check, I'm now aware of API changes).

What to do now? I see a few possibilities:
- keep gstreamer 0.10 using current names, package 1.0 as gstreamer1-*
  (it's not what I'd like)
- keep gstreamer 0.10 packages as gstreamer0.10-*, upgrade gstreamer-*
  packages to 1.0 (old external gst 0.10 plugins not ported yet are to
  be renamed to gstreamer0.10-*)
- just upgrade gstreamer-* to 1.0, drop all plugins/packages requiring
  gst 0.10 not ported yet

Has someone looked what the other distros do?


-- 
Jakub Bogusz    http://qboosh.pl/


From kiesiu at pld-linux.org  Tue Sep 25 08:33:20 2012
From: kiesiu at pld-linux.org (Lukasz Kies)
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 08:33:20 +0200
Subject: gstreamer 0.10/1.0 policy
In-Reply-To: <20120925044013.GA8999@mail>
References: <20120925044013.GA8999@mail>
Message-ID: <CADDE8wOrzU0WcXmTA9tvvWgn__KoFH-uR_VAi4F3u9BAcUR70Q@mail.gmail.com>

2012/9/25 Jakub Bogusz <qboosh at pld-linux.org>:
> What to do now? I see a few possibilities:
> - keep gstreamer 0.10 using current names, package 1.0 as gstreamer1-*
>   (it's not what I'd like)
This is something like Fedora has.

> - keep gstreamer 0.10 packages as gstreamer0.10-*, upgrade gstreamer-*
>   packages to 1.0 (old external gst 0.10 plugins not ported yet are to
>   be renamed to gstreamer0.10-*)
This is the approach I like. For now I think 0.10 version could go to
branch GSTREAMER_0_10, and 1.0 on master. Then we could make
gstreamer0.10 if needed or port as many packages which are not
prepared for 1.0 API as we can whith those limited resources which we
have.

> - just upgrade gstreamer-* to 1.0, drop all plugins/packages requiring
>   gst 0.10 not ported yet
>
> Has someone looked what the other distros do?

Fedora has gstreamer1 as I wrote above, Arch has gstreamer0.10 and
gstreamer0.11.

-- 
Regards,
Lukasz


From glen at pld-linux.org  Tue Sep 25 10:28:17 2012
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Elan_Ruusam=E4e?=)
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:28:17 +0300
Subject: gstreamer 0.10/1.0 policy
In-Reply-To: <CADDE8wOrzU0WcXmTA9tvvWgn__KoFH-uR_VAi4F3u9BAcUR70Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20120925044013.GA8999@mail>
 <CADDE8wOrzU0WcXmTA9tvvWgn__KoFH-uR_VAi4F3u9BAcUR70Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <50616B21.9050809@pld-linux.org>

On 25.09.2012 09:33, Lukasz Kies wrote:
>> - keep gstreamer 0.10 packages as gstreamer0.10-*, upgrade gstreamer-*
>> >   packages to 1.0 (old external gst 0.10 plugins not ported yet are to
>> >   be renamed to gstreamer0.10-*)
> This is the approach I like. For now I think 0.10 version could go to
> branch GSTREAMER_0_10, and 1.0 on master. Then we could make
> gstreamer0.10 if needed or port as many packages which are not
> prepared for 1.0 API as we can whith those limited resources which we
> have.
>
i would go that way as well. as like it was with gstreamer08 packages, 
they existed for some time (which was luckily quite short time) until 
completely dropped from ftp

-- 
glen



From baggins at pld-linux.org  Tue Sep 25 11:26:54 2012
From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=)
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:26:54 +0200
Subject: gstreamer 0.10/1.0 policy
In-Reply-To: <20120925044013.GA8999@mail>
References: <20120925044013.GA8999@mail>
Message-ID: <20120925092654.GS20345@sith.mimuw.edu.pl>

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012, Jakub Bogusz wrote:

> gstreamer 1.0 has been released.
> It's mostly (at least on libraries/plugins) level parallel-installable
> with 0.10.
> Every package targeted to gstreamer 0.10 would require some effort to switch
> to 1.0 (at least change pkg-config check, I'm now aware of API changes).
> 
> What to do now? I see a few possibilities:
> - keep gstreamer 0.10 using current names, package 1.0 as gstreamer1-*
>   (it's not what I'd like)
> - keep gstreamer 0.10 packages as gstreamer0.10-*, upgrade gstreamer-*
>   packages to 1.0 (old external gst 0.10 plugins not ported yet are to
>   be renamed to gstreamer0.10-*)

This is best choice, and it will allow us to easily drop old packages
later.

> - just upgrade gstreamer-* to 1.0, drop all plugins/packages requiring
>   gst 0.10 not ported yet
> 
> Has someone looked what the other distros do?

-- 
Jan R?korajski                                 | PLD/Linux
SysAdm                                         | http://www.pld-linux.org/
baggins<at>mimuw.edu.pl
baggins<at>pld-linux.org


From zawadaa at gmail.com  Tue Sep 25 15:41:45 2012
From: zawadaa at gmail.com (Andrzej Zawadzki)
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 15:41:45 +0200
Subject: open-iscsi and init script
Message-ID: <5061B499.5010203@gmail.com>

   Hi!
   What is a proper way to configure new iscsi dev in PLD?
   For me easiest way is:
   1) add to /etc/init.d/iscsi these lines:
      force-start)
          force_start
          ;;
   2) start: service iscsi force-start
   3) edit initiatorname.iscsi
   4) run:

   iscsiadm -m discovery -t sendtargets -p $MY_SERVER

   iscsiadm --mode node --targetname $MY_TARGET_NAME --portal
   $MY_SERVER:3260 --login
   5) edit nodes (manual->automatic)
   6) service iscsi-devices start
   Works.
   Question: why "force-start" is unavailable?
   Mistake? Typo? Can I add it?
   ps. These tests are useless just after installed rpm:
   use_discoveryd() {
       grep -qrs "discovery.sendtargets.use_discoveryd = Yes"
   /etc/iscsi/send_targets
       if [ $? -eq 0 ] ; then
           return 0
       fi
       grep -qrs "discovery.isns.use_discoveryd = Yes" /etc/iscsi/isns
       if [ $? -eq 0 ] ; then
           return 0
       fi
       return 1
   }
   --
   Andrzej Zawadzki


From adamg at pld-linux.org  Tue Sep 25 18:36:46 2012
From: adamg at pld-linux.org (Adam Golebiowski)
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 18:36:46 +0200
Subject: lists.pld-linux.org - ipv6 connection timed out
In-Reply-To: <CADDE8wNnd+Hc460wO6xVKV43YzSqhsmj+PeMk_w3n9OHfvUVtA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADDE8wNnd+Hc460wO6xVKV43YzSqhsmj+PeMk_w3n9OHfvUVtA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5061DD9E.9010001@pld-linux.org>

W dniu 2012-09-24 11:52, Lukasz Kies pisze:
> Hi,
>
> Connection to lists.pld-linux.org on ipv6 doesn't work.

Should be ok now (with new ipv6 addrs)


-- 
adamg at pld-linux.org


From stacho at venco.com.pl  Wed Sep 26 17:52:26 2012
From: stacho at venco.com.pl (stacho)
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 17:52:26 +0200
Subject: dokuwiki-20120910-1.noarch
Message-ID: <2e5aecfaa0198a55ee3411d9e1fe03a6@venco.com.pl>

Hi!
I wanted to install dokuwiki-20120910-1.noarch and 
dokuwiki-setup-20120910-1.noarch.
On the http://localhost/dokuwiki/install.php I get a message that there 
are no directories
/usr/share/dokuwiki/conf (date, datapage, etc) despite the fact that 
these folders exist
in /var/cache/dokuwiki. And the "manual" mkdir installation stops with 
the message
with altered dokuwiki.php.
-- 
pzdr
Stacho Pal


From kiesiu at pld-linux.org  Thu Sep 27 08:24:09 2012
From: kiesiu at pld-linux.org (Lukasz Kies)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 08:24:09 +0200
Subject: filesystems pretrans does not work with rpm5?
Message-ID: <CADDE8wO4XrgFPxLtZaqZWghU3979Z458Kt6EJ89Ddj=Zw3nBXg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

filesystem's %pretrans script looks like doesn't work with rpm5. Has
something changed in our macros or somewhere else?

Error message:
error: Lua script failed: [string
"%pretrans(filesystem-4.0-13.x86_64)"]:2: attempt to index global
'posix' (a nil value)

pretrans:
%pretrans -p <lua>
-- this needs to be a dir
if posix.stat("/usr/include/X11", "type") == "link" then
    -- feel free to write in pure lua, but success on first install is
not important.
    os.execute("umask 022; mv -f /usr/include/X11{,.rpmsave}; mkdir
-m755 -p /usr/include/X11 && mv -f /usr/include/X11.rpmsave/*
/usr/include/X11")
end

-- 
Regards,
Lukasz


From glen at pld-linux.org  Thu Sep 13 08:22:22 2012
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?B?RWxhbiBSdXVzYW3DpGU=?=)
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 09:22:22 +0300
Subject: [packages/rpm] - disable removing duplicate ldconfig invocations
 optimization   http://rpm5.org/community/rpm-devel
In-Reply-To: <E69E0C4B-126B-431C-A5F8-A49485A064D3@me.com>
References: <6f54f6bd0ee636a105363c7a4bf69c7acda13085_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <b6aa06669d52acb5791a88eef2b8499391c5b44e_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <504D9C4D.30805@pld-linux.org> <E69E0C4B-126B-431C-A5F8-A49485A064D3@me.com>
Message-ID: <50517B9E.8060300@pld-linux.org>

On 09/10/2012 04:07 PM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
> On Sep 10, 2012, at 3:52 AM, Elan Ruusam?e wrote:
>
>> On 10.09.2012 09:12, baggins wrote:
>>> commit b6aa06669d52acb5791a88eef2b8499391c5b44e
>>> Author: Jan R?korajski<baggins at pld-linux.org>
>>> Date:   Sun Sep 9 19:18:20 2012 +0200
>>>
>>>      - disable removing duplicate ldconfig invocations optimization
>>>        http://rpm5.org/community/rpm-devel/5380.html
>> just to comment why optimization is not needed:
>> recent glibc caches ldconfig calls, so it's not that heavy, and besides fs cache should be hot as well
>>
> Subjective claims of "not that heavy" and "should be hot" do not support the
> conclusion "optimization is not needed" without measurements.
>
> Can you provide measurements?
cold, without cache:
# rm -f /var/cache/ldconfig/aux-cache
# time ldconfig

real    0m15.335s
user    0m0.063s
sys     0m0.160s

hot, without cache:
# rm -f /var/cache/ldconfig/aux-cache
# time ldconfig

real    0m0.068s
user    0m0.030s
sys     0m0.037s

# rm -f /var/cache/ldconfig/aux-cache
# time ldconfig

real    0m0.067s
user    0m0.040s
sys     0m0.027s
# rm -f /var/cache/ldconfig/aux-cache
# time ldconfig

real    0m0.068s
user    0m0.037s
sys     0m0.027s


>
> 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


-- 
glen



From n3npq at me.com  Fri Sep 28 03:32:44 2012
From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 21:32:44 -0400
Subject: [packages/rpm] - disable removing duplicate ldconfig invocations
 optimization   http://rpm5.org/community/rpm-devel
In-Reply-To: <50517B9E.8060300@pld-linux.org>
References: <6f54f6bd0ee636a105363c7a4bf69c7acda13085_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <b6aa06669d52acb5791a88eef2b8499391c5b44e_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <504D9C4D.30805@pld-linux.org> <E69E0C4B-126B-431C-A5F8-A49485A064D3@me.com>
 <50517B9E.8060300@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <26684E07-E4FA-4B9B-B2CF-7FE5AF22B356@me.com>


On Sep 13, 2012, at 2:22 AM, Elan Ruusam?e <glen at pld-linux.org> wrote:

> On 09/10/2012 04:07 PM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
>> On Sep 10, 2012, at 3:52 AM, Elan Ruusam?e wrote:
>> 
>>> On 10.09.2012 09:12, baggins wrote:
>>>> commit b6aa06669d52acb5791a88eef2b8499391c5b44e
>>>> Author: Jan R?korajski<baggins at pld-linux.org>
>>>> Date:   Sun Sep 9 19:18:20 2012 +0200
>>>> 
>>>>     - disable removing duplicate ldconfig invocations optimization
>>>>       http://rpm5.org/community/rpm-devel/5380.html
>>> just to comment why optimization is not needed:
>>> recent glibc caches ldconfig calls, so it's not that heavy, and besides fs cache should be hot as well
>>> 
>> Subjective claims of "not that heavy" and "should be hot" do not support the
>> conclusion "optimization is not needed" without measurements.
>> 
>> Can you provide measurements?
> cold, without cache:
> # rm -f /var/cache/ldconfig/aux-cache
> # time ldconfig
> 
> real    0m15.335s
> user    0m0.063s
> sys     0m0.160s
> 
> hot, without cache:
> # rm -f /var/cache/ldconfig/aux-cache
> # time ldconfig
> 
> real    0m0.068s
> user    0m0.030s
> sys     0m0.037s
> 
> # rm -f /var/cache/ldconfig/aux-cache
> # time ldconfig
> 
> real    0m0.067s
> user    0m0.040s
> sys     0m0.027s
> # rm -f /var/cache/ldconfig/aux-cache
> # time ldconfig
> 
> real    0m0.068s
> user    0m0.037s
> sys     0m0.027s
> 

Thank you for measurements.

What I see is I/O to initially read libraries is expensive,
regenerating the index is cheap. Re-reading loaded libraries
costs almost nothing.

So removing duplicate ldconfig calls in RPM matters hardly at all.

Agree?

73 de Jeff



From adamg at pld-linux.org  Fri Sep 28 09:35:55 2012
From: adamg at pld-linux.org (Adam Golebiowski)
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 09:35:55 +0200
Subject: fsck in rc.sysinit fails for the first time
Message-ID: <5065535B.105@pld-linux.org>

It happened for me for the second time.

Fresh install, pretty common setup - ext4 as rootfs on lvm on top of 
soft raid.

Right after reboot, startup fails on rc.sysinit's fsck (from 
check_root_fs()) with `unable to read superblock'. Happens each time, 
until I comment it out, boot the system and run fsck from there. After 
that fsck from rc.sysinit passes.

Anyone noticed that? Any clues?

-- 
adamg at pld-linux.org


From glen at pld-linux.org  Fri Sep 28 10:52:55 2012
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Elan_Ruusam=E4e?=)
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 11:52:55 +0300
Subject: fsck in rc.sysinit fails for the first time
In-Reply-To: <5065535B.105@pld-linux.org>
References: <5065535B.105@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <50656567.2080403@pld-linux.org>

On 28.09.2012 10:35, Adam Golebiowski wrote:
>
>
> Fresh install, pretty common setup - ext4 as rootfs on lvm on top of 
> soft raid.
pretty common is xfs on rootfs and lvm on top of hardware raid :D



-- 
glen



From wiget at pld-linux.org  Fri Sep 28 17:01:44 2012
From: wiget at pld-linux.org (Artur Frysiak)
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 17:01:44 +0200
Subject: fsck in rc.sysinit fails for the first time
In-Reply-To: <50656567.2080403@pld-linux.org>
References: <5065535B.105@pld-linux.org>
	<50656567.2080403@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <CAHxPtFpygGeXUesztTyFDNvFOpDg6+FvN-XbCgPRqCE9AQ=LcA@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Elan Ruusam?e <glen at pld-linux.org> wrote:

> On 28.09.2012 10:35, Adam Golebiowski wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Fresh install, pretty common setup - ext4 as rootfs on lvm on top of soft
>> raid.
>>
> pretty common is xfs on rootfs and lvm on top of hardware raid :D
>
pretty common is ext4 as rootfs on lvm on dm-crypt on top of one SATA disk
:-)

-- 
Artur Frysiak


From draenog at pld-linux.org  Fri Sep 28 17:46:52 2012
From: draenog at pld-linux.org (Kacper Kornet)
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 17:46:52 +0200
Subject: git - renaming already existing package
In-Reply-To: <506069D8.7010304@pld-linux.org>
References: <20120908200836.GA1790@mail> <20120910174512.GA7192@mail>
 <506069D8.7010304@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <20120928154652.GA8391@camk.edu.pl>

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.

-- 
  Kacper


From kiesiu at pld-linux.org  Sat Sep 29 11:19:35 2012
From: kiesiu at pld-linux.org (Lukasz Kies)
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 11:19:35 +0200
Subject: ciabot git post-receive hook
Message-ID: <CADDE8wMy3qQQ73tg8QmBf8gHtcoBHcvtG8vHO769qeYAYxOvRA@mail.gmail.com>

lang=en

Hi,
Can someone remove ciabot.pl post-receive hook from our git service?
Service is dead and wont be restored[1] and those "remote: XML-RPC
Error: " messages during git push are annoying.
Thanks.

lang=pl

Cze??,
Mo?e kto? usun?? uruchamianie ciabot.pl z post-receive hook z naszego git-a?
Cia.cv le?y i nie b?dzie przywr?cone, bo nie ma z czego[1] a b??dy
"remote: XML-RPC Error: " przy git push zaczynaj? by? irytuj?ce.
Dzi?ki.

[1] http://cia.vc


-- 
?ukasz


From glen at pld-linux.org  Sat Sep 29 12:42:33 2012
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Elan_Ruusam=E4e?=)
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 13:42:33 +0300
Subject: packages case sensitivity
Message-ID: <5066D099.7020309@pld-linux.org>

seems github packages are case insensitive, perhaps we should limit 
similarily in pld to disallow creating packages that differ just 
character case?

glen at carme-pld packages/keepassx $ ../builder -a keepassx.spec
Initialized empty Git repository in 
/cvs/root/gitolite/repositories/packages/keepassx.git/
Cannot create repository keepassx on github
Problem with creating gihub mirror for packages/keepassx at 
/home/services/git/adc/bin/create line 27.
Error: failed to add package to PLD repo.
glen at carme-pld packages/keepassx $

https://github.com/pld-linux/keepassx

https://github.com/pld-linux/KeePassX/commits/master/

only problem i see ahead is that if character case cames from package 
rename. for example i'd like to normalize this package name to be 
keepassx, not KeePassX

-- 
glen



From aredridel at nbtsc.org  Sat Sep 29 19:02:06 2012
From: aredridel at nbtsc.org (Aria Stewart)
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 11:02:06 -0600
Subject: packages case sensitivity
In-Reply-To: <5066D099.7020309@pld-linux.org>
References: <5066D099.7020309@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <20120929170206.GA28286@polis.nbtsc.org>

On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 01:42:33PM +0300, Elan Ruusam?e wrote:
> seems github packages are case insensitive, perhaps we should limit 
> similarily in pld to disallow creating packages that differ just 
> character case?

+1. And lowercase be the norm.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </mailman/pipermail/pld-devel-en/attachments/20120929/88fe26f0/attachment.sig>

From caleb at pld-linux.org  Sat Sep 29 20:20:36 2012
From: caleb at pld-linux.org (Caleb Maclennan)
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 21:20:36 +0300
Subject: packages case sensitivity
In-Reply-To: <20120929170206.GA28286@polis.nbtsc.org>
References: <5066D099.7020309@pld-linux.org>
 <20120929170206.GA28286@polis.nbtsc.org>
Message-ID: <CAP9w9P7Dr4mMBGKZGA3D8n=nHjRewLuPmVK5xKDKd+uRZV2kTQ@mail.gmail.com>

2012/9/29 Aria Stewart <aredridel at nbtsc.org>:
>> seems github packages are case insensitive, perhaps we should limit
>> similarily in pld to disallow creating packages that differ just
>> character case?
>
> +1. And lowercase be the norm.

+1, the current mix-n-match case is kind of a mess and is more of a
pain than it's worth.


From glen at pld-linux.org  Sun Sep 30 12:08:00 2012
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Elan_Ruusam=E4e?=)
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2012 13:08:00 +0300
Subject: rpm-4.5-69.i686 crash on Qt upgrade
Message-ID: <50681A00.6040608@pld-linux.org>

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.


Retrieving [54/55] th::qt4-build-4.8.3-6.i686.rpm...
.............................. 100.0% [1.7M (551.0K/s)]
Retrieving [55/55] th::qt4-linguist-4.8.3-6.i686.rpm...
.............................. 100.0% [1.2M (307.4K/s)]
Executing rpm --upgrade -vh --root /...
warning: /var/cache/poldek/http_distrib.dev.delfi.ee.pld.dists.th.PLD.i686.RPMS/libicu-49.1.2-2.i686.rpm: Header V4 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID e4f1bc2d
error: LOOP:
error: removing QtDBus-4.8.3-6.i686 "Requires: QtGui = 4.8.3-6" from tsort relations.
error:     QtDBus-4.8.3-6.i686                      Requires: QtGui = 4.8.3-6
error: removing QtGui-4.8.3-6.i686 "Requires: QtNetwork = 4.8.3-6" from tsort relations.
error:     QtGui-4.8.3-6.i686                       Requires: QtNetwork = 4.8.3-6
error: removing QtNetwork-4.8.3-6.i686 "Requires: QtDBus = 4.8.3-6" from tsort relations.
error:     QtNetwork-4.8.3-6.i686                   Requires: QtDBus = 4.8.3-6
error: LOOP:
error: removing libreoffice-writer-3.6.1.2-2.i686 "Requires(auto): libbasegfxlo.so" from tsort relations.
error:     libreoffice-writer-3.6.1.2-2.i686        Requires(auto): libbasegfxlo.so
error: removing libreoffice-core-3.6.1.2-2.i686 "Requires(auto): libswdlo.so" from tsort relations.
error:     libreoffice-core-3.6.1.2-2.i686          Requires(auto): libswdlo.so
error: LOOP:
error: removing QtDBus-4.8.2-11.i686 "Requires: QtDBus = 4.8.2-11" from tsort relations.
error:     QtDBus-4.8.2-11.i686                     Requires: QtDBus = 4.8.2-11
error: removing QtNetwork-4.8.2-11.i686 "Requires: QtNetwork = 4.8.2-11" from tsort relations.
error:     QtNetwork-4.8.2-11.i686                  Requires: QtNetwork = 4.8.2-11
error: removing QtGui-4.8.2-11.i686 "Requires: QtGui = 4.8.2-11" from tsort relations.
error:     QtGui-4.8.2-11.i686                      Requires: QtGui = 4.8.2-11
error: LOOP:
error: removing libreoffice-core-3.6.0.4-1.i686 "Requires(auto): libbasegfxlo.so" from tsort relations.
error:     libreoffice-core-3.6.0.4-1.i686          Requires(auto): libbasegfxlo.so
error: removing libreoffice-writer-3.6.0.4-1.i686 "Requires(auto): libswdlo.so" from tsort relations.
error:     libreoffice-writer-3.6.0.4-1.i686        Requires(auto): libswdlo.so
Preparing...                ########################################### [100%]
    1:libreoffice-ure        ########################################### [  2%]
    2:libicu                 ########################################### [  4%]
    3:QtCore                 ########################################### [  5%]
    4:QtXml                  ########################################### [  7%]
    5:boost-system           ########################################### [  9%]
    6:QtSql                  ########################################### [ 11%]
    7:QtScript               ########################################### [ 13%]
    8:poppler                ########################################### [ 15%]
    9:boost-date_time        ########################################### [ 16%]
   10:boost-chrono           ########################################### [ 18%]
   11:boost-thread           ########################################### [ 20%]
   12:boost-filesystem       ########################################### [ 22%]
   13:libcmis                ########################################### [ 24%]
   14:libtorrent-rasterbar   ########################################### [ 25%]
   15:QtCLucene              ########################################### [ 27%]
   16:boost-regex            ########################################### [ 29%]
   17:graphite2              ########################################### [ 31%]
   18:boost-graph            ########################################### [ 33%]
   19:boost-wave             ########################################### [ 35%]
   20:browser-plugin-esteid  ########################################### [ 36%]
/usr/sbin/update-browser-plugins: Warning: pluginfile PepperFlash/libpepflashplayer.so includes subdir, file ignored
/usr/sbin/update-browser-plugins: Warning: pluginfile PepperFlash/libpepflashplayer.so includes subdir, file ignored
/usr/sbin/update-browser-plugins: Warning: pluginfile PepperFlash/libpepflashplayer.so includes subdir, file ignored
/usr/sbin/update-browser-plugins: Warning: pluginfile PepperFlash/libpepflashplayer.so includes subdir, file ignored
/usr/sbin/update-browser-plugins: Warning: pluginfile PepperFlash/libpepflashplayer.so includes subdir, file ignored
/usr/sbin/update-browser-plugins: Warning: pluginfile PepperFlash/libpepflashplayer.so includes subdir, file ignored
/usr/sbin/update-browser-plugins: Warning: pluginfile PepperFlash/manifest.json includes subdir, file ignored
/usr/sbin/update-browser-plugins: Warning: pluginfile PepperFlash/manifest.json includes subdir, file ignored
/usr/sbin/update-browser-plugins: Warning: pluginfile PepperFlash/manifest.json includes subdir, file ignored
/usr/sbin/update-browser-plugins: Warning: pluginfile PepperFlash/manifest.json includes subdir, file ignored
/usr/sbin/update-browser-plugins: Warning: pluginfile PepperFlash/manifest.json includes subdir, file ignored
/usr/sbin/update-browser-plugins: Warning: pluginfile PepperFlash/manifest.json includes subdir, file ignored
/usr/sbin/update-browser-plugins: Warning: pluginfile PepperFlash/manifest.ver includes subdir, file ignored
/usr/sbin/update-browser-plugins: Warning: pluginfile PepperFlash/manifest.ver includes subdir, file ignored
/usr/sbin/update-browser-plugins: Warning: pluginfile PepperFlash/manifest.ver includes subdir, file ignored
/usr/sbin/update-browser-plugins: Warning: pluginfile PepperFlash/manifest.ver includes subdir, file ignored
/usr/sbin/update-browser-plugins: Warning: pluginfile PepperFlash/manifest.ver includes subdir, file ignored
/usr/sbin/update-browser-plugins: Warning: pluginfile PepperFlash/manifest.ver includes subdir, file ignored
   21:poppler-glib           ########################################### [ 38%]
   22:QtSql-mysql            ########################################### [ 40%]
   23:QtSql-sqlite3          ########################################### [ 42%]
   24:QtTest                 ########################################### [ 44%]
   25:chromium-browser       ########################################### [ 45%]
/usr/sbin/update-browser-plugins: Warning: pluginfile PepperFlash/libpepflashplayer.so includes subdir, file ignored
/usr/sbin/update-browser-plugins: Warning: pluginfile PepperFlash/libpepflashplayer.so includes subdir, file ignored
/usr/sbin/update-browser-plugins: Warning: pluginfile PepperFlash/libpepflashplayer.so includes subdir, file ignored
/usr/sbin/update-browser-plugins: Warning: pluginfile PepperFlash/libpepflashplayer.so includes subdir, file ignored
/usr/sbin/update-browser-plugins: Warning: pluginfile PepperFlash/libpepflashplayer.so includes subdir, file ignored
/usr/sbin/update-browser-plugins: Warning: pluginfile PepperFlash/libpepflashplayer.so includes subdir, file ignored
/usr/sbin/update-browser-plugins: Warning: pluginfile PepperFlash/manifest.json includes subdir, file ignored
/usr/sbin/update-browser-plugins: Warning: pluginfile PepperFlash/manifest.json includes subdir, file ignored
/usr/sbin/update-browser-plugins: Warning: pluginfile PepperFlash/manifest.json includes subdir, file ignored
/usr/sbin/update-browser-plugins: Warning: pluginfile PepperFlash/manifest.json includes subdir, file ignored
/usr/sbin/update-browser-plugins: Warning: pluginfile PepperFlash/manifest.json includes subdir, file ignored
/usr/sbin/update-browser-plugins: Warning: pluginfile PepperFlash/manifest.json includes subdir, file ignored
/usr/sbin/update-browser-plugins: Warning: pluginfile PepperFlash/manifest.ver includes subdir, file ignored
/usr/sbin/update-browser-plugins: Warning: pluginfile PepperFlash/manifest.ver includes subdir, file ignored
/usr/sbin/update-browser-plugins: Warning: pluginfile PepperFlash/manifest.ver includes subdir, file ignored
/usr/sbin/update-browser-plugins: Warning: pluginfile PepperFlash/manifest.ver includes subdir, file ignored
/usr/sbin/update-browser-plugins: Warning: pluginfile PepperFlash/manifest.ver includes subdir, file ignored
/usr/sbin/update-browser-plugins: Warning: pluginfile PepperFlash/manifest.ver includes subdir, file ignored
   26:gtk-webkit             ########################################### [ 47%]
   27:gtk-webkit3            ########################################### [ 49%]
   28:QtGui                  ########################################### [ 51%]
   29:QtNetwork              ########################################### [ 53%]
   30:libreoffice-core       ########################################### [ 55%]
Sep 29 21:29:30 ravenous auditd[381]: Audit daemon is low on disk space for logging
   31:QtDBus                 ########################################### [ 56%]
   32:QtWebKit               ########################################### [ 58%]
   33:libreoffice-impress    ########################################### [ 60%]
   34:QtXmlPatterns          ########################################### [ 62%]
rpm: rpmdb.c:3429: rpmdbAdd: Assertion `(dlen & 1) == 0' failed.
Sep 29 21:29:53 ravenous auditd[381]: Audit daemon is suspending logging due to low disk space.
error: /bin/rpm terminated by signal Aborted
Installing set #6
Freeing read locks for locker 0x12c19: 23541/3071944512
rpmdb: Thread/process 23541/3071944512 failed: locker has write locks
Freeing read locks for locker 0x12c1b: 23541/3071944512
rpmdb: Thread/process 23541/3071944512 failed: locker has write locks
Freeing read locks for locker 0x12c1c: 23541/3071944512
rpmdb: Thread/process 23541/3071944512 failed: locker has write locks
Freeing read locks for locker 0x12c1d: 23541/3071944512
rpmdb: Thread/process 23541/3071944512 failed: locker has write locks
Freeing read locks for locker 0x12c1e: 23541/3071944512
rpmdb: Thread/process 23541/3071944512 failed: locker has write locks
Freeing read locks for locker 0x12c1f: 23541/3071944512
rpmdb: Thread/process 23541/3071944512 failed: locker has write locks
Freeing read locks for locker 0x12c20: 23541/3071944512
rpmdb: Thread/process 23541/3071944512 failed: locker has write locks
Freeing read locks for locker 0x12c21: 23541/3071944512
rpmdb: Thread/process 23541/3071944512 failed: locker has write locks
Freeing read locks for locker 0x12c22: 23541/3071944512
rpmdb: Thread/process 23541/3071944512 failed: locker has write locks
Freeing read locks for locker 0x12c23: 23541/3071944512
rpmdb: Thread/process 23541/3071944512 failed: locker has write locks
Freeing read locks for locker 0x12c24: 23541/3071944512
rpmdb: Thread/process 23541/3071944512 failed: locker has write locks
Freeing read locks for locker 0x12c25: 23541/3071944512
rpmdb: Thread/process 23541/3071944512 failed: locker has write locks
Freeing read locks for locker 0x12c26: 23541/3071944512
rpmdb: Thread/process 23541/3071944512 failed: locker has write locks
Freeing read locks for locker 0x12c27: 23541/3071944512
rpmdb: Thread/process 23541/3071944512 failed: locker has write locks
Freeing read locks for locker 0x12c28: 23541/3071944512
rpmdb: Thread/process 23541/3071944512 failed: locker has write locks
Freeing read locks for locker 0x12c29: 23541/3071944512
rpmdb: Thread/process 23541/3071944512 failed: locker has write locks
error: db4 error(-30974) from dbenv->failchk: DB_RUNRECOVERY: Fatal error, run database recovery
error: Runnning db->verify ...
Sep 29 21:29:54 ravenous NetworkManager[6467]:    keyfile: updating /etc/NetworkManager/system-connections/core.23541
Sep 29 21:29:54 ravenous NetworkManager[6467]:    keyfile:     error: Key file contains line 'ELF' which is not a key-value pair, group, or comment
Sep 29 21:29:54 ravenous NetworkManager[6467]:    keyfile: updating /etc/NetworkManager/system-connections/core.23541
Sep 29 21:29:54 ravenous NetworkManager[6467]:    keyfile:     error: Key file contains line 'ELF' which is not a key-value pair, group, or comment
Processing dependencies...




13:03:33 root[load: 0.35; bat: 0:C:99%]@ravenous 
NetworkManager/system-connections# gdb rpm core.23541
GNU gdb (GDB) 7.4.50-0.20120120.2 (PLD Linux)
Copyright (C) 2012 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later 
<http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>
This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it.
There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.  Type "show copying"
and "show warranty" for details.
This GDB was configured as "i686-pld-linux".
For bug reporting instructions, please see:
<http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/bugs/>...
Reading symbols from /bin/rpm...Reading symbols from 
/usr/lib/debug/bin/rpm.debug...done.
done.
[New LWP 23541]
...
[Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled]
Using host libthread_db library "/lib/libthread_db.so.1".
Core was generated by `rpm --upgrade -vh --root / 
/var/cache/poldek/http_distrib.local.pld.dist'.
Program terminated with signal 6, Aborted.
#0  0xb7773424 in __kernel_vsyscall ()
(gdb) bt
#0  0xb7773424 in __kernel_vsyscall ()
#1  0xb7425757 in __GI_raise (sig=sig at entry=6) at 
../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c:63
#2  0xb7426c1e in __GI_abort () at abort.c:90
#3  0xb741ec2c in __assert_fail_base (fmt=0xb754c884 "%s%s%s:%u: 
%s%sAssertion `%s' failed.\n%n", assertion=assertion at entry=0xb767f0d7 
"(dlen & 1) == 0",
     file=file at entry=0xb767ee65 "rpmdb.c", line=line at entry=3429, 
function=function at entry=0xb767f9f5 "rpmdbAdd") at assert.c:92
#4  0xb741ece1 in __GI___assert_fail 
(assertion=assertion at entry=0xb767f0d7 "(dlen & 1) == 0", 
file=file at entry=0xb767ee65 "rpmdb.c", line=line at entry=3429,
     function=function at entry=0xb767f9f5 "rpmdbAdd") at assert.c:101
#5  0xb7679f24 in rpmdbAdd (db=0x95a36d0, iid=iid at entry=1348943256, 
h=h at entry=0x95b2670, ts=0x93f4c10, hdrchk=0xb76ae8a2 <headerCheck>) at 
rpmdb.c:3429
#6  0xb76b4b01 in rpmpsmStage (psm=0x942e510, stage=PSM_RPMDB_ADD) at 
psm.c:2365
#7  0xb76b6998 in rpmpsmNext (psm=<optimized out>, nstage=<optimized 
out>) at psm.c:1574
#8  0xb76b52cf in rpmpsmStage (psm=0x942e510, stage=PSM_POST) at psm.c:2089
#9  0xb76b6998 in rpmpsmNext (psm=<optimized out>, nstage=<optimized 
out>) at psm.c:1574
#10 0xb76b51c5 in rpmpsmStage (psm=psm at entry=0x942e510, 
stage=stage at entry=PSM_PKGINSTALL) at psm.c:2217
#11 0xb76e27de in rpmtsRun (ts=ts at entry=0x93f4c10, okProbs=0x0, 
okProbs at entry=0x962a528, ignoreSet=ignoreSet at entry=RPMPROB_FILTER_NONE) 
at transaction.c:1813
#12 0xb76ce062 in rpmInstall (ts=ts at entry=0x93f4c10, 
ia=ia at entry=0xb77101c0, fileArgv=0x93c89e0) at rpminstall.c:709
#13 0x0804ca5c in main (argc=60, argv=0xbf88a874) at rpmqv.c:783
(gdb)


-- 
glen



From baggins at pld-linux.org  Sun Sep 30 18:05:14 2012
From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=)
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2012 18:05:14 +0200
Subject: packages case sensitivity
In-Reply-To: <5066D099.7020309@pld-linux.org>
References: <5066D099.7020309@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <20120930160514.GB1485@home.lan>

On Sat, 29 Sep 2012, Elan Ruusam?e wrote:

> seems github packages are case insensitive, perhaps we should limit 
> similarily in pld to disallow creating packages that differ just 
> character case?

Our policy always was to use tarball name as the package name,
regardless of case.

-- 
Jan R?korajski                                 | PLD/Linux
SysAdm                                         | http://www.pld-linux.org/
baggins<at>mimuw.edu.pl
baggins<at>pld-linux.org


From jajcus at jajcus.net  Sun Sep 30 19:10:20 2012
From: jajcus at jajcus.net (Jacek Konieczny)
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2012 19:10:20 +0200
Subject: packages case sensitivity
In-Reply-To: <20120930160514.GB1485@home.lan>
References: <5066D099.7020309@pld-linux.org> <20120930160514.GB1485@home.lan>
Message-ID: <20120930171020.GA7368@lolek.nigdzie>

On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 06:05:14PM +0200, Jan R?korajski wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2012, Elan Ruusam?e wrote:
> 
> > seems github packages are case insensitive, perhaps we should limit 
> > similarily in pld to disallow creating packages that differ just 
> > character case?
> 
> Our policy always was to use tarball name as the package name,
> regardless of case.

Not always ? depends on a package type. E.g. for python modules
the name used to import the module/package in python should always be
used, no matter how the source package is named. This way 'ImportError'
exceptions can be easily handled.

Greets,
        Jacek