rpm.org's rpm 4.16.0 ready for testing

Jan Palus atler at pld-linux.org
Sat Oct 24 23:36:59 CEST 2020


On 24.10.2020 17:15, Jan Rękorajski via pld-devel-en wrote:
> I have prepared rpm 4.16, poldek and support packages, they are
> available on http://ftp1.pld-linux.org/people/baggins/rpm.org/
> 
> I would appreciate if you could test the uprade path, functionality
> and tell me if anything is missing / broken.

First of all great work, thanks!

FWIW I did a build on aarch64 with few minor fixes and looks like it
all works fine. Some funky things that I've noticed so far:

* after build with -bb --short-circuit package has weird dependency:

    error: Failed dependencies:
            rpmlib(ShortCircuited) <= 4.9.0-1 is needed by poldek-libs-0.42.2-3.aarch64
            rpmlib(ShortCircuited) <= 4.9.0-1 is needed by poldek-0.42.2-3.aarch64

  if you're not doing %prep, %build or %install then you're... cheating
  and end up with this dep?

    build/build.c:
    
    int didBuild = (what & (RPMBUILD_PREP|RPMBUILD_BUILD|RPMBUILD_INSTALL));
    ...
    packageBinaries(spec, cookie, (didBuild == 0))
    
    
    build/pack.c:
    
    rpmRC packageBinaries(rpmSpec spec, const char *cookie, int cheating)
    ...
    if (cheating) {
        (void) rpmlibNeedsFeature(pkg, "ShortCircuited", "4.9.0-1");
    }

* libraries have build id symlinks, not sure what's that for:

  $ rpm -ql rpm-lib
  /lib64/librpm.so.9
  /lib64/librpm.so.9.1.0
  /lib64/librpmbuild.so.9
  /lib64/librpmbuild.so.9.1.0
  /lib64/librpmio.so.9
  /lib64/librpmio.so.9.1.0
  /lib64/librpmsign.so.9
  /lib64/librpmsign.so.9.1.0
  /usr/lib/.build-id
  /usr/lib/.build-id/2f
  /usr/lib/.build-id/2f/fc726b33e23f339fb4140cb2a858800f92f245
  /usr/lib/.build-id/72
  /usr/lib/.build-id/72/65fcdb96f521c1953560d780a5f82fa2017c2a
  /usr/lib/.build-id/73
  /usr/lib/.build-id/73/5b7b1130a7b6a74436438fb3fc02cad816224d
  /usr/lib/.build-id/e6
  /usr/lib/.build-id/e6/7a230d27a1b3fceb891aa2df1bfa5e1e980f50
  /usr/lib64/rpm-plugins

* are we sticking to new patch fuzz level (0) or go back to patch
  default (2)?


More information about the pld-devel-en mailing list