*.py packaging, again

Tomasz Pala gotar at polanet.pl
Thu Jul 14 15:23:52 CEST 2011

On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 08:57:40 -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote:

> (aside)
> Do you actually use repackaged packages? For what purpose?

Unfortunately yes, for restoring working set - too often...
And during tests of course (various, like my private builds or bug
hunting) [*].

> There are solutions here as well, depending on what is desired.
> One can view side-effects like JIT'ed cached files as
> either disposable and easily regenerated (in which case
> the content should not be repackaged) or you can view
> the JIT'ed cached files as stageful and persistent
> (in which case repackaging should include the content).

I ask because I see that rpm stores original file list (with sizes and
timestamps) in it's headers, regardless of actual content of cpio. It
includes both modified and nonexistent files (especially %doc when excludedocs
is set and ommitted %langs).
In this case cpio would contain more files than headers know about. What
might happen with recompilation on different timestamps during downgrade or some other
weird operations like --noscripts?

*  I had an idea once upon a time to verify content of repackaged files
   against original digest, I really miss this feature in rpm (rpm -Vp
   verifies package against filesystem not internal cpio).

Tomasz Pala <gotar at pld-linux.org>

More information about the pld-devel-en mailing list