LINUX.ORG.RU

Вышел RPM 5.0.0


0

0

После семи месяцев разработки, вышел RPM 5.0.0. Это форк RPM, созданный Джеффом Джонсоном (Jeff Johnson), а не тот RPM, что используется во многих дистрибутивах Linux сегодня.

"Возобновление работы над RPM весной 2007 года и сегодняшнее появление RPM 5 знаменует собой важную веху в развитии менеджера пакетов, ранее предназначавшегося для Linux. RPM теперь, наконец, превратился в полностью кросс-платформенный и годный для долгого использования менеджер пакетов."

>>> Пресс-релиз

★★★★★

Проверено: Shaman007 ()
Ответ на: комментарий от anonymous

>> "Finally, support for the old RPMv3 (LSB) package format was removed"
>> Родился мертвым.
>Убирать обратную совместимость - хороший тон при работе под виндой.
Не скажи, под виндой часто древние костыли годами тащат, а в Linux обратную совместимость периодически убивать любят. Только мертворожденный он не от этого, LSB как бы стандартная рекомендация, а так RPM лишается мощного плеча, получается.

BaBL ★★★★★
()
Ответ на: комментарий от BaBL

> Не скажи, под виндой часто древние костыли годами тащат, а в Linux обратную совместимость периодически убивать любят. Только мертворожденный он не от этого, LSB как бы стандартная рекомендация, а так RPM лишается мощного плеча, получается.

Незнаю, у меня обратно всё работает, т.ч. наверное если и убивают обратность, то только как-то специально. Костыли в винде таскали только до недавнего времени, теперь больше не таскают, а создают новые пачками.

anonymous
()
Ответ на: комментарий от BaBL

The LSB format is not used by any version of rpm since rpm-3.0.5 and LSB packages cannot be produced by any version of rpm currently used in Linux.

So eliminating the old RPMv3 format is no loss.

The correct fix is to undertake documenting RPMv4 format used widely and hand back to LSB.

See the <rpm-lsb@rpm5.org> mailing list, which is going to attempt to document the existing RPMv4 format sufficiently for LSB (and IETF) use.

Jeff Johnson

anonymous
()
Ответ на: комментарий от anonymous

> The LSB format is not used by any version of rpm since rpm-3.0.5 and LSB packages cannot be produced by any version of rpm currently used in Linux.

> So eliminating the old RPMv3 format is no loss.

> The correct fix is to undertake documenting RPMv4 format used widely and hand back to LSB.

> See the <rpm-lsb@rpm5.org> mailing list, which is going to attempt to document the existing RPMv4 format sufficiently for LSB (and IETF) use.

> Jeff Johnson

Хм. А что тогда делает http://www.rpm.org/releases/rpm-4.4.x/rpm-4.4.2.1.tar.gz ? Debian ведь поставляет пакет lsb-rpm, который строится из этого файла, и, как заявлено, умеет делать lsb-пакеты. Патчи, которые применяет debian, на выходной формат не влияют.

AEP ★★★★★
()
Ответ на: комментарий от anonymous

> So eliminating the old RPMv3 format is no loss.

И кстати, где Вы это нашли? Google выдает linux.org.ru как единственный результат поиска этой фразы.

AEP ★★★★★
()
Ответ на: комментарий от AEP

While there may be a modified version of rpm in Debian that can produce LSB packages, there is no distro that I'm aware of that uses lsb-rpm as its packaging system.

Most distros use RPMv4, not RPMv3, format because the package metadata is digitally signed, and the signature on the metadata can be verified after a package is installed. The RPMv3 (or LSB) format metadata cannot be verified after install, can only be ferified while present in the original package.

The RPMv3 format was removed, and the offer to undertake documenting RPMv4 format, have been co-ordinated with LSB members, several of whom are also members of the rpm5.org development team.

The goal is to produce a "standard" document that conforms with the RPMv4 format that is widely used.

AFAIK, unmodified rpm-4.4.2.1 cannot produce LSB "standard" packages.

I know (because I wrote the code) that the original rpm-4.4.2 release cannot produce LSB "standard" packages.

73 de Jeff

anonymous
()
Ответ на: комментарий от AEP

Where have I found what? The basis for my statement?

I have been involved with LSB "standard" packaging for years.

I talked at length privately (most recently at OLS 2007) with LSB representatives about how to proceed in assisting in improving the LSB standard by documenting the RPMv4 format before removing support for RPMv3 format in rpm-5.0.0.

(aside) in fact, rpm-5.0.0 has removed support for the header+payload signature, not the ability to install RPMv3 packages, which is still used by Sun Java releases. But that's a whole different problem than LSB packaging.

73 de Jeff

anonymous
()
Ответ на: комментарий от anonymous

> AFAIK, unmodified rpm-4.4.2.1 cannot produce LSB "standard" packages.

> I know (because I wrote the code) that the original rpm-4.4.2 release cannot produce LSB "standard" packages.

(replying in English, since I assume that I am talking to the author of RPM directly)

OK, should I report a bug to Debian about this? I tried to compile a simple package (bison) and to check whether the result is an LSB "standard" package using their "lsbpkgchk" tool (installed from their RPM, http://ftp.freestandards.org/pub/lsb/test_suites/released-3.1.0/binary/applic... ).

Here is the spec file:

----- 8< -----
Summary: Generates parsers
Name: bison
Version: 2.3
Release: 1
Group: Base
License: GPL
Distribution: LeafOS
Vendor: LeafOS
Packager: LeafOS
URL: http://www.gnu.org/software/bison/
Source0: http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/bison/bison-%{version}.tar.bz2
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-root
Requires: lsb = 3.1, lsb-core-ia32 >= 3.0

%description
Bison generates, from a series of rules, a program for analyzing the structure
of text files; Bison is a replacement for Yacc (Yet Another Compiler Compiler)

%prep
%setup -q

%build
%configure CC=lsbcc3 CXX=lsbc++3
echo '#define YYENABLE_NLS 1' >> config.h
make

%install
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install
rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/share/info/dir

%preun
install-info --delete %{_infodir}/bison.info.gz %{_infodir}/dir

%post
install-info %{_infodir}/bison.info.gz %{_infodir}/dir

%files
%defattr(-,root,root)
/*
%doc AUTHORS COPYING ChangeLog NEWS README THANKS TODO

%clean
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
----- 8< -----

Here is the report:

----- 8< -----
checkRpmIdxHEADERSIGNATURES() Not yet checking contents
checkRpmIdxHEADERSIGNATURES() offset ffffffb0
checkRpmIdxHEADERSIGNATURES() data at b7da40b4
checkRpmIdxSHA1() Not yet checking SHA1 contents
SIGTAG_MD5 calculated value doesn't match expected value
checkRpmIdxHEADERIMMUTABLE() Not yet checking contents
Post-install program not checked
Pre-uninstall program not checked
checkRpmIdxPROVIDENAME() type=8 offset=89c count=1 bison
Unexpected REQUIREFLAGS bit: 4000
Provide Flag not checked: 8
Optflags not checked: -O2 -g -march=i486
Error: checkRpmIdx() unexpected Index tag=1140 type=4 offset=d00 count=21
Error: checkRpmIdx() unexpected Index tag=1141 type=4 offset=d84 count=21
Error: checkRpmIdx() unexpected Index tag=1142 type=8 offset=e08 count=7
Error: checkRpmIdx() unexpected Index tag=1143 type=4 offset=eec count=21
Error: checkRpmIdx() unexpected Index tag=1144 type=4 offset=f70 count=21
Error: checkRpmIdx() unexpected Index tag=1145 type=4 offset=ff4 count=1
Error: checkRpmIdx() unexpected Index tag=1147 type=8 offset=ff8 count=21
Warning: checkRpmIdx() Deprecated Index RPMTAG_RHNPLATFORM found
checkRpmArchiveFilename: file usr not FHS compliant
checkRpmArchiveFilename: file usr/bin not FHS compliant
(and a lot more of "not FHS compliant")
----- 8< -----

What's worse, when I tried to check their own RPM file with this utility, it found errors (albeit different). So, I think that indeed, the most clever thing that one can do with LSB is to ignore that standard, because their sample implementation and tools can't pass their own testsuite.

AEP ★★★★★
()
Ответ на: комментарий от anonymous

> Where have I found what? The basis for my statement?

Sorry, I assumed (because it was not in English, which is contrary to this site's traditions) that the message was copied and pasted from some English web page by some anonymous Russian person, and I was asking about the location of this web page.

AEP ★★★★★
()
Ответ на: комментарий от anonymous

And apologies for EN. PROMT translates one way, but I have to get the wife to write RU for me.

anonymous
()
Ответ на: комментарий от AEP

AEP --

There's no easy answer to your question: should I report a bug to Debian about this?

There's certainly a bug in in the tools, but whether its a Debian or a rpm or a LSB bug is what is entirely unclear.

FYI, I've used your attempt to produce a LSB "standard" package as an illustration of the problems with the existing LSB package standard.

Here are the relevant links: http://rpm5.org/community/rpm-lsb/0001.html https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/packaging/2008-January/000681.html

Thanks for pointing out the problems that need to be solved.

73 de Jeff

anonymous
()
Вы не можете добавлять комментарии в эту тему. Тема перемещена в архив.