IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
(Analoguous to the change in rpm-4.13-alt6
cfa573f99fbabf7610cec1fb0ee1993f9640b090,
made with help of Vladimir D. Seleznev <vseleznv@altlinux.org>.)
Unchanged (wanted) behavior: On the side of Requires (B), a missing
("underspecified") release means that the relative order of A and B
(result of comparison) is determined only by the speicified components
(epoch, version):
such B is equal to any A with an equal epoch and version (and any release);
such B is greater than A if B's epoch-version is greater than A's;
etc.
A similar treatment of an underspecified release on the side of
Provides (A) was unwanted and it has been changed now:
a B with a non-empty release can't be equal to such A (with a
missing release);
namely, a B with a non-empty release is greater than an A with equal
epoch-version and no release.
Example of a satisfied dependency (worked before and works now):
Provides: N = V-R
Requires: N = V
Example of an unsatisfied dependency (previously, this satisfied the Requires):
Provides: N = V
Requires: N = V-R
We don't want this Requires to be satisfied in this case.
Makefile.am:13: warning: 'INCLUDES' is the old name for 'AM_CPPFLAGS' (or '*_CPPFLAGS')
build/Makefile.am:5: warning: 'INCLUDES' is the old name for 'AM_CPPFLAGS' (or '*_CPPFLAGS')
lib/Makefile.am:5: warning: 'INCLUDES' is the old name for 'AM_CPPFLAGS' (or '*_CPPFLAGS')
python/Makefile.am:7: warning: 'INCLUDES' is the old name for 'AM_CPPFLAGS' (or '*_CPPFLAGS')
rpmdb/Makefile.am:5: warning: 'INCLUDES' is the old name for 'AM_CPPFLAGS' (or '*_CPPFLAGS')
rpmio/Makefile.am:9: warning: 'INCLUDES' is the old name for 'AM_CPPFLAGS' (or '*_CPPFLAGS')
tools/Makefile.am:5: warning: 'INCLUDES' is the old name for 'AM_CPPFLAGS' (or '*_CPPFLAGS')
- Fixes the first case crash of RhBug:741606 / CVE-2011-3378 where
immutable region offset is way out of bounds.
(cherry picked from commit a48f0e20cbe2ababc88b2fc52fb7a281d6fc1656)
- Region offsets are supposed to be negative when when an entry
is involved, otherwise zero. Fixes some cases of crash'n'burn on
malformed headers having bogus offsets (CVE-2011-3378)
(cherry picked from commit 11a7e5d95a8ca8c7d4eaff179094afd8bb74fc3f)
It can be observed that, while packages require their dependencies,
the dependencies in turn are not always required by their packages:
$ rpm -qa --requires |awk '{print$1}' |sort -u |xargs rpm -q --whatrequires >/dev/null
warning: no package requires /bin/chgrp
warning: no package requires /bin/chmod
warning: no package requires /bin/mv
warning: no package requires /etc/rc.d/init.d/postfix
warning: no package requires /sbin/pidof
warning: no package requires /sbin/post_ldconfig
warning: no package requires /usr/bin/alt-docs-genextras
warning: no package requires /usr/bin/gpasswd
warning: no package requires /usr/bin/gtk-query-immodules-2.0
warning: no package requires /usr/bin/mkfontdir
warning: no package requires /usr/sbin/alternatives-update
warning: no package requires /usr/sbin/control-dump
warning: no package requires /usr/sbin/control-restore
warning: no package requires /usr/sbin/gconf_install_schema
warning: no package requires /usr/sbin/groupadd
warning: no package requires /usr/sbin/indexhtml-update
warning: no package requires /usr/sbin/post_service
warning: no package requires /usr/sbin/useradd
warning: no package requires /usr/sbin/usermod
warning: no package requires /usr/share/php/scripts/php_postin.sh
warning: no package requires dvdrwtools-control
warning: no package requires libguile-vhttpd
warning: no package requires php5-suhosin
warning: no package requires rpmlib(CompressedFileNames)
warning: no package requires rpmlib(PartialHardlinkSets)
warning: no package requires rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix)
warning: no package requires rpmlib(PayloadIsLzma)
warning: no package requires rpmlib(SetVersions)
warning: no package requires rpmlib(VersionedDependencies)
warning: no package requires x11presetdrv
$
This is because rpm removes "install prerequisites" from rpmdb index.
As a consequence, rpm will allow (but apt will not) to remove packages
with "not required" dependencies:
$ rpm -e --test x11presetdrv
$
This is possibly wrong, and it makes dependency optimization hard (e.g.
can't merge duplicate names with different flags). Also, the code was
buggy: testing isInstallPreReq was not enough as it is not mutually
exclusive with isErasePreReq - e.g. Requries(pre,preun) dependencies
can be used in specfile.
Header instance is its number in /var/lib/rpm/Packages database.
When a header comes from the database, it is sometimes useful to know
its instance (I need this to adjust verify.c:verifyDependencies() for
self-conflicting packages). On the contrary, setting instance numbers
should happen only within librpmdb, which is why headerSetInstance()
comes with hidden visibility.
based rpm.org changes by Panu Matilainen:
fb2a6cb Make rpmdb index list hard-wired
e23a2bf Remove unused require- and provideversion indexes
2a52cc8 Remove unused _DBI defines
Some code (e.g. apt/genpkglist) explicitly relies on the fact that
header file list is represented with baseNames+dirNames+dirIndexes
arrays. Thus, generating legacy headers might have issues, and should
be disabled.
- Implemented limited support for large files: a 2GB+ file can now be packaged,
but the total size of uncompressed cpio payload is capped at 4 GB.
- Automatically downgrade LZMA compression levels 7-9 -> 6 on small payloads.
This completes support for building packages with 2G+ files, more or
less (packaging 4G+ files is still a distant goal). I am able to build
a valid package with a 3G sparse file on both i586 and x86-64. On i586,
though, such a package cannot be installed with rpm-4.0:
error: unpacking of archive failed on file /usr/bin/6;5a70a676:
cpio: write failed - File too large
I believe there is no obvious way to identify and mark such packages,
since rpmlib(LargeFiles) dependency is meant only for 4G+ files, which
require 07070X cpio entries.
Therefore, limited support for handling such packages shall be provided
for rpm-4.0 in branch p8 (there are issues other than simply enabling
AC_SYS_LARGEFILE).
