Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Updated v3 and v4 package + header format documentation (PR #2861)
@dralley commented on this pull request. > @@ -56,6 +56,8 @@ contains an OpenPGP signature on the header + payload data. > The PGP tag is used for RSA signatures and the GPG tag is used for DSA signatures. +Note: the signature tags overlap with those of the main header. Oh, and as per https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2462#issuecomment-1493217258, `RPMTAG_FILESIGNATURES` and `RPMSIGTAG_FILESIGNATURES` are actually completely different non-overlapping constants, it's just not noticed because of, again, the merging of the signature and main headers during queries. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2861#discussion_r1460236459 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Updated v3 and v4 package + header format documentation (PR #2861)
@dralley commented on this pull request. > @@ -56,6 +56,8 @@ contains an OpenPGP signature on the header + payload data. > The PGP tag is used for RSA signatures and the GPG tag is used for DSA signatures. +Note: the signature tags overlap with those of the main header. The precise meaning of this is a bit ambiguous. It might be possible to read this as "some tags can exist in both headers simultaneously" or "some tags can exist in either header". The latter is technically true but isn't that more an artifact of how the headers get merged together than "correctness"? It's definitely not universally true, as something would have to be seriously broken for a main header checksum/signature to end up in the main header :) -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2861#pullrequestreview-1834626951 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Updated v3 and v4 package + header format documentation (PR #2861)
@dralley commented on this pull request. > +short archnum; +char name[66]; +short osnum; +short signature_type; +char reserved[16]; +}; +``` + +and is illustrated with one pulled from the rpm-2.1.2-1.i386.rpm +package: + +``` +: ed ab ee db 03 00 00 00 +``` + +The first 4 bytes (0-3) are "magic" used to uniquely identify an RPM ```suggestion The first 4 bytes (0-3) are the "magic" number used to uniquely identify the file as an RPM package. ``` -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2861#pullrequestreview-1834624557 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Updated v3 and v4 package + header format documentation (PR #2861)
@dralley commented on this pull request.
> +## Lead Format
+
+The Lead is stored as a C structure:
+
+```
+struct rpmlead {
+unsigned char magic[4];
+unsigned char major, minor;
+short type;
+short archnum;
+char name[66];
+short osnum;
+short signature_type;
+char reserved[16];
+};
+```
Should endian-ness be discussed here?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2861#pullrequestreview-1834624461
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Updated v3 and v4 package + header format documentation (PR #2861)
@dralley commented on this pull request.
> +0048: 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 05
+```
+
+Bytes 76-77 ("00 01" above) form an int16 that indicates the OS the
+package was built for. In this case, 1 == Linux. The next 2 bytes
+(78-79) form an int16 that indicates the signature type. This tells
+RPM what to expect in the Signature. For version 3.0 packages, this
+is 5, which indicates the new "Header-style" signatures.
+
+```
+0050: 04 00 00 00 68 e6 ff bf
+0058: ab ad 00 08 3c eb ff bf
+```
+
+The remaining 16 bytes (80-95) are currently unused and are reserved
+for future expansion.
The second half of this line probably ought to be tweaked to be a little more
past-tense.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2861#pullrequestreview-1834623926
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Updated v3 and v4 package + header format documentation (PR #2861)
@dralley commented on this pull request. > + +Field | Value +|-- +tag | Must equal the Index Entry (ie 62 or 63) +type| BIN +offset | Size of the region entries in the Index +count | 16 + +The number of entries in the region (aka region index length) can thus be +calculated as `ril = -offset / sizeof(struct index_entry)`. + +When reading a package from disk, the number of region entries is expected +to be the same as the index length in the Intro. However when a package +is installed, extra data such as the install time is added to the header, +that data falls outside the otherwise invisible region line in the index. +These tags outside the immutable region are called "dribbles" in the RPM This happens to satisfy https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2462, so thanks for that! Feel free to close it or mark it to be closed automatically on merge of the commit. I do also have a side remark under that issue, and I'm wondering if that should be tracked as a brand new issue, or discussion, etc. https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2462#issuecomment-1493217258 -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2861#pullrequestreview-1834612619 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Update format documentation in the manual (PR #2835)
Understood, thanks! Feel free to close this once you're done with it. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2835#issuecomment-1901738765 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: add way to set macro for --nocheck in rpmbuild (#316)
I prefer handle https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2362 and https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1929 since I don't use it but I found many people that use _without (wrongly) https://sourcegraph.com/search?q=context:global+r:src.fedoraproject.org+file:.*%5C.spec%24+%5C%3Fwithout_=regexp=yes=0=repo -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/316#issuecomment-1901260310 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: add way to set macro for --nocheck in rpmbuild (#316)
> ```spec
> # Add handle --{with|without} check
> %__spec_check_pre \
> %{!?with_check:echo "%%check disabled."; exit 0} \
> %{___build_pre}
> ```
Actually this is not all. It needs to be added default value of the
%with_check. So wole solution has two additional lines.
```spec
# Add handle --{with|without} check
%with_check 1
%__spec_check_pre \
%{!?with_check:echo "%%check disabled."; exit 0} \
%{___build_pre}
```
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/316#issuecomment-1900926087
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: add way to set macro for --nocheck in rpmbuild (#316)
> we can use : rpmbuild --without check
This can be added very easy by place in global macros single line modification
```spec
# Add handle --{with|without} check
%__spec_check_pre \
%{!?with_check:echo "%%check disabled."; exit 0} \
%{___build_pre}
```
Than you can place in spec file:
```spec
%bcond_with check
```
to disable %check.
I'm using that hack +3 years.
Do you want this as PR? 樂
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/316#issuecomment-1900766922
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] add build directory auto path to setup step (PR #2859)
@teknoraver commented on this pull request. > @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ target_link_libraries(rpmlua PRIVATE LUA::LUA) target_link_libraries(rpmbuild PRIVATE librpmbuild) target_link_libraries(rpmspec PRIVATE librpmbuild) target_link_libraries(rpmdeps PRIVATE librpmbuild) +target_link_libraries(rpmuncompress PRIVATE archive) With `LIBARCHIVE` I get: ``` [ 77%] Linking C executable rpmuncompress /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lLIBARCHIVE: No such file or directory collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status ``` -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2859#discussion_r1459257480 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Make user/group lookup caching thread-safe (PR #2843)
@Conan-Kudo approved this pull request. Modulo note as @dmnks stated, it looks good to me. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2843#pullrequestreview-1833116074 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] add build directory auto path to setup step (PR #2859)
@teknoraver pushed 1 commit. 270555dfa40b2f4f4ecdb002275d6e956832041f add build directory auto path to %autosetup -- View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2859/files/aed6cd0f9a69813c9b6f7937110eb4597620c91c..270555dfa40b2f4f4ecdb002275d6e956832041f You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Update format documentation in the manual (PR #2835)
The more I looked at this and the existing docs, the more clear it became that the stuff needs more than a touch-up job to be credible. I ended up rewriting much of bit of it, updating and preserving the v3 docs too for historians and the like: #2861. That was quite the pile to chew out in a day, so there will be gaps and mistakes and all but I think it's now a more solid place to build on now. After that churn, this PR wont be anywhere near applicable, but. There's good stuff in this PR and I initially tried to pull as much content from this PR as possible but got nowhere with that approach, because the initial state is what it is. I'll go through this once more once the dust settles to double-check what additions I missed and apply manually. Thanks for the patch and initiative to get this updated! Getting v4 documented was one of my goals for last year and this PR was apparently the necessary kick to get started :smile: -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2835#issuecomment-1900542163 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Updated v3 and v4 package + header format documentation (PR #2861)
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2861 -- Commit Summary -- * Use markdown formatting features for package format, fix links * Split the lead and header structure to their own documents * Fix some inaccuracies in the format doc * Split the format document to v3 and v4 versions, cover v4 basics * Refine the header structure documentation a bit * First attempt at technical documentation for header regions -- File Changes -- D docs/manual/format.md (266) A docs/manual/format_header.md (203) A docs/manual/format_lead.md (72) A docs/manual/format_v3.md (72) A docs/manual/format_v4.md (134) D docs/manual/hregions.md (91) M docs/manual/index.md (4) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2861.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2861.diff -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2861 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2...@github.com ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] add build directory auto path to setup step (PR #2859)
@teknoraver commented on this pull request.
> @@ -509,6 +509,9 @@ can just create the directory. It accepts a number of
> options:
-n DIR set the name of build directory (default is `%{name}-%{version}`)
-T skip the default unpacking of the first source (used with
`-a` or `-b`)
+-p ensures that the sources will be in the default build directory,
It isn't yet. By now it's only used in `%setup`, but we can add it in
`%autosetup` too and pass it along the chain.
-C is fine for me, it reminds the `tar -C` command which is used in
rpmuncompress
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2859#discussion_r1459082653
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] add build directory auto path to setup step (PR #2859)
@Conan-Kudo requested changes on this pull request.
> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ target_link_libraries(rpmlua PRIVATE LUA::LUA)
target_link_libraries(rpmbuild PRIVATE librpmbuild)
target_link_libraries(rpmspec PRIVATE librpmbuild)
target_link_libraries(rpmdeps PRIVATE librpmbuild)
+target_link_libraries(rpmuncompress PRIVATE archive)
Is this the name of the dependency? It looks like it's `LIBARCHIVE` instead of
`archive`.
> @@ -509,6 +509,9 @@ can just create the directory. It accepts a number of
> options:
-n DIR set the name of build directory (default is `%{name}-%{version}`)
-T skip the default unpacking of the first source (used with
`-a` or `-b`)
+-p ensures that the sources will be in the default build directory,
How would this be exposed in `%autosetup`? We can't use `-p` there since that's
for patchlevel passed to `patch`. Maybe instead use `-C` and describe it as
`Create the build directory and ensure the archive contents are unpacked there,
stripping the top level directory in the archive if it exists`.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2859#pullrequestreview-1832404055
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Unify regular and file trigger documentation (Issue #2860)
These two features (regular triggers and file triggers) have, or [will have](https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2755), a lot in common, so it makes sense to unify or even join those two documentation pages into one, or at least use the same structure so that it's easy to see the similarities. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2860 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] add build directory auto path to setup step (PR #2859)
Implement RFE #2664 Add a `-p` flag to %setup which ensures that the sources will be extracted in the root of the build directory. It works by inspecting the archive and stripping the first path entry if the archive has a top level directory alone in the root. The archive inspection and path stripping is implemented in rpmuncompress which now has a new `-p` flag: $ ~/rpm/usr/lib/rpm/rpmuncompress -x -v -p source-1.0.0 source-singleroot.tar.gz mkdir source-1.0.0 ; /usr/bin/gzip -dc source-singleroot.tar.gz | /usr/bin/tar -xvvof - -C source-1.0.0 --strip-components=1 -rw-r--r-- root/root32 2024-01-16 19:13 source-xx/file1 -rw-r--r-- root/root 33886 2024-01-16 19:13 source-xx/file2 drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2024-01-16 19:13 source-xx/dir1/ -r--r--r-- root/root 210 2024-01-16 19:13 source-xx/dir1/file3 $ find source-1.0.0 -ls 92341 0 drwxr-xr-x 1 teknoraver teknoraver 28 Jan 16 19:16 source-1.0.0 92342 4 -rw-r--r-- 1 teknoraver teknoraver 32 Jan 16 19:13 source-1.0.0/file1 92343 36 -rw-r--r-- 1 teknoraver teknoraver33886 Jan 16 19:13 source-1.0.0/file2 92344 0 drwxr-xr-x 1 teknoraver teknoraver 10 Jan 16 19:13 source-1.0.0/dir1 92345 4 -r--r--r-- 1 teknoraver teknoraver 210 Jan 16 19:13 source-1.0.0/dir1/file3 $ ~/rpm/usr/lib/rpm/rpmuncompress -x -v -p source-2.0.0 source-noroot.tar.gz mkdir source-2.0.0 ; /usr/bin/gzip -dc source-noroot.tar.gz | /usr/bin/tar -xvvof - -C source-2.0.0 drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2024-01-16 19:13 dir1/ -r--r--r-- root/root 210 2024-01-16 19:13 dir1/file3 -rw-r--r-- root/root32 2024-01-16 19:13 file1 -rw-r--r-- root/root 33886 2024-01-16 19:13 file2 $ find source-2.0.0 -ls 92346 0 drwxr-xr-x 1 teknoraver teknoraver 28 Jan 16 19:17 source-2.0.0 92347 0 drwxr-xr-x 1 teknoraver teknoraver 10 Jan 16 19:13 source-2.0.0/dir1 92348 4 -r--r--r-- 1 teknoraver teknoraver 210 Jan 16 19:13 source-2.0.0/dir1/file3 92349 4 -rw-r--r-- 1 teknoraver teknoraver 32 Jan 16 19:13 source-2.0.0/file1 92350 36 -rw-r--r-- 1 teknoraver teknoraver33886 Jan 16 19:13 source-2.0.0/file2 You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2859 -- Commit Summary -- * add build directory auto path to setup step -- File Changes -- M CMakeLists.txt (5) M build/parsePrep.c (13) M docs/manual/spec.md (3) M tools/CMakeLists.txt (1) M tools/rpmuncompress.c (75) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2859.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2859.diff -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2859 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2...@github.com ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: add a cmake target for hands-free docs-server (Issue #2854)
On a related note, it wouldn't hurt to ship the manual in html format in our tarballs. I guess we'd need Mr Jekyll for that too. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2854#issuecomment-1900072519 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Update Docs for "Users and Groups" in the manual (Issue #2857)
Well, I always intended systemd-sysusers to be the native and default "backend" of this feature because ... it is. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2857#issuecomment-1899950764 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Make user/group lookup caching thread-safe (PR #2843)
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
>
return 0;
}
const char * rpmugUname(uid_t uid)
{
-static uid_t lastUid = (uid_t) -1;
-static char * lastUname = NULL;
-
-if (uid == (uid_t) -1) {
- lastUid = (uid_t) -1;
Yup, and as an added bonus it now never contains any invalid uid/gid because 0
is just root which we handle in the code separately.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2843#discussion_r1458532869
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
