On Oct 28, 2008, at 6:24 PM, Jan Rekorajski wrote: > On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote: > >> On Tuesday 28 of October 2008, baggins wrote: >>> Author: baggins Date: Tue Oct 28 22:11:56 >>> 2008 GMT >>> Module: SPECS Tag: HEAD >>> ---- Log message: >>> - 5.1.6 >> >> >>> - updated TODO (will glob patch finally go away?) >> >> Only if current upstream rpm is smart enough to always use own glob() >> implementation (which differently handles symlinks pointing to >> nowhere than >> current glibc implementation). > > rpm's glob() has been moved from misc to rpmio, and I don't know how > to > test if it works properly :( >
If you find glob tests, I'll wire into rpm's "make check". Otherwise, glob() failure is usually not quiet. De facto testing using rpmbuild is more than sufficient. The reason for the glob patch (which ultimately has led to rpm internalizing glob) had to do with dangling symlinks. If you can package a dangling symlink, then the internal rpmio glob is likely as good as glibc's (upon which its based). >> http://rpm5.org/cvs/tktview?tn=38&_submit=Show really got fixed? > > I don't think so. The only that got fixed was > http://rpm5.org/cvs/tktview?tn=39&_submit=Show > > I just removed duplicate URLs in spec. > > BTW Why aren't we using rpm 5.1.x in Th? > rpm-5.0 changed the rules for memory allocation. The older rule was replaced with All memory return'ed from headerGet() must be free'd. Reworking the changed malloc rule into poldek is likely the rate limiting flaw. But rpm-4.4.9 (and rpm-4.5 and ..) are all pretty similar in usefully used functionality. 73 de Jeff _______________________________________________ pld-devel-en mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
