On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Tom H <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 6:39 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 3:00 PM, ToddAndMargo <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 07/23/2014 09:05 AM, Mark Stodola wrote: >>>> On 07/23/2014 10:43 AM, ToddAndMargo wrote: > > >>>>> I am having trouble installing the PDF Studio RPM. >>>>> >>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/slgrnolcsktaezz/PDFStudio_v9_0_2_linux.rpm >>>>> >>>>> # cat /etc/redhat-release >>>>> Scientific Linux release 6.5 (Carbon) >>>>> >>>>> # uname -r >>>>> 2.6.32-431.20.3.el6.x86_64 >>>>> >>>>> # rpm -ivh PDFStudio_v9_0_2_linux.rpm >>>>> Preparing... ########################################### [100%] >>>>> 1:PDFStudio ########################################### [100%] >>>>> error: unpacking of archive failed on file .pdfstudio9/: >>>>> cpio: Archive file not in header >>>>> >>>>> Any way to fix this? >> >> By using s cluebat on the package author. It's.... not a good package. >> It's misnamed, it drops everything in a relative directory, and there >> is no license. This is not a safe thing to install anywhere.
Sorry, wasn't clear. It's not in the RPM spec file, which is pretty important these days. > $ find .pdfstudio9 -iname "*license*" > .pdfstudio9/lib/barcode4j_license.txt > .pdfstudio9/lib/swt/eclipse common public license.txt > .pdfstudio9/lib/dj/gnu lesser general public license.txt > .pdfstudio9/lib/bc_license.txt > .pdfstudio9/lib/miglayout_license.txt > .pdfstudio9/lib/js-14_license.txt > .pdfstudio9/jre/LICENSE > .pdfstudio9/jre/THIRDPARTYLICENSEREADME.txt > > I wonder which one, if any, the rpm author thinks applies. >>>> I would first check the integrity of the file. >>>> I downloaded it here (not installed it, as I don't have SL6.5). >>>> It unpacked fine though using "rpm2cpio filename.rpm | cpio -idmv" >>>> I have the following checksum on it: >>>> >>>> MD5: f39d0ef9c4fd74cbfcbffa37f0ee18f2 PDFStudio_v9_0_2_linux.rpm >>>> SHA1: 2e69d1b564cfebcac5cba9244bd04f64cedc959f PDFStudio_v9_0_2_linux.rpm >>>> >>>> It has an odd directory structure, it seems to put everything in >>>> /pdfstudio9. >> >> No, it puts it all in 'pdfstudio9'. Like I said, the author of the RPM >> needs a cluebat applied. > > It's unpacked into ".pdfstudio" not "pdfstudio" when I run "rpm2cpio > PDFStudio_v9_0_2_linux.rpm | cpio -idm". "rpm -qlp" reports as going in "pdfstudio", not even "/pdfstudio". I suspect that rpm and rpmbuild are unhappy about the use of unqualified filenames. > Is this meant to be installed by a user in a home directory, like a > browser extension? > > >> I'd suggest "mkdir /opt", then run 'rpm2cpio" there to get the >> directory contents. But I'd sooner stick my hand in a blender than >> trust this thing, gods alone know what they put in the RPM >> pre-scripts. and post-scripts. > > You can install it with "rpm -noscripts --notriggers ..." to avoid any > bad or malicious scripts. Well, yes. But those are only examples of the issues. Dropping in an "/etc/logrotate.d" file that moves aside /lib/libc.so, for example, would be similarly bad and might not show up for *weeks* if you weren't careful. > I'm not too sure about the blender thing but I wouldn't install this rpm as > is. I may overstate, very slightly.....
