[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: librpm / corrupt free list in an FD_t (help please)

Circa 2003-01-13 14:57:44 -0500 dixit Jeff Johnson:

: The change from v3 to v4 packaging was reverted ~2 years ago,
: rpm-4.0.3 IIRC.

That doesn't really matter at this point, does it?  The time that it
mattered was back when rpm-3.0.4 was installed on millions of RHL-6.2
systems worldwide, and rpm-4.0.whatever was creating incompatible
packages that were released as official errata updates.

(Sigh).  I don't know why i expect any sort of consistency between
releases of RPM with the same major version....

: And, if you whip out hexedit and change the "4" in byte #5 to "3",
: you'll begin to appreciate the magnitude of the "incompatibility"
: in all its regal glory.

You don't seriously expect end users of Red Hat Linux to whip out
hexedit and edit *signed* errata updates for chrissakes, do you?
If you do, you're even more of an iconoclast than i thought.

: > This is on a relatively pristine RHL-6.2 system, complete with
: > rpm-3.0.4-0.48.  The first package was produced using rpm-3.0.5-9.6x,
: > while the second was produced with rpm-4.0.2-6x, both using 'rpm -ba
: > blah.spec'.
: So don't build with rpm-4.0.2. Or rpm-4.0.1, or rpm-4.0.

Latest official update for RHL-6.2 is rpm-4.0.2-6x.

: > rpm-4.0.x builds packages with a different magic major number.
: Note: rpm-4.0 through rpm-4.0.2 only, lest you disseminate FUD. ;-)

It's stupid that i should even have to know that certain versions of
rpm-4.0.x don't work in a backwards compatible fashion, and others do.
It's also stupid that Red Hat didn't release an rpm-4.0.3 erratum for
RHL-6.2.  And it's really stupid that rpm-4.0.3 wasn't called rpm-5.0
so people could actually talk about rpm-4.0.x without being somehow
confusing or confused.  You've heard my beef (and others'; i'm not the
only one) about rpm version numbers before.

: > The primary reason rpm-3.0.5 was released was [...].  Or do you
: > remember something different?
: I remember being given 24 hours to cobble together a solution to
: 	Red Hat 7.0 packages in Raw Hide don't contain any files.
: That's the raison d'etre for v4 packaging.

It's pretty stupid that errata updates for the stable Red Hat Linux at
the time were being built with a beta release of RPM, isn't it?  That
wasn't your dog food, Jeff, and you shouldn't have had to eat it.  The
right thing to do would have been for whoever made that dog food to
rebuild the errata updates with the extant rpm-3.0.x and rerelease
them.  Sorry you had to eat the dog food.

: > Which is why i continue to advocate using rpm-3.0.5 or rpm-3.0.6 for
: > software targeted at RHL-6.2 systems.
: Yes, if you want an easy old age with Red Hat 6.2, rpm-3.0.[56] (and
: there's a 3.0.7 floating around someplace, nothing worthwhile) is the
: rocking chair of choice.

rpm-3.0.7 is floating around in your imagination, Jeff.  It's not on
ftp.rpm.org, ftp.redhat.com, nor people.redhat.com/jbj/, and it's never
been released, to my knowledge.

And if customers tell me they want to use a stable system that they
know and that they know works, i let them.  It's not as if Red Hat's
security errata for RHL-6.2 have been particularly aggressive for the
last year and a half anyway....

jim knoble  |  jmknoble@pobox.com  |  http://www.pobox.com/~jmknoble/
(GnuPG fingerprint: 31C4:8AAC:F24E:A70C:4000::BBF4:289F:EAA8:1381:1491)
"I am non-refutable."  --Enik the Altrusian

Attachment: pgp00013.pgp
Description: PGP signature

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index] []