Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2014 14:59:24 +0400 From: "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@...linux.org> To: owl-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: massive Owl userland updates Hi, On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 12:18:20PM +0400, Solar Designer wrote: > On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 12:04:40PM +0400, (GalaxyMaster) wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 11:41:01AM +0400, Solar Designer wrote: > > > BTW, did you preserve our changes to RPM, such as package build time > > > comparison (in case Version and Release on a package being upgraded > > > remain unchanged between the old and the new revision)? > > > > You are underestimating me :). Yes, all our custom patches are > > incorporated. :) However, after reviewing your patches to RPM I > > strongly believe that our build time comparison is a no-op patch :). > > The reason for this is that we have ldv@'s (?) SHA1 header comparison > > and if a package has been rebuilt its header changes (even if the > > version stays exactly the same). Anyway, my goal was to update > > autotools and RPM and preserve as much as possible (behaviour-like), > > so I kept all patches in. > > IIRC, both of these checks are by ldv@, and I vaguely recall discussing > that redundancy. Originally it was a single patch, later split into two parts. The digest comparison patch was merged upstream (see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=134388), but then there was a fork, and it looks like rpm.org missed this patch because they forked too early. The build time comparison patch was never submitted. This build time comparison patch still does something useful: it allows "rpmi -F" to update rebuilt packages without changing their NEVR, the same way it allows "rpmi -U" to be used without --force for that kind of updates. That is, you'd better keep both patches applied. :) -- ldv Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.