Re: is it possible to download a spec file only using yum?

[poma]

On 02/23/13 04:45, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>  On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 8:00 PM, poma  wrote:
> > deco grub2-2.00-16.fc19.src.rpm
> > 13020 blocks
>  [backtrace cut]
> > Aborted
> > --
>  
>  Hmm, the crash does not happen here. How reproducible is this? Can you debug?
>   
Installed from source - PREFIX = /usr
deco -v deco-archive-1.5.1-5.fc19.src.rpm deco-1.6.2-5.fc19.src.rpm
deco-archive-1.5.1.tar.gz
deco-archive-ape.diff
deco-archive-shn.diff
deco-archive-zoo.diff
deco-archive.spec
27 blocks
deco-archive-1.5.1-5.fc19.src/
deco-1.6.2.tar.gz
deco.spec
30 blocks
deco-1.6.2-5.fc19.src/

>  Just as a side information; deco is a nice cute tool that is a
> wrapper
>  around other extractors so you don't need to memorize their syntax. In
>  case of rpm it wraps rpm2cpio. 
Yep.
/usr/share/deco/rpm/extract
#!/bin/sh
…
rpm2cpio "$1" | cpio -idmu${Verbose+v}
--

/usr/share/deco/rpm/subdirectory: empty!?
deco-archive.spec is unnecessarily complicated.
Someone likes the scripting.


Cheers,
poma

is it possible to download a spec file only using yum?

[Michael Schwendt]

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 02:03:32 +0100, poma wrote:

>  Well, as always, defaults matter, not optflags in rpmrc. ;)
>  And within config.mk default is CFLAGS = -O1.
>  Let Hartlich comments, it's his code. 
Rest assured, we (= deco maintainer at Fedora and me) have been in contact
with him earlier today already.

So, please stop trolling. Thank you!

-- 
Fedora release 18 (Spherical Cow) - Linux 3.7.2-204.fc18.x86_64
loadavg: 0.02 0.15 0.20

is it possible to download a spec file only using yum?

[poma]

On 02/24/13 02:10, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>  On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 02:03:32 +0100, poma wrote:
>  
> > Well, as always, defaults matter, not optflags in rpmrc. ;)
> > And within config.mk default is CFLAGS = -O1.
> > Let Hartlich comments, it's his code.
>  
>  Rest assured, we (= deco maintainer at Fedora and me) have been in contact
>  with him earlier today already.
>  
>  So, please stop trolling. Thank you!
>   
Oh dear!
I sincerely apologize for all the trouble I've caused.

Cheers,
poma

is it possible to download a spec file only using yum?

[poma]

On 02/24/13 01:27, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>  On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 00:54:29 +0100, poma wrote:
>  
> > On 02/23/13 14:03, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > […]
> >> Nevertheless, building from source isn't a safe fix either, since it only
> >> uses different compiler flags. The crash is due to uninitialized pointers
> >>  -> bug 914659
> >>
> >> So, don't blame the packaging alone. The C source isn't pretty.
> >>
> >
> > So simple tool, and so much trouble with optimization flags(-O1 vs -O2).
> > Thanks for jumping in and patching.
>  
>  I'm not following you. It's not just a matter of "-O1 vs -O2". It's
> not as
>  if the source code were made for -O1 only. Uninitialized variables can
>  lead to undefined behaviour. With or without optimisation. Already a
>  single bit decides between 0 and 1, False and True, NULL-ptr and invalid
>  ptr, for example. Even worse for longer variables.
>   
Well, as always, defaults matter, not optflags in rpmrc. ;)
And within config.mk default is CFLAGS = -O1.
Let Hartlich comments, it's his code.

Cheers,
poma

is it possible to download a spec file only using yum?

[poma]

On 02/23/13 14:03, Michael Schwendt wrote:
[…]
>  Nevertheless, building from source isn't a safe fix either, since
> it only
>  uses different compiler flags. The crash is due to uninitialized pointers
>   -> bug 914659
>  
>  So, don't blame the packaging alone. The C source isn't pretty.
>   
So simple tool, and so much trouble with optimization flags(-O1 vs -O2).
Thanks for jumping in and patching.


Cheers,
poma

is it possible to download a spec file only using yum?

[Michael Schwendt]

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 00:54:29 +0100, poma wrote:

>  On 02/23/13 14:03, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>  […]
>  > Nevertheless, building from source isn't a safe fix either, since it only
>  > uses different compiler flags. The crash is due to uninitialized pointers
>  >  -> bug 914659
>  > 
>  > So, don't blame the packaging alone. The C source isn't pretty.
>  > 
>  
>  So simple tool, and so much trouble with optimization flags(-O1 vs -O2).
>  Thanks for jumping in and patching. 
I'm not following you. It's not just a matter of "-O1 vs -O2". It's
not as
if the source code were made for -O1 only. Uninitialized variables can
lead to undefined behaviour. With or without optimisation. Already a
single bit decides between 0 and 1, False and True, NULL-ptr and invalid
ptr, for example. Even worse for longer variables.

-- 
Fedora release 18 (Spherical Cow) - Linux 3.7.2-204.fc18.x86_64
loadavg: 0.30 0.23 0.27

is it possible to download a spec file only using yum?

[Michael Schwendt]

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 10:03:24 +0100, poma wrote:

>  On 02/23/13 04:45, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>  > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 8:00 PM, poma  wrote:
>  >> deco grub2-2.00-16.fc19.src.rpm
>  >> 13020 blocks
>  > [backtrace cut]
>  >> Aborted
>  >> --
>  > 
>  > Hmm, the crash does not happen here. How reproducible is this? Can you debug?
>  > 
>  
>  Installed from source - PREFIX = /usr
>  deco -v deco-archive-1.5.1-5.fc19.src.rpm deco-1.6.2-5.fc19.src.rpm
>  deco-archive-1.5.1.tar.gz
>  deco-archive-ape.diff
>  deco-archive-shn.diff
>  deco-archive-zoo.diff
>  deco-archive.spec
>  27 blocks
>  deco-archive-1.5.1-5.fc19.src/
>  deco-1.6.2.tar.gz
>  deco.spec
>  30 blocks
>  deco-1.6.2-5.fc19.src/
>  
>  > Just as a side information; deco is a nice cute tool that is a wrapper
>  > around other extractors so you don't need to memorize their syntax. In
>  > case of rpm it wraps rpm2cpio.
>  
>  Yep.
>  /usr/share/deco/rpm/extract
>  #!/bin/sh
>  …
>  rpm2cpio "$1" | cpio -idmu${Verbose+v}
>  --
>  
>  /usr/share/deco/rpm/subdirectory: empty!?
>  deco-archive.spec is unnecessarily complicated.
>  Someone likes the scripting. 
By default it installs into /usr/local/share/deco, but the Fedora rpms
override that to /var/lib/deco when running Make.

Nevertheless, building from source isn't a safe fix either, since it only
uses different compiler flags. The crash is due to uninitialized pointers
 -> bug 914659

So, don't blame the packaging alone. The C source isn't pretty.

-- 
Fedora release 18 (Spherical Cow) - Linux 3.7.2-204.fc18.x86_64
loadavg: 0.19 0.14 0.09