----- Original Message ----- > On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 04:12:20 -0400 (EDT), Tomas Mlcoch wrote: > > > > On Thu, 06 Aug 2015 13:15:02 +0000, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > > > > > > We discussed with Jan Silhan yesterday. It looks like something broken > > > > in > > > > createrepo/createrepo_c in F22. So it's not dnf/yum/hawkey/libsolv > > > > issue. > > > > > > > > LOG: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/epoch_bug.log > > > > > > > > Also CCing Jan. > > > > > > Wow. createrepo is also affected. > > > > > > createrepo_c uses strtol() to accept only numbers as Epoch. Anything > > > else strol() cannot parse is ignored and defaults to "epoch=0" in the > > > repo metadata. This means it can break for typos as well as, not just > > > an undefined macro used as Epoch in a versioned dep. > > > > > > It couldn't find a comment in the source that would tell whether this > > > is by design. > > > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > what do you suggest? > > I can think about three reasonable solutions for createrepo_c here: > > > > > > 1) Abort and print error about bad (non-numerical) epoch > > > 2) Print warning about the bad epoch > > > 3) Print warning about bad epoch and skip the broken dep > > > X) Ignore the broken package > > Why are only numerical Epoch values accepted? > > What would break, if an Epoch recognized as "bad" would be replaced > with a string such as "-BROKEN-"? epoch="-BROKEN-" in the primary metdata. > > The version tags "ver" and "rel" attributes may also be non-numerical. > Why not "epoch", too? > > Else I think rpmbuild may be able to reject more non-numerical Epochs, > but as long as it doesn't, replacing an Epoch is wrong. > > Other layers that could watch for non-numerical Epochs: rpmlint + AutoQA. > RPM itself expects epoch to be number: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/blob/140744377b019e0de81d76d0931c32228d2ed57e/lib/rpmvercmp.c#L124-L143 YUM expects epoch to be integral number: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/yum/blob/e17424b34ed8409803b5e702b24f6d0051ca99ca/yum/rpmsack.py#L922 Fedora's doc states that "Epoch" is numeric field: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Use_of_Epochs This rpmbuild acceptance of a non-numerical epoch is obviously a bug. I would prefer one of my proposed solutions instead of accepting non-numerical epoch values. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
