On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 02:10:37PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 02:00:36PM +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > 5. This proposal is not about licensing, but if it is adopted, it'll only > > > make figuring out potential licensing violations easier (in some cases, > > > primarily when distributing without recompilation). > > > > True, but is that worth bloating the entire distribution for all users, even > > those who are not violating the licenses? > > It is beneficial even for users who are not violating the license. > > > >> And those Dockerfiles are broken, any bug reports from them (i.e., where > > >> the package information is missing in the report) should be closed as > > >> INSUFFICIENT_DATA immediately. > > > > > > The fact that you don't like what somebody else is doing doesn't make it > > > "broken" or a "blatant violation of ... license". As discussed in the > > > other part of my reply, you're just making very general far-fetched > > > statements that may be true in some cases, but are trivially shown to be > > > groundless in many other cases. > > > > Deleting the RPM database turns a working Fedora image into a corrupt one > > that can be neither updated nor queried for metadata, how can this not be > > broken? > > Container images are often not used and maintained in the same way as > a traditional OS. If people want to pull in the latest RPM updates, > they won't run 'dnf update' in the container, they'll simply build > a new container image. Being able to query/manipulate the RPM DB > inside a container just isn't a high priority requirement in general. > It does have its downsides, as it is sometimes useful to query the > RPM DB for debugging purposes, but that doesn't mean it is broken. > It is simply a different approach / attitude / tradeoff towards using > & maintaining the software stack. > > This change proposal is showing that some of the debugging needs > can be satisfied in a different way that's arguably more reliable > for both container & non-container use cases, as it is guaranteed > to reflect what is actually resident in memory. It breaks libguestfs. It also breaks basic stuff like "what is installed in this container?" "Is this file owned by RPM?" "Has this file been modified?" I think deleting the RPM database is broken, and tools that do this should be corrected. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com Fedora Windows cross-compiler. Compile Windows programs, test, and build Windows installers. Over 100 libraries supported. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
