Re: Preventing .build-id file conflicts between pypy3.7-libs-7.3.7-1.fc34.x86_64 and pypy3.8-libs-7.3.7-1.fc34.x86_64

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

 



On Mon, 2022-02-14 at 10:34 +0100, Michal Schorm wrote:
> The time had to come, when two packages would generate the same hash.
> 
> I was hit by:
> ---
> Error: Transaction test error:
>   file /usr/lib/.build-id/34/feaa549462e8818baa0629ce11da344465882b
> conflicts between attempted installs of discord-0.0.16-1.fc35.x86_64
> and skypeforlinux-8.79.0.95-1.x86_64
> ---
> some time ago but since neither is a package maintained by Fedora
> Project maintainers, no one gave a damn about the core of the issue.
> That time, I got one of the apps as a Flatpak instead, but not all
> packages have such workarounds at hand.

yeah , thank you for reminder these cases (with electron apps)

we fixed with `%global         debug_package %{nil}`


> --
> 
> Michal Schorm
> Software Engineer
> Core Services - Databases Team
> Red Hat
> 
> --
> 
> On Sun, Feb 13, 2022 at 2:13 PM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > 
> > Hey,
> > apparently some ELF files are identical between Fedora's pypy3.7-
> > libs and
> > pypy3.8-libs packages.
> > 
> > On Fedora 34, this leads to installation conflict:
> > 
> > Error: Transaction test error:
> >    file /usr/lib/.build-
> > id/39/208b4f57aa4d5cfcbed13cf6c5ec428de27264 from
> > install of pypy3.7-libs-7.3.7-1.fc34.x86_64 conflicts with file
> > from package
> > pypy3.8-libs-7.3.7-1.fc34.x86_64
> >    file /usr/lib/.build-
> > id/40/682aae1fc61eaa03230eac9033407ce96488c9 from
> > install of pypy3.7-libs-7.3.7-1.fc34.x86_64 conflicts with file
> > from package
> > pypy3.8-libs-7.3.7-1.fc34.x86_64
> >    file /usr/lib/.build-
> > id/53/96df0ea06a9dd7e8eeea66aaa65dda9b64e73c from
> > install of pypy3.7-libs-7.3.7-1.fc34.x86_64 conflicts with file
> > from package
> > pypy3.8-libs-7.3.7-1.fc34.x86_64
> >    file /usr/lib/.build-
> > id/87/535f93c815a75349f4d56210c31d4ef4b797f2 from
> > install of pypy3.7-libs-7.3.7-1.fc34.x86_64 conflicts with file
> > from package
> > pypy3.8-libs-7.3.7-1.fc34.x86_64
> >    file /usr/lib/.build-
> > id/c6/bff4486941a2fb3490a80eb7b7bfe3370e8ba0 from
> > install of pypy3.7-libs-7.3.7-1.fc34.x86_64 conflicts with file
> > from package
> > pypy3.8-libs-7.3.7-1.fc34.x86_64
> >    file /usr/lib/.build-
> > id/c9/e94d839699198b0e87c334f8e03160fec054de from
> > install of pypy3.7-libs-7.3.7-1.fc34.x86_64 conflicts with file
> > from package
> > pypy3.8-libs-7.3.7-1.fc34.x86_64
> >    file /usr/lib/.build-
> > id/e4/a09cf0647ed5d0e730dcdfef7aff9f9a2e11a0 from
> > install of pypy3.7-libs-7.3.7-1.fc34.x86_64 conflicts with file
> > from package
> > pypy3.8-libs-7.3.7-1.fc34.x86_64
> >    file /usr/lib/.build-
> > id/e8/1db0d87e7cce4f5fcad18063f7b7fce2eb9590 from
> > install of pypy3.7-libs-7.3.7-1.fc34.x86_64 conflicts with file
> > from package
> > pypy3.8-libs-7.3.7-1.fc34.x86_64
> >    file /usr/lib/.build-
> > id/ee/d5ab1faa168044b871001c4117fc8b7853b3c6 from
> > install of pypy3.7-libs-7.3.7-1.fc34.x86_64 conflicts with file
> > from package
> > pypy3.8-libs-7.3.7-1.fc34.x86_64
> > 
> > As reported in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2053880
> > 
> > I've read all the previous discussion about this on Fedora devel
> > list, but I
> > still have no idea what should I do to prevent this conflict.
> > 
> > Moving the files to a common component seems like a bad idea given
> > it's not
> > "two packages bundle the same thing" but rather "two packages built
> > in a
> > different way".
> > 
> > I see this:
> > 
> > https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/blob/rpm-4.16.1.3/macros.in#L177
> > 
> > %{?_unique_build_ids:--build-id-seed "%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE}"}
> > 
> > I suppose I could pass in %{NAME} as well, right?
> > 
> > What are the side effects for changing the seed like this?:
> > 
> > %global __debug_install_post \
> > 
> > %{lua:print(rpm.expand('%__debug_install_post'):gsub('%-%-build%-
> > id%-seed%s+"',
> > rpm.expand('--build-id-seed "%{NAME}-')))}
> > 
> > 
> > Actually, should RPM pass %{NAME} by default? Or at least have a
> > macro I could
> > redefine in a less cryptic and fragile way?
> > 
> > --
> > Miro Hrončok
> > --
> > Phone: +420777974800
> > IRC: mhroncok
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-- 
Sérgio M. B.
_______________________________________________
packaging mailing list -- packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-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/packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite Forum]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux