Re: [Rpm-devel] Re: binary rpm package checking
Hello Dag,
I've copied a newer version to http://people.redhat.com/laroche/pyrpm/
It can now also read the cpio data part of rpm packages and has several
items cleaned up. I'd be interested to hear more feedback from python
experts about possibly improvements. ;-)
The "--strict" option should only be used for Fedora Core development
branch.
I've ran it on about 28000 packages, mostly unknown tag values:
unknown distribution: Dag Apt Repository for Red Hat 7.3
unknown packager: Dries Verachtert <dries(a)ulyssis.org>
unknown vendor: Dag Apt Repository, http://dag.wieers.com/apt/
Yepp, content check for "--strict" not useful for non-FC-devel.
However it also triggered a problem:
ValueError: amavisd-new-milter-2.2.0-2.0.rh8.test.i386.rpm: wrong data in rpm lead
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "./pyrpm.py", line 676, in ?
verifyAllRpms()
File "./pyrpm.py", line 657, in verifyAllRpms
rpm = verifyRpm(a, legacy)
File "./pyrpm.py", line 583, in verifyRpm
if rpm.readHeader():
File "./pyrpm.py", line 308, in readHeader
self.parseLead(leaddata)
File "./pyrpm.py", line 110, in parseLead
self.raiseErr("wrong data in rpm lead")
File "./pyrpm.py", line 59, in raiseErr
raise ValueError, "%s: %s" % (self.filename, err)
on files like:
perl-Tk-804.026-1.rhfc1.test.i386.rpm
amavisd-new-2.2.0-2.0.rh8.test.i386.rpm
xpde-0.4.0-1.1.fc2.test.i386.rpm
Fortunately all of these have been renamed files where the repotag has
been changed to 'test'. Something I frequently do after a package didn't
go through QA but was still worth distributing.
Should also not be happen without the "--strict" option.
After a while, when it started with kernel-module packages, I got
this:
ValueError: kernel-module-ov511-2.25-0_2.4.20_20.9.dag.rh90.i686.rpm: unknown prog:
['/sbin/depmod', '-ae']
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "./pyrpm.py", line 676, in ?
verifyAllRpms()
File "./pyrpm.py", line 663, in verifyAllRpms
rrpm = RRpm(rpm)
File "./pyrpm.py", line 509, in __init__
(self.post, self.postprog) = rpm.getScript("postin",
"postinprog")
File "./pyrpm.py", line 415, in getScript
self.raiseErr("unknown prog: %s" % prog)
File "./pyrpm.py", line 59, in raiseErr
raise ValueError, "%s: %s" % (self.filename, err)
These messages are printed for each package. The command I ran was:
find /dar/packages/ -type f -name "*.rpm" | xargs -i ./pyrpm.py --strict
'{}' \; | grep -vE 'unknown (packager|vendor|distribution)' | sort | uniq
-c
I ended it after a lot of these 'errors'. Is the traceback intentional ?
I should change the tracebacks into errors only, so that you can still
enable this option and look at the items we would not like to have in
FC-devel.
Thanks for running this test. Looks like the rpm parser is stable enough
for existing packages and we mostly deal with the "noise" the parser is
also checking right now.
greetings,
Florian La Roche