[OE-core] [PATCH 1/1] rpm: make install with --nosignature and --nodigest work

[Robert Yang]

On 09/21/2016 04:33 AM, Mark Hatle wrote:
> On 9/20/16 10:00 AM, Burton, Ross wrote:
>>
>> On 20 September 2016 at 09:15, Hongxu Jia <hongxu.jia at windriver.com
>> <mailto:hongxu.jia at windriver.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     -Upstream-Status: Submitted [Sent email to rpm-devel at rpm5.org
>>     <mailto:rpm-devel at rpm5.org>]
>>     +Upstream-Status: Rejected [Sent email to rpm-devel at rpm5.org
>>     <mailto:rpm-devel at rpm5.org>]
>>     +http://rpm5.org/community/rpm-devel/5655.html
>>     <http://rpm5.org/community/rpm-devel/5655.html>
>>
>>
>> Considering upstream has explicitly rejected this patch, why should we accept it?
>>
>> Ross
>>
>>
>
> I'm confused by what the patch is doing looking at it.
>
> It sounds like from the description there is a bug that without the change,
> packages with (intentionally) bad checksums and such are allowed to be installed.
>
> The bug is caused by a previous patch that enabled nosignature, etc -- because
> the comparisons turned out to be backwards.
>
> So really nosignature, etc is already in place -- it's just not working properly?
>
> What was rejected upstream is the use of nosignature in any context.  RPM5
> maintainer believes it is unwise and unsafe to permit uses to install packages
> that have failed basic validation.  (I tend to agree.)  Similarly, even being
> able to run queries and other operations against them may be dangerous as well.

If command like "rpm5 -qp --nosignature --nodigest <file.rpm>" queries database,
then it would cause rpm5 hang when more than one "rpm5 -qp" is running, so I
fixed the *query* problem, and the *install* problem is not caused by the fix.
Btw., *rpm4* doesn't query database when "rpm -qp file.rpm", if we are going
to use dnf in next release, maybe we can consider using rpm4 as Fedora does.
I did a rough statistics for oe-core's local patches, the winner is rpm, it
has 77 local patches, that's not good for maintaining, and you can imagine that
how many times it surprised us. rpm4 should be more stable than rpm5, I don't
know how many distros use rpm5, I can't access rpm5.org atm, it seems that the
web is down (It was OK yesterday), but widely used distros like Redhat and Suse
uses rpm4, so maybe rpm4 will make our life much more easier, and also for
yocto's user. I think that why we need rpm5 before was because we need use it
to compute the package dependencies, but now we have smartpm, so we don't rely
on that any more.

Here is the recipe list which has more than 10 local patches, and we have 1762
patches atm:
      77 rpm
      59 gcc-5.4
      49 gcc-6.2
      36 ltp
      31 python3
      30 perl
      29 openssl
      28 man
      27 glibc
      24 python
      23 tcp-wrappers-7.6
      23 systemd
      18 busybox
      14 syslinux
      14 python-smartpm
      14 elfutils-0.166
      14 apt
      13 qemu
      13 libtool
      13 gstreamer1.0-plugins-bad
      13 glib-2.0
      13 binutils
      13 bind
      12 coreutils-6.9
      11 valgrind
      11 gdb
      11 dhcp
      11 autoconf
      10 unzip
      10 dpkg
      10 console-tools-0.3.2

>
> If fixing the problem is as simple as reverting the other change -- and that
> doesn't cause other problems elsewhere...  I'd rather see that.

We can't revert the patch, it would break packagefeed-stability.bbclass,
we will see the hang

>
> --Mark
>