Bug 140052

Summary: Add a payloadformat check
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Michael Schröder <mls>
Component: rpmAssignee: Paul Nasrat <pnasrat>
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX QA Contact: Mike McLean <mikem>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: pnasrat
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: FutureFeature
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2006-01-27 08:38:02 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
Description Flags
Proposed patch none

Description Michael Schröder 2004-11-19 15:02:53 UTC
A payload other than "cpio" makes rpm print an error much too late in 
the installation process. This patch adds an earlier check. It also 
prints a different message for delta-rpms (see SuSE's deltarpm 

Comment 1 Michael Schröder 2004-11-19 15:04:07 UTC
Created attachment 107058 [details]
Proposed patch

Comment 2 Jeff Johnson 2004-11-20 04:40:34 UTC
I have no problem with an earlier payload check in principle,
and lib/rpminstall.c is about as early as it gets for the
rpm CLI.

There are several other pathways that will need the
check plugged however, the most important of which
is rpmtsAddInstallElement() in lib/depends.c, as that
performs similar "early" detection for bindings that
your patch does for the rpm CLI.

The other pathways are those used to install *.src.rpm.

Lots of this mess needs scrap and rewrite, lest the introduction
of a 4th (i.e. other than binary/src and now "drpm") flavor
of *.rpm cause this bug to be dicovered again and again and again.

Comment 3 Jeff Johnson 2006-01-27 08:38:02 UTC
Now that rpm-4.4.4 supports "ustar" payloads, this is not the right check to do.

The better implementation is to add a "rpmlib(PayloadIsDeltaRpm)" (or equivalent) tracking
dependency when building delta rpm headers, and then failing in rpmtsCheck() if the
version of rpmlib does not supprt the necessary functionality.

That's perfect for binary rpm's, but source rpm installs (are there delta rpm payloads
in source rpm's?) would still need additional handling because rpmtsCheck() (and
the install paths) are different.

I'm perfectly okay living without the check for srpm's because non-cpio payloads for
srpm's is plain and simply a bad idea.

WONTFIX in the sense that the included patch is the wrong check, but I'm perfectly happy
with a rpmlib(...) tracking dependency for delat rpm's underneath a #ifdef in rpm sources some day.