This bug has been migrated to another issue tracking site. It has been closed here and may no longer be being monitored.

If you would like to get updates for this issue, or to participate in it, you may do so at Github .
Bug 1008387 - rpm: include source package NEVR in binary package
Summary: rpm: include source package NEVR in binary package
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED MIGRATED
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: rpm
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Michal Domonkos
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2013-09-16 09:56 UTC by Florian Weimer
Modified: 2023-11-29 13:01 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2023-11-29 13:01:49 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Github   rpm-software-management rpm issues 2796 0 None open RFE: Store source rpm info in built binary rpm 2023-11-29 13:01:48 UTC

Description Florian Weimer 2013-09-16 09:56:43 UTC 
Currently, there is only the more or less free-form SOURCERPM tag that includes the source RPM name.  It would be good to have explicit data on the precise version of the source RPM, including the epoch.  The SHA1HEADER hash of the SRPM would be nice to have, too.

Obviously, these fields would have to be optional (but they should be included for SRPMs as well, if the SRPM isn't actually buildable from itself in a reproducible manner, which I suspect happens in some cases).  But they should be populated automatically during regular package builds.
Comment 1 Panu Matilainen 2019-03-13 09:42:47 UTC 
There's a basically reverse RFE of this upstream now: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/642
Like noted there, if we add one I think we should add the other one too so perhaps there's hope that this will finally move forward...
Comment 2 Florian Weimer 2019-03-13 09:51:53 UTC 
(In reply to Panu Matilainen from comment #1)
> There's a basically reverse RFE of this upstream now:
> https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/642
> Like noted there, if we add one I think we should add the other one too so
> perhaps there's hope that this will finally move forward...

I don't think this will work for Fedora because we throw away the source RPMs for all but one architecture, and the subpackage data is inconsistent across architectures and cannot even be computed in a cross build in general.
Comment 3 Panu Matilainen 2019-03-13 10:03:27 UTC 
That's no different from all the other build-specific data that is stored in the src.rpm (dependencies, architecture even).

The src.rpm never was arch-independent, and trying to treat it as it were (such as Fedora is doing) just leads to problems. Witness the endless bug reports on builddep using the repository data not working on yum/dnf.
Comment 4 Florian Weimer 2019-03-13 10:13:17 UTC 
Understood.  I just question the utility of storing such data in the Fedora context, when we would throw it away anyway.
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.