Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 77312
Web find function fails when selecting detail about a component
Last modified: 2007-04-18 12:48:09 EDT
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.0)
Description of problem:
Web find returns with the error "RDF schema seems empty" on the status bar of
the Gno RPM window.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):0.96-12.7x
Steps to Reproduce:
2.Enter root password if prompted
3.Select Web find from the tool bar
4.Click the + on any component in the lower left hand pane of the Rpmfind (Web
Actual Results: The status bar in the Gno RPM window shows a result of the
component name plus "RDF schema seems empty"
Expected Results: The component detail in the right hand pane of the Rpmfind
(Web find) window should have updated the the component details
Metadata Server is configured to retrieve RPM data from
http://www.redhat.com/RDF on the Rpmfind tab under Preferences.
Moving to web site product as apparently it's a web site missing-RDF issue.
If it's a gnorpm issue, gnorpm is no longer actively developed;
in 8.0 the replacement is redhat-config-packages.
Actually, this looks like an rpm2html issue. The rdf's are there, but are
malformed. Take a look at http://www.redhat.com/RDF/resources/zsh.rdf for a
small-ish example of what's wrong. I'll try to catch up with Daniel and see if
we can figure out what's going on there.
I just fetched the zsh.rdf , apparently it's well formed XML,
so what's the problem ?
paphio:~ -> xmllint --noout zsh.rdf
OK, this was apparently a mozilla rendering bug that led me to believe that the
RDF was malformed. After talking to Daniel for a bit, this looks like a gnorpm
I did a little more checking into this, and found that there is an additional
error message displayed by gnorpm:
Was not expecting a rdf:Description element
I added another variable to find out what it was indeed looking for, and got this:
Was not expecting a rdf:Description element, expected RDF:Description
So it looks like gnorpm is at fault here, because according to Daniel, the
prefix should not matter, just the namespace mapping to the prefix is important.
So if it's gnorpm, gnorpm is not being actively fixed and isn't there
in newer releases.