RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.
Bug 849621 - file is coming back with 'LaTeX document text' instead of 'XML document text'
Summary: file is coming back with 'LaTeX document text' instead of 'XML document text'
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6
Classification: Red Hat
Component: file
Version: 6.3
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: rc
: ---
Assignee: Jan Kaluža
QA Contact: Stanislav Zidek
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 849641
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2012-08-20 11:27 UTC by james.hn.sears
Modified: 2014-10-14 08:29 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version: file-5.04-16.el6
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
: 849641 (view as bug list)
Environment:
Last Closed: 2014-10-14 08:29:06 UTC
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)
'LaTeX' example (219 bytes, text/xml)
2012-08-20 11:27 UTC, james.hn.sears 		no flags Details
proposed patch (1.19 KB, patch)
2012-08-20 12:33 UTC, Jan Kaluža 		no flags Details | Diff
a.xml (227 bytes, application/octet-stream)
2012-08-20 15:22 UTC, james.hn.sears 		no flags Details
View All


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Product Errata RHSA-2014:1606 0 normal SHIPPED_LIVE Moderate: file security and bug fix update 2014-10-14 01:39:32 UTC

Description james.hn.sears 2012-08-20 11:27:17 UTC 
Created attachment 605678 [details]
'LaTeX' example

I've noticed that file is, possibly, coming back with the wrong mime type - I was expecting 'XML document text' but instead get 'LaTeX document text'.

Ubuntu - various releases - comes back with 'XML document text', why isn't 6.3?

I've attached an example that produces the 'wrong' response from file.
Comment 2 Jan Kaluža 2012-08-20 12:32:30 UTC 
I think this is not valid XML:

<?version xml="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

Proper DTD is:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

Although even with the proper header it doesn't work correctly, because it misdetecs "\chapter" as LaTeX command. Attached patch against file-5.11 fixes that.
Comment 3 Jan Kaluža 2012-08-20 12:33:01 UTC 
Created attachment 605696 [details]
proposed patch
Comment 4 james.hn.sears 2012-08-20 14:07:52 UTC 
Hi Jan - thank you for getting back to me so promptly.

I went into /usr/share/misc/magic, manuall patched, and rebuilt a .mgc file via: file -C -m 

Before I did this I ran file against the files that are producing this LaTex problem - I got 21 misdetecs.

After I manually applied the patch I got 1 misdetec.

I think the proposed patch needs a bit more work.

PS 
- apologies for typo in the first attachement on the metadataInfo element.
- my OS version is 2.6.32-279.5.1.el6.x86_64 if that helps.
Comment 5 Jan Kaluža 2012-08-20 14:20:05 UTC 
Can you attach the file for which it's still broken?
Comment 6 james.hn.sears 2012-08-20 15:22:18 UTC 
Created attachment 605721 [details]
a.xml

Hi Jan - I can't provide you with any original file; however by using vi I've managed to strip away our propietary information yet still keep what's causing 'file' to come out with the 'wrong' answer.

Put another way, when I use 'file' on the attached a.xml I get 'LaTeX' whether I use the defaul magic database or the one I patched (by following your instructions).

If it helps I can, relatively easily, regression test another patch of yours.
Comment 7 Jan Kaluža 2012-08-21 05:47:33 UTC 
In the last attachment there's still "<?version xml="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>". This is not valid XML. If I change it to "<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>", patched File is able to detect that file.
Comment 8 james.hn.sears 2012-08-21 08:34:57 UTC 
Hi Jan - after doing some more research I agree with you. The a.xml file is not valid when compared against http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-prolog-dtd

Hence the patch, at least from my perspective, works.

Thank you for your help.

Any estimate as to when the patch will be released?
Comment 11 Jindrich Novy 2012-09-08 10:21:09 UTC 
Not sure how this bug is related to latex2html. Reassigning back to file(1).
Comment 13 james.hn.sears 2013-01-14 15:16:19 UTC 
Hi - for the sake of history, just want to record the fact that we've got a similar (magic database) related defect at: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=873997

There was a case for this - https://access.redhat.com/support/cases/00742615 - but at the moment we haven't upgraded our support package away from 'self support'.
Comment 23 errata-xmlrpc 2014-10-14 08:29:06 UTC 
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2014-1606.html
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.