[lsb-discuss] RPM decision process

Dan Kohn dan at dankohn.com
Wed Apr 16 13:25:35 PDT 2008


We moved the archives.
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 12:45 PM, R P Herrold <herrold at owlriver.com> wrote:
>
>  > Jeff: won't solve this on the call; can Russ send a summary
>  > of issues?
>
>  It turns out that a 'review of the bidding' and open issues is
>  something I took the time to do in some detail.  sadly, I fear
>  it does not bode well for LSB's relevance in 'packaging'
>  space.
>
>  http://mail.freestandards.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging is
>  dead to me [the connection times out], and so I cannot post
>  the 'permanent' URL for this summary piece from Mats a while
>  back; I also have some pieces in my private archive from some
>  participants I cannot republish as they did not cross a public
>  list.  -- I set a rather nice full summary from Mats out below
>  at the bottom of this email.
>
>
>  As to some matters raised in the call, ...
>
>  My opening remark to the comment that 'We agreed at the face-
>  to-face that RPM package version format uplift was not
>  important and might be deferred' was -- Either uplift to RPM
>  package version 4, or just use tarballs [ar, cpio, XML blobs,
>  whatever];  RPM package version 3 is long obsolete,
>  incompletely protects the content, and is subject to a known
>  modification attack which cannot be detected in the way the v
>  3 signing leade is used.
>
>
>  Preapring this email, I had forgotten, but the essence of the
>  question I asked, and that Ted and I went back and forth on,
>  was repeated by JBJ working through support for a Debian user
>  of the LSB builder:
>      http://rpm5.org/community/rpm-lsb/0006.html
>
>  JBJ noted:
>
>  No matter what, all this stoopid configgery to produce a LSB
>  "standard" package could be simplified to a --lsb option in
>  rpm if anyone cared to ask me to implement.
>
>  No one has.
>
>  But I do ask the question:
>       What use is rpm as a LSB "standard" format if everything
>  in rpmbuild needs disabling?
>       Isn't cpio or tar or ... a better choice than a
>  lobotomized rpmbuild?
>
>  -------- JBJ quote ends
>
>  ... my apology on the brain-dead color scheme at that site -- I
>  complained, but the maintainer likes it  ;(
>
>
>  I had upstreamed the LSB RPMBUILD variant's errors at:
>     http://bugs.linuxbase.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1875
>  which remains open.
>
>
>  The RPM package version 4 has been documented for years -- at
>  least since 2004 in Max RPM on-line:
>      http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-file-format-rpm-file-format.html
>  in the revision to Ed Bailey's initial Maximum RPM, done, as I
>  recall, by Paul Nasrat when Paul was then employed at Red Hat
>  (and not the dreaded JBJ ;)  ]
>
>
>  The ad hominum BS which I heard on this call: 'I saw Jeff
>  Johnson wrote it and so I stopped reading' is rejected as an
>  approach by me, and I trust by the LSB as a matter of policy.
>  On the call for paid staff of LF to ask me, a volunteer to
>  respond by writing an already existing set of documentation
>  and code, to what at the end of the day are simply uninformed
>  and inaccurate 'facts' about the RPM package format is
>  extremely off-putting to me.
>
>
>  There has plenty of distro-specific blame to go around in
>  packaging space discussions, but the LSB seems to fear
>  acknowledging its antecedents -- the circumlocutions another
>  call member used today to point fingers encourages 'in the
>  know' v. 'outside' cliquishness: I find in my archives from
>  the packaging list:
>
>  Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 16:26:59 +0200
>  From: Wichert Akkerman <wichert at soil.nl>
>  Reply-To: packaging at rufus.w3.org
>  To: packaging at rufus.w3.org
>  Subject: Re: [packaging] packageformat spec
>
>  Previously Jeff Johnson wrote:
>   ...
>  > Can we agree on common semantics for file dependencies?
>
>  Probably, but Debian will never use them.
>
>  --------------------------
>
>  Amateurs painting bikesheds. ;(
>
>
>  Ted's complaint about dependency specification inter **
>  distribution ** is uninteresting, irrelevant and misguided;
>  the issue is what can an ISV reply upon when installing to an
>  LSB conformant distribution, exposing LSB managed names; and
>  the answer is LSB exposed 'Provides', administered in the
>  LANANA or in the spec document itself.
>
>
>  Stuart Anderson took a swing at that ** distribution **
>  level issue:
>      http://bugs.linuxbase.org/show_bug.cgi?id=967
>  Still open
>
>
>  LANANA is still dead:
>      http://bugs.linuxbase.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1279
>  Still open -- my ping after the 'yes it should be fixed' LSB
>  call in January, its last activity
>      https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/lsb-discuss/2008-January/004513.html
>      https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/lsb-discuss/2008-January/004515.html
>  ----------------- quote
>  Russ: LANANA?  Dan: we engaged them, got some responses; need
>  to update.  What do people want?  Proposed that the LF
>  administer, the original people set policy.  Russ:
>  responsiveness is the major issue, bug open for a year and a
>  half.  No visibility; no tracker, no way to know that they're
>  being listened to.  Dan: possible political issues.  Jeff: had
>  suggested a mailing list, seemed acceptable, never got done.
>  ----------------- quote ends
>
>
>  Pretty much like the RPM package format uplift, I fear.
>
>
>
>  Similarly, anonymous ISV's complaints of:  1: too hard, and 2:
>  not our build system and we support big iron Unix, are cited
>  by him and others as why 'yet another package builder' needs
>  to be written [int: it's already done -- see the JBJ post set
>  out infra], contra my express identification of two major ISV,
>  actively ** using ** RPM %pre and %posts [beyond the LSB
>  minimum required implementation].
>
>  1. 'Too hard' is just sloth, pure and simple. It takes me
>  perhaps ten minutes to package a new random tarball, and less
>  to get a result back from the buildroot.  For an ISV
>  application ** I ** ship ['... I'm not just a member of the
>  hair club ...' from the distro side], we have an automated
>  local builder which works with the rpm packaging system --
>  writing the Debian, OS/X and RPM based scripts for test
>  builds, took not more than a day.
>         ftp://ftp.owlriver.com/pub/local/COLUG/
>                 shim-OSX.sh
>                 shim-builder.sh
>                 shim-debian.sh
>
>  And because an upstream certifying authority could not read
>  and understand error messages from the package management
>  tool, I tossed a scriptlet to inventory build environment
>  defects earlier today, and have upstreamed a report:
>                 shim-inventory.sh
>
>
>  2. is easier -- OK -- don't be LSB certified in an RPM
>  distribution form; nothing mandates it -- use tarballs, or
>  carrier pigeons with clay tablets as they prefer.
>
>
>  I consciously asked posed question of 'futures' to Red Hat
>  yesterday, because two years later changed to rpmbuild are
>  still not defined into a Requirements document ** I ** could
>  implement from:
>         https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/rpm-maint/2008-April/000883.html
>
>
>  I _know_ how much history and hard 'dark corners' remain in
>  rpm package building.  Red Hat has gone through two succesors
>  to JBJ re-learning the lesson.  I found it again confirmed
>  doing task decomposition for Alien earlier this year, as I
>  blocked out the work there.  Dumbing down the RPM package
>  format to present a simplified form for the current Alien;
>  'smartening' 'alien' to understand excised elements is to have
>  to recap a decade's work since RPM was done in perl.
>  Extending then to the later package format is more, but not
>  that much more.
>
>
>  Two of the commercial Enterprise Linux distro vendors may
>  muddle along with locally maintained rpm forks which are
>  adding extensions only (not re-building that wheel), but
>  clearly also Wind River (a greenfield move), and EMEA Cable
>  and Wireless' OpenPKG (a fork and merge move) distribution
>  moved to the fully interoperant rpm5 codebase (Wind being
>  mentioned earlier in the call as one of the three CGL vendors
>  of consequence and to whom the LSB considers).  CentOS has it
>  easy; we readily revel in slavishly replicating our upstream's
>  errors in the main line.
>
>
>  I don't mind a scuffle, but when I bring facts in, and get
>  argument based on opinion, raised voices and interruption, and
>  no details in response, I cannot give it credence.
>
>
>  Conspicuous by their absence in these calls and without any
>  interest in advancing away from the LSB 'RPM pkg version 3
>  with exclusions' [it appears, now a NINE and not eight year
>  wrong format], to RPM package version 4, are representatives
>  from the vendor which controls rpm.org -- no surprise; nothing
>  new.  They are the market leader and can wait their opponent
>  in the commercially supported Enterprise Linux market out.
>
>
>  I reject the patronizing implied criticism of 'Johnny come
>  lately-ism' that I should have traveled to Texas out of my own
>  pocket to this most recent face to face meeting 'where
>  decisions were made' in what Joe Barr's article this week
>  seems to think was closed process, just as I would reject any
>  suggestion to that effect for my absence at Berlin; I've done
>  the face to face and post meeting memo long since with a well
>  respected LF stakeholder's long term representative.  My
>  concern w pkg v 3 is well known, long standing, and of record.
>  I feed the bug tracker, participate in the mailing list
>  (several actually, for many many years), and call into the
>  call as possible.
>
>
>  While composing this, I happened to get a call from a huge
>  customer of a LSB certified Enterprise distributor's product,
>  and asked: 'How important is LSB certification on your
>  purchasing bullet list for products.' Sadly the answer for
>  them is:  Commercial SLAs and support matter; the LSB
>  certification is not even on their radar.
>
>
>  I am not sorry for speaking frankly -- Please: do RPM right,
>  or stop doing it; to the extent that the conference call
>  bridge lags resulted in 'talking over one another' and made
>  for poor communication, I trust those on the call understand.
>
>
>  As promised, two email from my archive in this space follow,
>  as requested, with a bit of commentary in between from me.
>
>  -- Russ herrold
>         614 488 6954
>
>
>  ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>  Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 06:58:26 -0800
>  From: "Wichmann, Mats D" <mats.d.wichmann at intel.com>
>  To: Stuart Anderson <anderson at netsweng.com>, R P Herrold <herrold at owlriver.com>
>  Cc: lsb-wg at freestandards.org, rpm-devel at lists.dulug.duke.edu,
>      packaging at freestandards.org
>  Subject: RE: [Lsb-wg] Re: [Packaging] Anybody is alive here ?
>
>  If the packaging group wants to restart some of its work, that's fine,
>  but a longer term question.
>
>  I do want to reemphasize what Stuart said, I'll try to be less clumsy
>  than I was in a comment in the bug-report.
>
>  At some point in the historical past, the LSB decided to settle on a
>  packaging compromise: specifying a format for packages, but not a tool.
>
>  The format IS the rpm format, but somewhat restricted. It's
>  documented elsewhere how restricted (the packaging spec is the
>  best place to look). LSB conforming systems are required to be
>  able to install packages in this format, which can certainly
>  be met by using rpm as the package manager, also converting to
>  other format with alien, and presumably there are additional
>  options we don't know about - one *should* be able to meet the
>  requirement on conforming implementation of being able to
>  install LSB packages by implementing an installer tool to the
>  requirements in the spec.  [Note: set aside whether that's a
>  good idea in practice; that's what a complete spec is about,
>  you should be able to implement entirely to the spec and not
>  look at existing code to make things work].
>
>  Generally speaking, this is the LSB model: carve out some
>  common chunk of technology that everyone can agree on, even if
>  that needs to be a subset of a widely deployed piece of
>  software.  For example, the LSB describes the set of services
>  provided by glibc that are described in the POSIX
>  specification, but generally stays away from additional
>  non-POSIX functionality that may also be present in glibc. As
>  long as developers avoid the non-specified functionality
>  (which we provide some tools to help with), they're able to
>  conform to the LSB spec.
>
>  The difficulty here is that now that a bunch of research was
>  done with our tool which checks packages for conformance to
>  the spec, it appears that packages constructed using current
>  distro versions of rpmbuild do not match the LSB spec, having
>  a fair bit of extra stuff in them. Sure, some of that is
>  sloppy packaging as was written somewhere in this thread, the
>  research didn't limit to carefully constructed packages that
>  try to be LSB conforming.
>
>  So the question is, can we make the subsetting model work in this
>  case? As Stuart wrote,
>
>  "To solve this, there are 2 paths we can take
>
>         1) Fix the spec by adding in everything that is missing
>         2) Fix the tools so they only output what is required"
>
>  That is, increase the size of the subset, apply some sort of
>  restriction in LSB mode as we've been able to do elsewhere, or
>  maybe some combination of the two. Stuart has talked already
>  about problems with #1 in that the missing stuff seems to fall
>  outside the "common stuff that everyone can agree on", and the
>  problem with #2 is we're not quite sure how to do that. Which
>  left us /considering/ whether it made more sense to develop a
>  new tool which could meet path #2.
>
>  Maybe some wiser folk than us on the rpm list have
>  suggestions?  Could rpmbuild be taught to limit what it
>  outputs? One concern I have with modifying rpmbuild is getting
>  it in the hands of LSB developers: current deployments of rpm
>  range from 4.0.x on up through 4.4 which I gather is the
>  current codebase head, and there are an awful lot of systems
>  pegged onto the 4.1-or-earlier track.  But maybe that's a
>  later question. Could it even reasonably be done?
>
>  ================================= Mats' piece ends
>
>
>  The transforms for 'bowdlerizing' ** cough ** building
>  packages are well known into the LSB format, and as it turns
>  out, JBJ has them in the RPM5 fork already.  This was posted
>  to the 'vendor neutral' RPM maintenance list set up by Red Hat
>  at Duke by their proxy.  There is no need to re-do what has
>  already been done, unless of course JBJ's LGPL work is for
>  some reason not functional. Redoing it yet again and
>  differently at LF is a re-invention of a tool, and fool's
>  work, as I remarked in the call today.
>
>  JBJ reconfirmed to me today, post call that reaching rpm5 to
>  build '--lsb' packages is readily doable, and actually update
>  his earlier email for some changes in 'genpkglist' / 'rpmrepo'
>  space since the following piece:
>
>  15:07  jbj> orc_orc: rpm2lsb is quite doable. meanwhile I
>         haven't finished because there is no detectable
>         interest. but I can/will knock out the conversion if
>         desired.
>
>  Seems silly not to talk with him.  In part that's why I hang
>  on in the calls.  ;)
>
>
>  Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 17:27:55 -0400
>  From: Jeff Johnson <n3npq.jbj at gmail.com>
>  Reply-To: RPM internals development and distro coordination
>      <rpm-devel at lists.dulug.duke.edu>
>  To: RPM internals development and distro coordination
>      <rpm-devel at lists.dulug.duke.edu>
>  Subject: rpm-devel]  LSB packaging anyone?
>
>
>  On Aug 23, 2006, at 10:42 PM, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>
>  > Hmmm, now where was I? Ah yes ...
>  >
>
>  > At OLS this year I finally met Mats Wichmann, where the
>  > subject of LSB packaging was discussed a bit.
>  >
>  > What's sad, both then and now, is that LSB "standard"
>  > packaging is simply not yet possible to produce easily and
>  > reliably
>  >
>  > While there are many flaws in the LSB packaging standard
>  > (imho), it would be rather easy to make rpm packages that
>  > are conformant with the existing standard(s).
>  >
>  > Basically, all that is necessary to convert most any
>  > existing rpm package to LSB standard packaging is:
>  >       a) discard all dependencies except "LSB" and "lsb-*" from headers
>  >       b) discard any/all trigger scripts.
>  >       c) rewrite headers with absolute file paths instead of the
>  >          {dirname,basename,dirindex}  that has been used in rpm many
>  >          years now.
>  >
>  > I can write that conversion program in a day or so whenever.
>  >
>
>  I managed to scrounge a couple of hours to get the
>  preliminaries for a rpm2lsb conversion utility together. ATM,
>  the utility takes 0 or 1 argument, and spews the signature and
>  metadata headers in YAML. Yawn, work-in-progress in the tools
>  sub-directory from rpm CVS on the rpm-4_4 branch.
>
>  The rpm2lsb utility (and its inverse lsb2rpm) are the first in
>  a series of package conversion utilities that are going to be
>  added to RPM when finished.
>
>  AFAIAC -- as the pretender to RPM maintainer -- I hereby
>  officially bequeath the format documented in "Maximum RPM" to
>  LSB for whatever purposes they see fit.
>
>  So, the format formerly known as "rpm-3.0.x" is officially
>  renamed as "LSB format".
>
>  The format will change only by act of LSB, with versioning in
>  rpmlead and dependencies tracked by LSB, not rpm.
>
>  Ptooey! R.I.P. Have fun!
>
>  Seriously, the "LSB format"  is deeply flawed mainly because
>  the development paradigm and needs in 1997 was considerably
>  different than today's.
>
>  I can still hear ewt say
>          If there's something wrong, segfault immediately.
>  Never check an error code you can't handle. but that's just
>  rpm's %ghosty and hysterical past.
>
>  > What I've been muddling since OLS is whether to add a --lsb
>  > option to rpmbuild to accomplish LSB packaging instead. I
>  > currently lean towards a conversion utility rather than a
>  > build option (which is even less than a couple of hours of
>  > work), because LSB packages lack sufficient information to
>  > be installed on most current linux distros, and I'd rather
>  > not see rpmbuild --lsb be used to, say, produce packages
>  > without dependencies that cannot be installed reliably.
>  >
>
>  Not forgotten, just not yet. A conversion utility outside of
>  rpmbuild first.
>
>  > Is there any interest in producing LSB "standard" packaging?
>  >
>
>  I am, and LSB seems to have some interest as well. Anybody else?
>
>  73 de Jeff
>
>  =================================================
>  _______________________________________________
>  lsb-discuss mailing list
>  lsb-discuss at lists.linux-foundation.org
>  https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-discuss
>



-- 
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan at dankohn.com>
COO, The Linux Foundation <http://www.linux-foundation.org>
<http://www.dankohn.com/> <tel:+1-415-233-1000>



More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list