Comment 1 Peter Åstrand 2014-10-09 11:04:15 CEST

We must stay compatible with LSB. This means, for example, that we must use package format version 3:

http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/LSB_4.1.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/pkgformat.html:

major	 	

Value indicating the major version number of the file format version. This value shall be 3.

Comment 2 Karl Mikaelsson 2015-02-06 10:11:58 CET

We don't only have to be compatible with LSB, we also have to be compatible with the eLux bastardized RPM format. Looking at LSB, it allows for a few things we disable:

> rpmlib(VersionedDependencies)	3.0.3-1
> rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix)4.0-1
> rpmlib(CompressedFileNames)	3.0.4-1

Comment 3 Karl Mikaelsson 2015-02-06 10:11:58 CET

We don't only have to be compatible with LSB, we also have to be compatible with the eLux bastardized RPM format. Looking at LSB, it allows for a few things we disable:

> rpmlib(VersionedDependencies)	3.0.3-1
> rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix)4.0-1
> rpmlib(CompressedFileNames)	3.0.4-1

Comment 4 Karl Mikaelsson 2015-02-06 10:12:57 CET

Will still need to investigate what features is OK for use with eLux packages.

Comment 5 Karl Mikaelsson 2015-02-10 12:44:16 CET

(In reply to comment #3)
> rpmlib(VersionedDependencies)
> rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix)
> rpmlib(CompressedFileNames)

An autotest that monitors installed (server) RPM packages for rpmlib dependencies outside of these three was committed as r29959.

Comment 6 Karl Mikaelsson 2015-02-11 17:48:07 CET

(In reply to comment #0)
> The use of "%define noPayloadPrefix" has had potential real-world
> implications[1] on modern systems, for example. According to [2], this feature
> was removed in the latest version of RPM and was apparently only present for
> compatibility with rpm < 3.0.5 anyway (which is prehistoric, I don't think even
> RHEL5 uses anything this old).
> 
> We should investigate to make sure that this and other deprecated directives
> are removed from our build system, and that the resulting RPM packages are
> compliant with a modern version of the RPM spec.
> 
> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1122004
> [2] http://www.rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.12.0

Removing "%define _noPayloadPrefix 1" from our spec files creates an additional dependency on "rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1".

This dependency is allowed by LSB 4.1. In fact, it was allowed by LSB 1.3, which was released more than 12 years ago, in December of 2002.

Comment 7 Karl Mikaelsson 2015-02-18 11:20:46 CET

My conclusion about this: We can safely remove the _noPayloadPrefix=1 line from the spec files of all our packages, except for eLux packages. I've added bug 5435 to track this incompatibility.

Comment 8 Karl Mikaelsson 2015-02-19 11:21:16 CET

(In reply to comment #7)
> My conclusion about this: We can safely remove the _noPayloadPrefix=1 line from
> the spec files of all our packages, except for eLux packages. I've added bug
> 5435 to track this incompatibility.

I've also added bug 5439 for removing both _noPayloadPrefix and --nodirtokens from our spec files.

With that, I consider this investigation to be complete.

Comment 9 Pierre Ossman 2015-04-28 17:23:59 CEST

Investigation looks good, and the autotest seems fine. Closing.