RPM Community Forums

Mailing List Message of <rpm-devel>

Re: rpm 4.4.9 missing neon support in Solaris 9 - build issue?

From: David Halik <dhalik@jla.rutgers.edu>
Date: Tue 06 Nov 2007 - 00:34:43 CET
Message-ID: <472FA893.9010106@jla.rutgers.edu>

>
> Hmmm, the issue appears to be with EPSV vs PASV modes on the 
> rpm.rutgers.edu
> server.
>
> I ran this command:
>
> + /usr/bin/rpm -qp --ftpdebug 
> ftp://rpm.rutgers.edu/solaris/solaris9-sparc64/hydrogen/RPMS.main/openssl-0.9.8g-1.solaris2.9-sparc64.rpm 
>
> ++ connect [128.6.68.181]:21 on fdno 3
> <- 220 ProFTPD 1.3.0a Server (NBCS FTP Server) [192.168.140.55]
> -> USER anonymous
> <- 331 Anonymous login ok, send your complete email address as your 
> password.
> -> PASS jbj@
> <- 230 Anonymous access granted, restrictions apply.
> -> TYPE I
> <- 200 Type set to I
> -> SIZE 
> /solaris/solaris9-sparc64/hydrogen/RPMS.main/openssl-0.9.8g-1.solaris2.9-sparc64.rpm 
>
> <- 213 9457683
> -> EPSV
> <- 229 Entering Extended Passive Mode (|||45310|)
>
> which hangs.
>
> If start this command in another wndow (within a short interval):
>
> wget 
> ftp://rpm.rutgers.edu/solaris/solaris9-sparc64/hydrogen/RPMS.main/openssl-0.9.8g-1.solaris2.9-sparc64.rpm 
>
>
> then the first command wakes up and continues to completion.
>
> That looks like a ProFTPD 1.3.0a server problem with EPSV mode to me.
>

Thank you very much for debugging this. After your reply there has been 
some discussion here on whether the problem is server related, or at the 
switch level. This might have actually tipped up a bug in our 
networking, but we're not sure yet. I'm going to upgrade proftpd to the 
latest stable anyways. The question that I'm really wondering about now 
is why did Tim Mooney have the same results with his Solaris 10 setup. 
I'm not sure if he was actually using our repo when testing or whether 
it was his own. I'm curious to find out if this same issue is happening 
to him using a repo that isn't rpm.rutgers.edu.

Are there any real advantages in using EPSV? My understanding is that 
the only difference is the lack of a server IP response to the client 
which happens in PASV. Maybe have it default to PASV unless EPSV is 
specifically requested? It looks like rpm calls EPSV first, so I'm 
guessing that's one possibility. Of course, as long as it's funtional 
we're happy ;-)

Thanks again Jeff.

-- 
================================
David Halik
Systems Programmer
OSS/NBCS - OIT Rutgers
dhalik@jla.rutgers.edu
================================ 
Received on Tue Nov 6 00:34:48 2007
Driven by Jeff Johnson and the RPM project team.
Hosted by OpenPKG and Ralf S. Engelschall.
Powered by FreeBSD and OpenPKG.