RPM Community Forums

Mailing List Message of <rpm-users>

Re: Glibc %post

From: Jeff Johnson <n3npq@mac.com>
Date: Mon 10 May 2010 - 00:27:05 CEST
Message-id: <E71A8522-8406-4794-9700-AA415E5399CB@mac.com>

On May 9, 2010, at 6:14 PM, Eric MSP Veith wrote:

> Hash: SHA1
> On Monday 10 May 2010, Jeff Johnson <n3npq@mac.com> wrote:
>> I'll wager the same task that /usr/sbin/glibc_post_upgrade.i686 does can
>> be done like 10x fewer lines of lua than in C and voo-doo ASM. ANy
>> takers?
>> Disclaimer:
>> 	I already know my answer: The house collects on "00" and "0" no matter
>> what ;-)
> I guess the house just lost the bet. I am *forced* to produce a good glibc 
> (actually, eglibc) RPM that does upgrading from, say, glibc-2.7 to 
> eglibc-2.11.

Rip out /usr/sbin/glibc_post_upgrade.i686 would be my guidance
if you _MUST_ bet your job on the result. Its easier to learn
lua than look at the pages of utterly useless (but portable!) ASM voo-doo
to do a system call portably.

> There was a limit on the bytes of embedded lua/perl/whatever AFAIR, is this 
> still true?

The only limit I'm aware of _WAS_ 16Mb for tag data store, a "sanity"
check applied for all tag content in *.rpm packages.

That limit doesn't apply @rpm5.org (and has never really been
anything other than a paranoid process control: if you get the package
"right" there's no intrinsic reason to check, the only limit is
32bits in a uint32_t (modulo minor overhead)).

16Mb is one helluva Lua script no matter what. You won't need anything
near 16Mb to replace glibc_post_upgrade, its largely a single
system call.


73 de Jeff
Received on Mon May 10 00:28:05 2010
Driven by Jeff Johnson and the RPM project team.
Hosted by OpenPKG and Ralf S. Engelschall.
Powered by FreeBSD and OpenPKG.