Bugzilla – Bug 105807
problems with various packages
Last modified: 2005-09-19 10:10:54 UTC
During the test of yast2-repair I encountered problems with some packages. Namely: aaa_skel, at, gettext, gnome-filesystem, groff, perl, perl-Digest-SHA1, perl-gettext, postfix, util-linux, yast2-sound. As example: rpm -V aaa_skel ..?..... /etc/skel/.bash_history rpm -V at ..?..... c /etc/at.deny missing /var/spool/atjobs/.SEQ and so on.
Wrong assignee?
Is this a Round Robin bug? Ok, first aaa_skel -> ro.
jsuchome said: it's a problem of package maintainers in such case. Or did he mean the package maintainer of every single package?
Arvin is right, it's round robin. maintainer of aaa_skel: ro@suse.de maintainer of at: ro@suse.de maintainer of gettext: mmj@suse.de maintainer of gnome-filesystem: gnome-maintainers@suse.de maintainer of groff: mfabian@suse.de maintainer of perl: mls@suse.de maintainer of perl-Digest-SHA1: mjancar@suse.cz maintainer of perl-gettext: schubi@suse.de maintainer of postfix: choeger@suse.de maintainer of util-linux: mmj@suse.de maintainer of yast2-sound: lslezak@suse.cz
Verifying fresh installed package should not report errors.
Fixed for groff.
What does "..?....." mean ? I have not found this flag in the docu.
? means "unknown", i.e. read/readlink failed. rpm seems to have a bug as it complains if a file is zero bytes big (the mmap fails with EINVAL).
I'm not sure, whether I understand this bug. Anyway. When I run rpm -V postfix as user, I get this output: +/~ $ rpm -V postfix S.5....T c /etc/postfix/main.cf ..?..... c /etc/postfix/sasl_passwd ..?..... c /usr/lib/sasl2/smtpd.conf missing /var/adm/backup/postfix missing /var/adm/backup/postfix/main.cf missing /var/adm/backup/postfix/master.cf And when I run it as root: hurwitz:~ # rpm -V postfix S.5....T c /etc/postfix/main.cf So what's the bug?
No bug for you. Be happy ;-)
yast2-sound - the problem is also in rpm itself, the file which fails during verification test has zero size. In Beta1 rpm doesn't complain.
Different kernel, I guess. But it is a rpm bug, it tries to mmap a zero size file. Please ignore all '?' entries that are caused by this.
reassigning to next in list (please remember that the ? problems are not caused by the package, we are tracking this bug for other output of rpm -V) anyway: "rpm -V " needs to be called as root for useful output.
Then, the package perl-gettext has no bug;-)
fixed for util-linux
"rpm -V gnome-filesystem" seems happy on my test machines here. Maybe some other script modified something? Hard to say without further details, without which I'm going to assume that gnome-filesystem doesn't have a real problem.
The .bs in perl modules are not a bug, reassigning to next affected package maintainer.
yast2-sound is also OK The remaining packages: # rpm -V util-linux .M...... g /var/lib/nfs/state # rpm -V postfix S.5....T c /etc/postfix/main.cf S.5....T c /etc/postfix/master.cf
Henne already fixed it. So is all the affected ones fixed? This is a good example why there should be only 1 bug pr. bugreport.
So the only package which remains is postfix. (I agree, it's a mess. Such bugreports should be splitted into more parts.)
?
Okay, Adrian explained to me in #suse, what this bug seems to be about. I assume, that you don't want rpm -V to report ANYTHING after a fresh installation? Then, this bug is INVALID for postfix, because I need at least to set a valid FQHN in main.cf in order to be able to start it (that's because SUSE LINUX gethostname() function only returns the hostpart of the fqdn).
all the files 'rpm -V postfix' complains about are config files, so you're ok. (Do not add %verify() to config files!)
Don't worry, I did not plan to do so... :-)