You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
setup_kernels_arches should not call rpm on Debian/Ubuntu based distros #329
If the distribution is based on Debian/Ubuntu, dkms should not make any calls to rpm.
There are currently unguarded calls in setup_kernels_arches and do_uninstall.
There is an unwanted side effect of creating an empty rpmdb in /.rpmdb/ or /root/.rpmdb/ on Debian and derivatives when performing rpm queries and rpm is installed.
the ia32e in setup_kernels_arches was added ~15 years ago with 5a9c77b by @superchalupa.
Michael do you recall what distro/version it's aimed at, is it still relevant?
Edit: fwiw actual rpm invocations around ia32e were introduced by 3abe63b, although one can remove the whole block if the Arch is no longer supported/relevant.
while the do_uninstall reference is more recent 79fc855 by @vt-alt.
What are the side-effects of removing the (empty) folder when it's owned by rpm? Should we do a similar check for other package manageds - yum, apt, pacman, etc? I don't think such a check scales well, plus my gut feeling is that this might be a workaround for broken package.
a possible solution: anbe42@096979d
this adds a case "$running_distribution" in around rpm usage but does not try to reimplement the rpm usage with dkms/pacman, not yet tested ;-)
Our ultimate goal is to remove all running_distribution instances. Iff needed a config toggle can be used to control the code flow. Considering the side effect is couple of empty directories, I'm not in favour of adding more.
Activity
evelikov commentedon Apr 19, 2023
Glancing at the two uses:
ia32einsetup_kernels_archeswas added ~15 years ago with 5a9c77b by @superchalupa.Michael do you recall what distro/version it's aimed at, is it still relevant?
Edit: fwiw actual rpm invocations around
ia32ewere introduced by 3abe63b, although one can remove the whole block if the Arch is no longer supported/relevant.do_uninstallreference is more recent 79fc855 by @vt-alt.What are the side-effects of removing the (empty) folder when it's owned by rpm? Should we do a similar check for other package manageds - yum, apt, pacman, etc? I don't think such a check scales well, plus my gut feeling is that this might be a workaround for broken package.
do not perform rpm queries on Debian/Ubuntu/Arch based distributions
anbe42 commentedon Apr 19, 2023
a possible solution: anbe42@096979d
this adds a
case "$running_distribution" inaround rpm usage but does not try to reimplement the rpm usage with dkms/pacman, not yet tested ;-)evelikov commentedon Apr 20, 2023
Our ultimate goal is to remove all
running_distributioninstances. Iff needed a config toggle can be used to control the code flow. Considering the side effect is couple of empty directories, I'm not in favour of adding more.evelikov commentedon Aug 15, 2023
I've added the required notes to the "move distro specifics into the config" task and I'll be closing this in favour of it.
Hope that's OK, I see you've got a local workaround in Debian for the short term.
do not perform rpm queries on Debian/Ubuntu/Arch based distributions
do not perform rpm queries on Debian/Ubuntu/Arch based distributions
do not perform rpm queries on Debian/Ubuntu/Arch based distributions
dkms: do not perform rpm queries on Debian/Ubuntu/Arch based distribu…
dkms: do not perform rpm queries on Debian/Ubuntu/Arch based distribu…
dkms: do not perform rpm queries on Debian/Ubuntu/Arch based distribu…