About compile option for i386 of cachefilesd

CC:centos-develcentos.org

Hi.
Mr. David Howells.

About compile option for i386 of cachefilesd.

Confirmed environment:
 1, On i386 platform
  OS : CentOS 5 i386
  CPU : Pentium M
  Mem : 2G
  Kernel : 2.6.18-8.1.15.el5 #1 SMP Mon Oct 22 08:32:04 EDT
2007 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux 
           (Installed by RPM)
  cachefilesd : cachefilesd-0.7-6
                (Installed by RPM)

I test cachefilesd (RPM package) on i386 machine, and I
found issue.
cachefilesd stopped when the file that exceeded 2Gbytes was
loaded from NFS Server. 
This is because compile option "-D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE
-D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64"
is not set when compiling. 

When this option is set, it seems to operate normally. 

You should set this option by default when thinking about
the function of cachefilesd. 
I think.

Is there problem in this compile option setting?

-- 
DAICON <daicondaicoon.org>

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

DAICON wrote:
> CC:centos-develcentos.org
> 
> Hi.
> Mr. David Howells.
> 
> About compile option for i386 of cachefilesd.
> 
> Confirmed environment:
>  1, On i386 platform
>   OS : CentOS 5 i386
>   CPU : Pentium M
>   Mem : 2G
>   Kernel : 2.6.18-8.1.15.el5 #1 SMP Mon Oct 22 08:32:04
EDT 2007 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux 
>            (Installed by RPM)
>   cachefilesd : cachefilesd-0.7-6
>                 (Installed by RPM)
> 
> I test cachefilesd (RPM package) on i386 machine, and I
found issue.
> cachefilesd stopped when the file that exceeded 2Gbytes
was loaded from NFS Server. 
> This is because compile option
"-D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64"
> is not set when compiling. 
> 
> When this option is set, it seems to operate normally.

> 
> You should set this option by default when thinking
about the function of cachefilesd. 
> I think.
> 
> Is there problem in this compile option setting?
> 

I have pulled the upstream binary and compared it to the
CentOS binary
... here is the result

Verifying cachefilesd-0.7-6.el5.i386.rpm ...
cachefilesd-0.7-6.el5.i386.rpm OK-PERFECT ref:44133 +/-:0
%:0

That means it is linked to all the same things AND, the
OK-PERFECT means
that even the Size reported for the RPM is identical.

If there is a problem with the compile options, it seems
that it is
identical in CentOS and the upstream provider's product.

Thanks,
Johnny Hughes


_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On 07/11/07 12:38, Johnny Hughes wrote:
..
> I have pulled the upstream binary and compared it to
the CentOS binary
> ... here is the result
> 
> Verifying cachefilesd-0.7-6.el5.i386.rpm ...
> cachefilesd-0.7-6.el5.i386.rpm OK-PERFECT ref:44133
+/-:0 %:0
> 
> That means it is linked to all the same things AND, the
OK-PERFECT means
> that even the Size reported for the RPM is identical.

Interesting tool - could you tell me more about this?
TIA
Jan
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Nov 7, 2007, at 8:12 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:

>
> Sure ... it is here:
>
> http://mirror.centos.org/centos/4/build/distro/tmveri
fyrpms
>

Would you like a better comparison tool? Nothing wrong with
the existing, but better, and more detailed, could easily be
done.

73 de Jeff
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Nov 7, 2007 9:09 AM, Jeff Johnson <n3npqmac.com> wrote:

> Would you like a better comparison tool? Nothing wrong
with
> the existing, but better, and more detailed, could
easily be done.

Ooh, new stuff! Yes please.



-- 
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes
a revolutionary act.
George Orwell
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Nov 7, 2007, at 10:07 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:

> Jeff Johnson wrote:
>>> Sure ... it is here:
>>>
>>> http://mirror.centos.org/centos/4/build/distro/tmveri
fyrpms
>> Would you like a better comparison tool? Nothing
wrong with
>> the existing, but better, and more detailed, could
easily be done.
>
> absolutely 
>
> we do rpmcompares and various other bits of fluffery
within the  
> buildsystem and adding tools that help us put out a
better result  
> would always be welcome!
>

For starters, one can get rpm to format and spew the entire
header  
content
using --xml. The --xml option is just smoke and mirrors
(like much of  
rpm 
in front of this --queryformat
     --queryformat '[%{*ml}n
]'

The ml
format modifier applies to specific tags as well:

$ rpm -q --qf '%{nameml}n
' rpm
	<string>rpm</string>

All the above has been there since RHEL3. rpm5.org also has
--yaml,
which is a bit easier on human eyes, but diff certainly
doesn't care
what it is fed as long as the content is predictably
format'ed.

The issue has always ben that certain tags have content
like
build time or inode number that will always differ, and
there's never
been a general way to filter out known differences.

I can likely filter out the stoopid %
"branding" gook at the  
same time.

I have to roll some header content regression tests now
that both rpm-4.5 and rpm-5.0 are on release tracks.

Lemme see what I can hack up this weekend ... todo++.

73 de Jeff
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel