[Rocks-Discuss]Corrupted gnome-vfs2 RPM in ftp.rocksclusters.org

Gouichi Iisaka iisaka.gouichi at sse.co.jp
Wed Feb 2 00:40:42 PST 2005


Check and Try CentOS and/or TaoLinux.
these disto were a rebuild of Redhat Enterprise Linux that
conforms fully with Redhat's redistribution policy.

for gnome-panel works fine:
http://dist.taolinux.org/tao-1.0-x86_64/updates/RPMS/fam-2.6.8-15.x86_64.rpm
http://dist.taolinux.org/tao-1.0-x86_64/updates/RPMS/gnome-vfs2-2.2.5-2E.1.x86_64.rpm
http://dist.taolinux.org/tao-1.0-x86_64/updates/RPMS/gnome-mime-data-2.2.0-3.x86_64.rpm


CentOS mirror list:
http://www.centos.org/modules/tinycontent/index.php?id=13

TaoLinux mirror list:
http://taolinux.org/?q=node/view/17

-- 
Gouichi Iisaka (iisaka.gouichi at sse.co.jp)
Sumisho Electronics Co., Ltd.


On Wednesday 02 February 2005 17:01, Marcelo Matus wrote:
> Thanks,
>
> and well,
>
> I just listed the packages where Rocks generates less files than
> RHES. There are a similar number for the other way around :),
>
> The gnome-vfs2 is really "corrupted" in the sense that gnome doesn't
> work properly, ie, the missing files are fundamental for the
> gnome-vfs layer.
>
> I think the problem could be a missing dependency in the
> gnome-vfs2.spec file
> that prevent proper compilation, ie, when I try to compile it, I get
> errors in the 'make'
> process, but the RPM is built anyway.
>
>
> I understand the  needs to reduce or cut packages such as
> redhat-artwork, but gnome?, there is nothing more GPL and/or open
> than gnome.
> And gnome-vfs2 rpms from other distribution contain the same module
> files than the one from RHES, so, it seems is not something added by
> redhat.
>
> Anyway, if nobody is using gnome + rocks, I guess is not a mayor
> problem.
>
> We were just setting a new appliance (Graphic Head for the cluster)
> when the problem arose.
>
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Marcelo
>
> PS: We have RHES (Academic) licenses for all our cluster nodes, so, I
> gues we are covered by using the original gnome-vfs2 from RH.
>
> However, I am getting more and more curious about how RH manage
> to impose restrictions over GPL binaries such as the gnome rpms. And
> I am sure they are doing in the right way, the question is just what
> part of the GPL allow that.
>
> Philip Papadopoulos wrote:
> > I wouldn't worry about these differences and I wouldn't call them
> > corrupted unless they are not
> > passing their md5sums.
> >
> > You can replace these with RedHat's RPMS
> > only if your licensing allows you to do so.
> >
> > So that we did not impinge upon Redhat Proprietary Intellectual
> > Property, we must
> > remove various items that are (C) RedHat and Marked as Not Allowed
> > for Redistribution. It took some
> > work on our part to do this, but we have made our best effort to
> > comply with this.
> >
> > For example we remove Redhat-specific artwork in Redhat-Artwork. We
> > did at one point
> > remove the entire RPM, but upon further inspection, one sees the
> > vast majority of this artwork
> > as being from non-redhat sources.
> > There may be other reasons for discrepancies:
> > Our methodology for creating the RPMS is well documented: We take
> > the SRPMS from Redhat's -public-
> > FTP site and recompile them. We have never made any guarantees or
> > statements that our RPMS replicate
> > Redhat's exactly. We simply don't know -- Redhat is required to
> > comply with the GNU license (any changes they make must me made
> > available publically) -- they do this by publishing their SRPMS. It
> > is possible (perhaps probable) that their Binary RPMS do not
> > exactly match the SRPMS on the public site.  I'm surprised
> > that you find only  ~20 (out of  more than 1300 RPMS).
> > In practice, Rocks is very very close to what Redhat supplies. We
> > have not changed RPM sources except to
> > remove Redhat (C) items.  Other "recompilations" must do the same
> > thing (and do).
> >
> > If things are working properly for you, then there isn't a
> > compelling reason to exchange one set of RPMS
> > for the other.
> >
> > -P
> >
> > Marcelo Matus wrote:
> >> Here, more RPMs that doesn't have the same number of files
> >> computed as:
> >>
> >> rpm -qlp $i | wc -l
> >>
> >> Bellow you have the list, where the first number below the package
> >> name correspond to a RHES package,  the second to the
> >> corresponding Rocks RPM.
> >>
> >> Do I need to worry?, can I replace the Rocks RPM by the RHES ones
> >> directly?
> >>
> >> Marcelo
> >>
> >> coreutils-4.5.3-26.x86_64.rpm
> >> 256 229
> >> filesystem-2.2.1-3.x86_64.rpm
> >> 111 110
> >> gettext-0.11.4-7.x86_64.rpm
> >> 205 202
> >> gimp-1.2.3-20.1.x86_64.rpm
> >> 1360 1358
> >> gimp-perl-1.2.3-20.1.x86_64.rpm
> >> 132 119
> >> gimp-print-4.2.4-5.x86_64.rpm
> >> 151 149
> >> gnome-vfs2-2.2.5-2E.1.x86_64.rpm
> >> 107 78
> >> im-sdk-20030118-6.x86_64.rpm
> >> 265 264
> >> kdegraphics-3.1.3-3.3.x86_64.rpm
> >> 357 345
> >> kdemultimedia-3.1.3-3.1.x86_64.rpm
> >> 917 912
> >> librsvg2-devel-2.2.3-2.x86_64.rpm
> >> 8 7
> >> pam-0.75-58.x86_64.rpm
> >> 165 118
> >> redhat-artwork-0.73.2-1E.x86_64.rpm
> >> 3536 3485
> >> rpm-4.2.3-10.x86_64.rpm
> >> 106 103
> >> rpm-build-4.2.3-10.x86_64.rpm
> >> 52 50
> >> xcin-2.5.3.pre3-15.x86_64.rpm
> >> 97 46
> >> xsane-0.89-3.x86_64.rpm
> >> 164 160
> >>
> >> Marcelo Matus wrote:
> >>> It seems at least this rpm
> >>>
> >>>   gnome-vfs2-2.2.5-2E.1.x86_64.rpm
> >>>
> >>> is corrupted, or didn't compile well, in the cluster mirror
> >>>
> >>>   ftp.rocksclusters.org
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> the files under
> >>>
> >>>  /usr/lib64/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules
> >>>
> >>> are missing. For example, the installation from Rocks produces:
> >>>
> >>> $  rpm -qil gnome-vfs2 | grep module
> >>>
> >>> /etc/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules
> >>> /etc/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/default-modules.conf
> >>> /etc/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/default-modules.conf.with-menu-editing
> >>> /etc/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/ssl-modules.conf
> >>> /usr/lib64/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules
> >>>
> >>> an the same RPM from RHEL produces:
> >>>
> >>> $ rpm -qil gnome-vfs2| grep module
> >>> ships with several modules that implement support for file
> >>> systems, /etc/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules
> >>> /etc/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/default-modules.conf
> >>> /etc/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/default-modules.conf.with-menu-editing
> >>> /etc/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/ssl-modules.conf
> >>> /usr/lib64/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules
> >>> /usr/lib64/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/libbzip2.la
> >>> /usr/lib64/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/libbzip2.so
> >>> /usr/lib64/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/libdesktop.la
> >>> /usr/lib64/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/libdesktop.so
> >>> /usr/lib64/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/libfile.la
> >>> /usr/lib64/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/libfile.so
> >>> /usr/lib64/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/libftp.la
> >>> /usr/lib64/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/libftp.so
> >>> /usr/lib64/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/libgzip.la
> >>> /usr/lib64/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/libgzip.so
> >>> /usr/lib64/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/libhttp.la
> >>> /usr/lib64/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/libhttp.so
> >>> /usr/lib64/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/libnntp.la
> >>> /usr/lib64/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/libnntp.so
> >>> /usr/lib64/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/libssh.la
> >>> /usr/lib64/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/libssh.so
> >>> /usr/lib64/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/libtar.la
> >>> /usr/lib64/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/libtar.so
> >>> /usr/lib64/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/libvfolder-desktop-old.la
> >>> /usr/lib64/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/libvfolder-desktop-old.so
> >>> /usr/lib64/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/libvfolder-desktop.la
> >>> /usr/lib64/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/libvfolder-desktop.so
> >>> /usr/lib64/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/libvfs-pipe.la
> >>> /usr/lib64/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/libvfs-pipe.so
> >>> /usr/lib64/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/libvfs-test.la
> >>> /usr/lib64/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/libvfs-test.so
> >>> /usr/lib64/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/libvfs-translate.la
> >>> /usr/lib64/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/libvfs-translate.so
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> and the sizes are:
> >>>
> >>> Rocks:
> >>> -rw-r--r--    1 root     root       562023 Nov  1 19:14
> >>> gnome-vfs2-2.2.5-2E.1.x86_64.rpm
> >>>
> >>> RHES
> >>> -rw-r--r--    1 root     root       567898 Oct  6 09:19
> >>> gnome-vfs2-2.2.5-2E.1.x86_64.rpm
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Also, I tried to compile gnome-vfs2 from the Rocks SRPM, and it
> >>> fails.
> >>>
> >>> Marcelo




More information about the npaci-rocks-discussion mailing list