<html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Linux IMA support was the name of the
feature I believe.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">This link would seem to suggest that
deb does not support file signatures as a standard feature ...</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"> <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/Spec/DebSignatures">https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/Spec/DebSignatures<br>
</a></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">... although some folks might be
working on it.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Scott</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2021-09-23 10:08 a.m., Scott Little
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:31b5e238-f4d2-d53f-2aab-9d75a3cf3f2e@windriver.com">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">There was a security feature (not
sure it's name or if it's still supported) that required a new
rpm feature not available in the standard CentOS rpm (file
signatures). The behavior of file signing was further modified
by 0001-sign-files-only.patch <br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Greg, can you comment on this? Do
the Debian packaging tools need to support file signatures?</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Scott</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2021-09-23 4:56 a.m., Zhang, Xiao
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:9a772329-a7e7-5d02-be1a-d1812c5362e4@windriver.com">
<p><font color="#3333ff"><font color="#000000">Comments inline:</font></font></p>
<p><font color="#3333ff"><font color="#000000">...<br>
</font></font></p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:0310a376-1e04-5e53-73f2-a95cd774eace@windriver.com">For
centos, we found that loops almost always depend on one of a
handful of low level packages, e.g. bash, python, gcc, rpm <br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:91aa695a-9ef2-3945-7a73-542cd3838db8@windriver.com">
<blockquote type="cite"> <br>
We had two ways to try and deal with this. <br>
<br>
1) Allow the use of a pre-compiled binary from upstream to
satisfy the dependency when the StarlingX modification are
unlikely to affect how dependent packages compile.
Packages in the 'mock' lst files could satisfy this type
of requirement. <br>
e.g. A=bash <br>
So in your example, compile order would be: <br>
F (vs upstream A), D (vs upstream A), C, B, A <br>
<br>
2) Use a different 'build-type'... other than 'std' or
'rt' ... when the modified StarlingX package was likely to
affect the output of dependent packages. Compile packages
in that build type first. <br>
e.g. A=rpm <br>
= build-type 'installer' compile order would be: <br>
A (vs upstream binaries) B and C ... call this
A-intermediate <br>
</blockquote>
? So, the 'installer' type of A doesn't depend on B and C,
right? Just like the official method to break the loop
manually? <br>
</blockquote>
<p><font color="#3333ff">[SL] I wouldn't say that A doesn't
depend on B or C. Rather the 'installer' package set
does not build B or C, so they do not factor into build
order calculations. This does require that upstream B and
C be available to satisfy build dependencies when
compiling within the 'installer' package set. When
compiling the 'std' set, but the packages from the
'installer' package must be available to satisfy
dependencies. The 'installer' compiled versions of B and C
must be of higher version that those from upstream... and
thus installed instead of the upstream ones.</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p><font color="#400040">So? In this kind of case, we also
needn't break the loop manually but just separate the into
different layers/sets and compile them in different stage,
right?</font></p>
<p><font color="#400040">In the bottom logic(or, with the
compiler's point of view), it is the same with the first
one. The key difference comes from the special package A.
It's so basic that it has to be compiled tice<br>
</font></p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:0310a376-1e04-5e53-73f2-a95cd774eace@windriver.com">
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:91aa695a-9ef2-3945-7a73-542cd3838db8@windriver.com">
<blockquote type="cite"> = build-type 'std' compile order
would be: <br>
F (vs A-intermediate), D (vs A-intermediate), C,
B, A <br>
<br>
</blockquote>
Seems the first one is more fit for automatic build. Then,
any special cases thus we have to use the second method? Or
we can always use the first one? <br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<p><font color="#3333ff">[SL] You'll need to support both
methods of resolving dependency cycles. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font color="#3333ff">Note that the layered build concept
of the CentOS build was another way to address
partitioning of packages into sets that might help with
breaking dependency loops by not having A,B,C in the same
compile set. Look to the 'compiler' layer. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font color="#3333ff">I think you need to support at least
one of the 'build-type' or 'build layer' concepts to begin
with. Bonus points if you support both. Supporting both
was needed for the 'rpm' package which we wanted to patch,
and the patch does alter the format of the rpms generated,
and the rpm package itself had to be in that format. So
rpm was compiled for build-type 'installer' of layer
'compiler' (new rpm code in old rpm package), then
recompiled in build-type 'std' of layer </font><font color="#3333ff">'compiler' (new rpm code in new rpm
package). Finally the std build of rpm was published for
use by higher layer builds.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font color="#3333ff">Only designers working on packages in
the 'installer' set, or the 'compiler' layer, need to
worry about the multi pass build. For most packages, a
single pass 'flock' layer, 'std' build-type, build is
fine.</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p>So, in build process, we need to build "compiler" layer
firstly, then use the new build "compilers" build other
layers. Some special packages like "rpm" may exist in more
than one layers/sets.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>BTW: I suppose the upstream rpm is already powerful enough,
why we have to modify it? Just bug fix or new features? If the
later one, StarlingX need some special features it hasn't? It
maybe very useful/important for us in porting StarlingX onto
other Linux releases.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Thanks</p>
<p>Xiao<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:0310a376-1e04-5e53-73f2-a95cd774eace@windriver.com">
<p><font color="#3333ff">Scott</font></p>
<p><font color="#3333ff"><br>
</font></p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:91aa695a-9ef2-3945-7a73-542cd3838db8@windriver.com">
<br>
Thanks <br>
<br>
Xiao <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Scott <br>
<br>
<br>
On 2021-09-18 2:50 a.m., Zhang, Xiao wrote: <br>
<blockquote type="cite"> Hi， <br>
<br>
<br>
We are trying to construct basic environment for porting
starlingX on Debian. While when I dealing with the build
order of user space packages, the loop dependent problem
blocked me. <br>
<br>
The easiest example: source package A build depend on B
while B is also build depend on A. We can just build A,
B, A, B and only use the later result. <br>
<br>
A fairly complex example: A depends on B and C, B
depends on D, C depends on F, D depends on A and F. In
this case there will be three cycles as below: <br>
<br>
A->B->D->A, A->B->D->F->A,
A->C->F->A . Even more, if in some cases we
needn't B or D, then we have only one cycle: ACFA <br>
<br>
I tried to find a method to deal with it but failed. <br>
<br>
So I wonder how did we deal with such loop dependent
before, on CentOS. Any advises about it? <br>
<br>
<br>
Thanks a lot <br>
<br>
Xiao <br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________ <br>
Starlingx-discuss mailing list <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated
moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io" moz-do-not-send="true">Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss__;!!AjveYdw8EvQ!JaxVx_yp1y3JojCu7JAaYSFXJZa0A2Vf4-QkDC0CYX1DaaIzhT2L3HbgbprSjpA3dh1k$" moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________ <br>
Starlingx-discuss mailing list <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io" moz-do-not-send="true">Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss__;!!AjveYdw8EvQ!JaxVx_yp1y3JojCu7JAaYSFXJZa0A2Vf4-QkDC0CYX1DaaIzhT2L3HbgbprSjpA3dh1k$" moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
_______________________________________________ <br>
Starlingx-discuss mailing list <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io" moz-do-not-send="true">Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss__;!!AjveYdw8EvQ!JaxVx_yp1y3JojCu7JAaYSFXJZa0A2Vf4-QkDC0CYX1DaaIzhT2L3HbgbprSjpA3dh1k$" moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Starlingx-discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io" moz-do-not-send="true">Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss__;!!AjveYdw8EvQ!JSKBRmwvSUkwkZcTuLu-pXGukX32NyAdRx0pqR5R2qqV-QEnfD-5rW41D3vY9K22BVzM$" moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Starlingx-discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io" moz-do-not-send="true">Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss__;!!AjveYdw8EvQ!NfEb3E8rYS_at5letLa7sOPKvON07PJLAE62sTVmslpPDc1vllLpa9rMCVbyl3PLAbPq$" moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Starlingx-discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io">Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss">http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>