开源软件构建与测试

_service:tar_scm:rpm.spec Changed

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 Name:          rpm
 Version:       4.18.1
-Release:       2
+Release:       3
 Summary:       RPM Package Manager
 License:       GPLv2+
 URL:           http://www.rpm.org/
@@ -22,6 +22,10 @@
 Patch6001: backport-Move-variable-to-nearest-available-scope.patch
 Patch6002: backport-revert-Permit-building-rpm-from-git-without-pandoc.patch
 Patch6003: backport-Fix-per-file-plugin-hook-regression-introduced-in-4..patch
+Patch6004: backport-Remove-obscure-check-for-package-build-time-from-reb.patch
+Patch6005: backport-Fix-possible-null-pointer-reference-in-ndb.patch
+Patch6006: backport-Fix-rpmDigestBundleFinal-and-Update-return-code-on-i.patch
+Patch6007: backport-Actually-return-an-error-in-parseScript-if-parsing-f.patch
 
 Patch9000: Add-digest-list-plugin.patch
 Patch9001: Add-IMA-digest-list-support.patch
@@ -304,6 +308,9 @@
 %exclude %{_mandir}/man8/rpmspec.8.gz
 
 %changelog
+* Wed Aug 02 2023 renhongxun<renhongxun@h-partners.com> - 4.18.1-3
+- backport some patches from upstream
+
 * Fri Jul 21 2023 xujing<xujing125@huawei.com> - 4.18.1-2
 - fix Unbundle-config-site-and-add-RPM-LD-FLAGS-macro.patch is incorrectly adapted

_service:tar_scm:backport-Actually-return-an-error-in-parseScript-if-parsing-f.patch Added

@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+From 911a4f253c7213a8570028a7dc2a20b045de8e9e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
+From: Fabian Vogt <fvogt@suse.de>
+Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2023 16:28:07 +0200
+Subject: PATCH Actually return an error in parseScript if parsing fails
+
+The return value is stored in the "res" variable which is set to the return
+value of parseLines early in the function. Past that point, any "goto exit;"
+caused the function to return success. This was introduced by 52ce88851abb
+("Port parseScript() to use parseLines(), no functional changes"). To fix it,
+reintroduce the nextPart variable.
+---
+ build/parseScript.c | 6 ++++--
+ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
+
+diff --git a/build/parseScript.c b/build/parseScript.c
+index f8b693ac6..6f3dc2fe8 100644
+--- a/build/parseScript.c
++++ b/build/parseScript.c
+@@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ int parseScript(rpmSpec spec, int parsePart)
+     int index;
+     char * reqargs = NULL;
+ 
+-    int res = PART_ERROR; /* assume failure */
++    int nextPart, res = PART_ERROR; /* assume failure */
+     int rc, argc;
+     int arg;
+     const char **argv = NULL;
+@@ -367,7 +367,7 @@ int parseScript(rpmSpec spec, int parsePart)
+ 	goto exit;
+     }
+ 
+-    if ((res = parseLines(spec, STRIP_NOTHING, NULL, &sb)) == PART_ERROR)
++    if ((nextPart = parseLines(spec, STRIP_NOTHING, NULL, &sb)) == PART_ERROR)
+ 	goto exit;
+ 
+     if (sb) {
+@@ -479,6 +479,8 @@ int parseScript(rpmSpec spec, int parsePart)
+ 	}
+     }
+ 
++    res = nextPart;
++
+ exit:
+     free(reqargs);
+     freeStringBuf(sb);
+-- 
+2.27.0
+

_service:tar_scm:backport-Fix-possible-null-pointer-reference-in-ndb.patch Added

_service:tar_scm:backport-Fix-rpmDigestBundleFinal-and-Update-return-code-on-i.patch Added

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+From 3a50688558f18cfb250b2e70bc34464a8e089d32 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
+From: Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@redhat.com>
+Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2023 09:34:47 +0300
+Subject: PATCH Fix rpmDigestBundleFinal() and Update() return code on
+ invalid arguments
+
+Discovered via #2548, these functions merrily return zero for success
+when passed NULL data. In rpm nothing bothers to check for their return
+codes but it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do
+---
+ rpmio/digest.c | 5 +++--
+ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
+
+diff --git a/rpmio/digest.c b/rpmio/digest.c
+index 1975fe6b9..9c679d820 100644
+--- a/rpmio/digest.c
++++ b/rpmio/digest.c
+@@ -77,8 +77,9 @@ int rpmDigestBundleAddID(rpmDigestBundle bundle, int algo, int id,
+ }
+ int rpmDigestBundleUpdate(rpmDigestBundle bundle, const void *data, size_t len)
+ {
+-    int rc = 0;
++    int rc = -1;
+     if (bundle && data && len > 0) {
++	rc = 0;
+ 	for (int i = 0; i <= bundle->index_max; i++) {
+ 	    if (bundle->idsi > 0)
+ 		rc += rpmDigestUpdate(bundle->digestsi, data, len);
+@@ -91,7 +92,7 @@ int rpmDigestBundleUpdate(rpmDigestBundle bundle, const void *data, size_t len)
+ int rpmDigestBundleFinal(rpmDigestBundle bundle, int id,
+ 			 void ** datap, size_t * lenp, int asAscii)
+ {
+-    int rc = 0;
++    int rc = -1;
+     int ix = findID(bundle, id);
+ 
+     if (ix >= 0) {
+-- 
+2.27.0
+

_service:tar_scm:backport-Remove-obscure-check-for-package-build-time-from-reb.patch Added

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+From 6caf2a5f586838f6188dd6667a4df6d9c6ec0163 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
+From: Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@redhat.com>
+Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2023 09:45:01 +0300
+Subject: PATCH Remove obscure check for package build time from --rebuilddb
+ (#2527)
+
+Back in 1997, commit be0b90359bcd8156385178eb9b570c0538c0333f added a
+sanity check for --rebuilddb operation, skipping headers which lack
+some basic tags. Name, version and release are real requirements for
+packages, but checking for buildtime is odd, and plain wrong.
+Yes, we expect that to be present in packages built by rpm, but that's
+not used for any processing and certainly is not required for a package
+to be installable. And if it can be installed then it can't be
+right to throw it away when rebuilding, leaving untrackable orphan
+files in the process.
+
+It is also documented as informational and optional by LSB. While
+severely outdated, it is right on this account.
+
+Fixes: #2527
+---
+ lib/rpmdb.c | 3 +--
+ 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
+
+diff --git a/lib/rpmdb.c b/lib/rpmdb.c
+index b51e9f09e..361f04150 100644
+--- a/lib/rpmdb.c
++++ b/lib/rpmdb.c
+@@ -2470,8 +2470,7 @@ int rpmdbRebuild(const char * prefix, rpmts ts,
+ 	    /* let's sanity check this record a bit, otherwise just skip it */
+ 	    if (!(headerIsEntry(h, RPMTAG_NAME) &&
+ 		headerIsEntry(h, RPMTAG_VERSION) &&
+-		headerIsEntry(h, RPMTAG_RELEASE) &&
+-		headerIsEntry(h, RPMTAG_BUILDTIME)))
++		headerIsEntry(h, RPMTAG_RELEASE)))
+ 	    {
+ 		rpmlog(RPMLOG_ERR,
+ 			_("header #%u in the database is bad -- skipping.\n"),
+-- 
+2.27.0
+

Changes of Revision 10