[Rpm-maint] RPM 4.11.0 beta1 released

[Thierry Vignaud]

On 11 December 2012 10:48, Panu Matilainen <pmatilai at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> As nothing out of the ordinary has come up, here comes 4.11 beta, well on
> schedule. There aren't any big changes since alpha, just various minor
> tweaks and fixes here and there, including those that went into 4.10.2.
> Here's a brief summary of changes between 4.11 alpha and beta:

Humm, the new pool API has side effects.
There was a bug in URPM where it would sometimes create empty transactions.
With previous releases of rpm, that was harmless but now rpm abort with:

perl: rpmal.c:98: rpmalCreate: Assertion `pool != ((void *)0)' failed.

Program received signal SIGABRT, Aborted.
0x0000003120834815 in __GI_raise (sig=sig at entry=6) at
../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c:63
63        return INLINE_SYSCALL (tgkill, 3, pid, selftid, sig);
Missing separate debuginfos, use: debuginfo-install
perl-base-5.16.2-2.mga3.x86_64
(gdb) bt
#0  0x0000003120834815 in __GI_raise (sig=sig at entry=6) at
../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c:63
#1  0x0000003120835e78 in __GI_abort () at abort.c:90
#2  0x000000312082d662 in __assert_fail_base (fmt=0x312096f688
"%s%s%s:%u: %s%sAssertion `%s' failed.\n%n",
assertion=assertion at entry=0x7ffff2fad1ac "pool != ((void *)0)",
    file=file at entry=0x7ffff2fad1a4 "rpmal.c", line=line at entry=98,
function=function at entry=0x7ffff2fad277 <__PRETTY_FUNCTION__.8416>
"rpmalCreate") at assert.c:92
#3  0x000000312082d712 in __GI___assert_fail
(assertion=assertion at entry=0x7ffff2fad1ac "pool != ((void *)0)",
file=file at entry=0x7ffff2fad1a4 "rpmal.c", line=line at entry=98,
    function=function at entry=0x7ffff2fad277 <__PRETTY_FUNCTION__.8416>
"rpmalCreate") at assert.c:101
#4  0x00007ffff2f8e718 in rpmalCreate (pool=pool at entry=0x0, delta=1,
tsflags=tsflags at entry=0, tscolor=tscolor at entry=3,
prefcolor=prefcolor at entry=2) at rpmal.c:98
#5  0x00007ffff2f7f62d in rpmtsCreateAl (ts=ts at entry=0x1570ac0,
types=types at entry=2) at depends.c:375
#6  0x00007ffff2f80882 in rpmtsOrder (ts=0x1570ac0) at order.c:560

I've fixed the underneath bug in URPM but I think it would be better
not to fail in such a way.
It's not a "regression" that would affect lot of users but it may
break other package managers.
It would be better to return if no packages has been added to the transaction.