Why bundling lua?

Ralf Corsepius rc040203 at freenet.de
Tue Apr 25 22:15:35 PDT 2006

On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 22:00 -0700, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 19:47 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> >
> >> The point in having private copy of Lua is to be able to control the
> >> version and exactly how it gets built so apt-lua scripts can be expected
> >> to work identically everywhere.
> > Well, you will also want to bundle glibc, gcc, libxml2, rpm and a couple
> > of further packages for the same reasons then :-)
> Apt doesn't lose commands or other key functionality if it's compiled 
> against one glibc version or another.
It does: Many parts of glibc are optional, a lot of functionality is not
available in older versions.

It looses wrt. g++ (On RH-7.3):
g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../include -DLIBDIR=\"/opt/apt/lib\"
-DPKGDATADIR=\"/opt/apt/share/apt\" -I/usr/include/libxml2
-I/usr/include/rpm -g -O2 -MT contrib/hashes.lo -MD -MP -MF
contrib/.deps/hashes.Tpo -c contrib/hashes.cc -fPIC -DPIC -o
contrib/hashes.cc: In method `bool Hashes::AddFD (int, long unsigned
contrib/hashes.cc:33: `::min' undeclared (first use here)

It also looses wrt. libxml2 (On RH-7.3):
 g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../include -DLIBDIR=\"/opt/apt/lib\"
-DPKGDATADIR=\"/opt/apt/share/apt\" -I/usr/include/libxml2
-I/usr/include/rpm -g -O2 -MT rpm/repomd.lo -MD -MP -MF
rpm/.deps/repomd.Tpo -c rpm/repomd.cc  -fPIC -DPIC -o rpm/.libs/repomd.o
rpm/repomd.cc: In method `bool repomdRepository::ParseRelease
(basic_string<char, string_char_traits<char>,
__default_alloc_template<true, 0> >)':
rpm/repomd.cc:41: `XML_PARSE_NONET' undeclared (first use this

Besides this, libxml2 is known to be rather buggy. The version on FC4
for example suffers from a pretty serious bug in its xmlReader

> Lua stays in the tarball, period.
Bummer - Very poor decision.

>  Security is of course an issue with 
> bundled software always, that we just have to live with.
We don't have to, but you decided to infect apt with it and obviously
are relying on exploiting non-public interfaces.


More information about the Apt-Rpm mailing list