[Pulp-dev] IBM's yum "repository" vs a normal sane repository

[Will Darton]

So the source of the mirror is here:

https://public.dhe.ibm.com/aix/freeSoftware/aixtoolbox/RPMS/ppc-7.2/repodata/9d2f104b8df5e04cb901daf712e21d547df7cebc383eca3a4c757afa03708df3-primary.xml.gz

And I extracted the downloaded primary
https://pastebin.com/Wm9XNzph

Appreciate any guidance. I got distracted working on some other foreman
things for AIX

Will Darton
7032322344
RHC{A,DS,E,VA,SA} 130-047-673

“There is excellence all around you. You need only to be aware to stop and
savor it.” - Anton Ego

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 5:20 PM, Sean Myers <sean.myers at redhat.com> wrote:

> On 01/19/2018 02:36 PM, Will Darton wrote:
> > Brian thanks for the response
> > So pardon my newb question here, but I've not delved this deep in yum
> repo
> > xmls..
> > Would the formatting of the xml make a difference?
>
> Not Brian, but the short answer is "no". Long answer below.
>
> > In the foreman generated primary.xml I have a stanza such as this
> > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> > <metadata packages="10" xmlns="http://linux.duke.edu/metadata/common"
> > xmlns:rpm="http://linux.duke.edu/metadata/rpm"><package type="rpm">
> >   <name>libgomp</name>
> >   <arch>ppc</arch>
> >   <version epoch="0" rel="1" ver="6.3.0" />
> >   <checksum pkgid="YES" type="sha256">081c485b68e30e6c3f53a3b0932f3b
> > 0067d687797713303734060e6c555da745</checksum>
> >   <summary>GCC OpenMP 2.5 shared support library</summary>
> >   <description>This package contains GCC shared support library which is
> > needed
> > for OpenMP 2.5 support.
> >
> >
> > if [ "0" == 1 ]
> > then
> >
> > Work in Progress</description>
> >   <packager />
> >
> >
> > And then in the direct mirrored primary.xml I have the same stanza but
> with
> > proper formatting
> > <package type="rpm">
> >   <name>libgomp</name>
> >   <arch>ppc</arch>
> >   <version epoch="0" ver="6.3.0" rel="1"/>
> >   <checksum type="sha256" pkgid="YES">081c485b68e30e6c3f53a3b0932f3b
> > 0067d687797713303734060e6c555da745</checksum>
> >   <summary>GCC OpenMP 2.5 shared support library</summary>
> >   <description>This package contains GCC shared support library which is
> > needed
> > for OpenMP 2.5 support.
> >
> >
> > if [ "0" == 1 ]
> > then
> >
> > Work in Progress</description>
> >   <packager></packager>
> >
> >
> >
> > I do notice also in the foreman/pulp generated primary.xml, there appears
> > to be a missing <packager> stanza after the </description>  So I'm
> guessing
> > the xml is getting misread as its ingested and regenerated by pulp
>
> <packager /> is functionally identical to <packager></packager>[0]; the
> location
> of the slashes matters there.
>
> Additionally, whitespace between tags should't matter[1][2], so the newline
> before "<package" doesn't matter.
>
> I think it's unlikely that those two things are the cause of the problem
> here.
> The original error does indicate a malformed xml document, unfortunately
> doesn't
> go into detail about exactly where:
>
> > TypeError: Parsing primary.xml error: Start tag expected, '<' not
> > found
>
> I suspect it's failing on the very start of the document, though, since
> that's
> the only real place a parser can be sure it needs to see a start tag.
>
> In your direct mirrored xml example, the xml declaration [0] and the outer
> metadata tag as seen in the foreman-generated xml seem to be missing:
>
> > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> > <metadata ... >
>
> It might be useful to debugging to paste that mirrored primary.xml
> somewhere, in
> its entirety.
>
> [0]: https://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-prolog-dtd
>
> [1]: https://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#NT-EmptyElemTag - Note that the
> definition
> there implicitly supports only "<tag/>" or "<tag />", but support for
> "<tag></tag>" is demonstrated in the examples.
>
> [2]: https://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-white-space - "In editing XML
> documents,
> it is often convenient to use "white space" (spaces, tabs, and blank
> lines) to
> set apart the markup for greater readability. Such white space is
> *typically not
> intended for inclusion in the delivered version of the document*.[emphasis
> mine]"
>
> [3]: https://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-element-content - "An element
> type has
> element content when elements of that type MUST contain only child
> elements (no
> character data), *optionally separated by white space*[emphasis mine]"
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20180129/fc21841c/attachment.htm>