On Wednesday 24 June 2009 23:00:02 Daenyth Blank wrote:

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 15:36, Pierre Schmitz wrote:

...

* check if a file is an elf file * extract the header * move to next file

I think `file` and `readelf` would help.

file is several times slower than readelf. But I have found some other optimization: * Only extract files from /opt /lib /sbin /bin /usr/lib /usr/sbin /usr/bin * run the script for both arches in parallel * treat links to libs and executables as files (this way we can check for exact so names) * The script uses results from previous runs and as a result should be fast enough to be run on gerolde (I can provide an inital data set) The resultsing db files are quite small: 20 KB for core and 320 KB for extra. So, what do you think about adding this to our cron jobs? We could run it on a daily base and update the db files. It should be easy to write clients which check for possible rebuild candidates and do all kinds of integrity checks. -- Pierre Schmitz, http://users.archlinux.de/~pierre

Pierre Schmitz wrote:

On Sunday 28 June 2009 18:13:54 Pierre Schmitz wrote:

...

The resultsing db files are quite small: 20 KB for core and 320 KB for extra.

I have uploaded some example files to http://users.archlinux.de/~pierre/tmp/extra.links.tar.gz (also for core, community and testing)

You have given the links for every file examined. Do we need that much information? Is there use beyond a global list for the package? That would also have the advantage of simplifying the format (no need for % symbols) which would simplify writing clients to generate rebuild lists or integrity checks etc. Allan

On Sunday 28 June 2009 18:52:45 Pierre Schmitz wrote:

I have thought about it.

Just forgot: I don't have a strong oppionion about having those detailed information or not. If we think a simple list per package would be better I am fine with that. -- Pierre Schmitz, http://users.archlinux.de/~pierre

On Monday 29 June 2009 17:54:39 Aaron Griffin wrote:

Part of me feels like we should adopt Gerardo's script for this purpose, as it seems a little more robust. Would you have a problem with that?

Did not know about that. Do you mean this one? http://github.com/djgera/pkgdyn/blob/92191b7cff428159c42080d36d7db936c13a5d2... What do you mean by more robust? -- Pierre Schmitz, http://users.archlinux.de/~pierre

On Monday 29 June 2009 19:02:08 Aaron Griffin wrote:

...

What do you mean by more robust?

I meant pkgdyn itself: http://github.com/djgera/pkgdyn/tree/master

It does a lot more than my stupid script so its hard to compare. My goal was just to provide some raw data which can be used by and for a lot of things; pkgsyn could use that data, too. Anyway: the awk script in dynup does not seem to be a bad idea; so I might add something similar to my script. -- Pierre Schmitz, http://users.archlinux.de/~pierre