[arch-general] RPM Question

Cédric Girard girard.cedric at gmail.com
Sun Oct 3 14:07:20 EDT 2010

On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 6:00 PM, Lew Wolfgang <wolfgang at sweet-haven.com>wrote:

>  On 10/02/2010 06:10 PM, Steven Susbauer wrote:
>> On 10/2/2010 7:41 PM, Lew Wolfgang wrote:
>>> It works on all the major distros but fails to install
>>> on Arch due to an RPM dependency. Their install script just fails saying
>>> it can't find rpm. The script contains much ugliness and is McAfee
>>> proprietary, so I doubt hacking it will be productive.
>>> So the question is: can Arch be configured/tricked into an rpm install?
>> Does their installer actually require use rpm to install, or just wants
>> rpm to be there? Most distros allow you to install rpm, Arch is no different
>> except it is in aur:
>> aur/rpm 5.2.1-1 (153)
>>    The RedHat Package Manager.  Don't use it instead of Arch's 'pacman'.
>> If it actually uses rpm for the process, this is probably not the
>> solution. Two package managers at once is not a good thing.
> I spent some time last night pulling the .sh file apart.  It's a script
> that unzips a binary that unpacks two rpm files (9-MB), one 32-bit ELF
> program (8.9-MB), two cryptographic keys and an xml file.  The script then
> calls rpm to install the two rpm files, which contain tons of 32-bit system
> libraries.  These libraries have the same names as regular system libs, like
> libc, libm, libresolv and libcrypt.  This all makes me very nervous!  Arch
> not using rpm may be a blessing in disguise, I'm going to see if I can get a
> waiver to not install this McAfee root-kit.
> Thanks for the help,
> Lew
Can't you try to install only the program itself without these libraries ?
The libraries could be installable using pacman.

Cédric Girard

More information about the arch-general mailing list