[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: rpm-users
Subject: Re: hard-linked files handling by rpm
From: Jeffrey Johnson <n3npq () me ! com>
Date: 2014-01-22 3:01:58
Message-ID: 8871490D-6A77-49C1-9A64-C7015D954D20 () me ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
On Jan 21, 2014, at 9:49 PM, Rajul Bhavsar <rajulbhavsar@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Jeffrey Johnson <n3npq@me.com> wrote:
>
> > > > If hard-links are treated as just another files (for inclusion in .rpm) then \
> > > > why difference in size of payload - when same file is duplicated and \
> > > > hard-linked?
Read about cpio headers: there needs to be some way to specify
what foe path to link to, a search across a file system for a specific
inode is quite performance intensive, so the path to the file to be linked
to is included in the cpio payload.
>
> You can see all metadata with
> rpm -qp —yaml somepackage.rpm
> There is also —xml if you prefer the eye-scratchy angle bracket syntax.
>
Or compare the metadata with and without the hardline using —yaml. All the
metadata is displayed with —yaml.
You asked to understand why the *.rpm package was larger. One (or both)
of the above answers should provide an answer to you.
73 de Jeff
[Attachment #3 (unknown)]
<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html \
charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: \
space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><br><div><div>On Jan 21, 2014, at 9:49 \
PM, Rajul Bhavsar <<a \
href="mailto:rajulbhavsar@gmail.com">rajulbhavsar@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br \
class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><br><div \
class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:23 \
PM, Jeffrey Johnson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:n3npq@me.com" \
target="_blank">n3npq@me.com</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; \
border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex; \
position: static; z-index: auto;"><div><div class="HOEnZb"><div \
class="h5"><br></div></div> </div>>>> If hard-links are treated as just \
another files (for inclusion in .rpm) then why difference in size of payload - when \
same file is duplicated and \
hard-linked?<br></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Read about \
cpio headers: there needs to be some way to specify</div><div>what foe path to link \
to, a search across a file system for a specific</div><div>inode is quite performance \
intensive, so the path to the file to be linked</div><div>to is included in the cpio \
payload.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div \
class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div> </div><blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; \
border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex; \
position: static; z-index: auto;"> <div>
You can see all metadata with<br>
rpm -qp —yaml somepackage.rpm<br>
There is also —xml if you prefer the eye-scratchy angle bracket syntax.<br>
<br></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br><div>Or compare the \
metadata with and without the hardline using —yaml. All the</div><div>metadata is \
displayed with —yaml.</div><div><br></div><div>You asked to understand why the *.rpm \
package was larger. One (or both)</div><div>of the above answers should provide an \
answer to you.</div><div><br></div><div>73 de Jeff</div></body></html>
______________________________________________________________________
RPM Package Manager http://rpm5.org
User Communication List rpm-users@rpm5.org
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic