On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Tom H <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 6:39 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 3:00 PM, ToddAndMargo <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> On 07/23/2014 09:05 AM, Mark Stodola wrote:
>>>> On 07/23/2014 10:43 AM, ToddAndMargo wrote:
>
>
>>>>> I am having trouble installing the PDF Studio RPM.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/slgrnolcsktaezz/PDFStudio_v9_0_2_linux.rpm
>>>>>
>>>>> # cat /etc/redhat-release
>>>>> Scientific Linux release 6.5 (Carbon)
>>>>>
>>>>> # uname -r
>>>>> 2.6.32-431.20.3.el6.x86_64
>>>>>
>>>>> # rpm -ivh PDFStudio_v9_0_2_linux.rpm
>>>>> Preparing... ########################################### [100%]
>>>>>      1:PDFStudio ########################################### [100%]
>>>>> error: unpacking of archive failed on file .pdfstudio9/:
>>>>> cpio: Archive file not in header
>>>>>
>>>>> Any way to fix this?
>>
>> By using s cluebat on the package author. It's.... not a good package.
>> It's misnamed, it drops everything in a relative directory, and there
>> is no license. This is not a safe thing to install anywhere.

Sorry, wasn't clear. It's not in the RPM spec file, which is pretty
important these days.

> $ find .pdfstudio9 -iname "*license*"
> .pdfstudio9/lib/barcode4j_license.txt
> .pdfstudio9/lib/swt/eclipse common public license.txt
> .pdfstudio9/lib/dj/gnu lesser general public license.txt
> .pdfstudio9/lib/bc_license.txt
> .pdfstudio9/lib/miglayout_license.txt
> .pdfstudio9/lib/js-14_license.txt
> .pdfstudio9/jre/LICENSE
> .pdfstudio9/jre/THIRDPARTYLICENSEREADME.txt
>
> I wonder which one, if any, the rpm author thinks applies.


>>>> I would first check the integrity of the file.
>>>> I downloaded it here (not installed it, as I don't have SL6.5).
>>>> It unpacked fine though using "rpm2cpio filename.rpm | cpio -idmv"
>>>> I have the following checksum on it:
>>>>
>>>> MD5: f39d0ef9c4fd74cbfcbffa37f0ee18f2  PDFStudio_v9_0_2_linux.rpm
>>>> SHA1: 2e69d1b564cfebcac5cba9244bd04f64cedc959f  PDFStudio_v9_0_2_linux.rpm
>>>>
>>>> It has an odd directory structure, it seems to put everything in
>>>> /pdfstudio9.
>>
>> No, it puts it all in 'pdfstudio9'. Like I said, the author of the RPM
>> needs a cluebat applied.
>
> It's unpacked into ".pdfstudio" not "pdfstudio" when I run "rpm2cpio
> PDFStudio_v9_0_2_linux.rpm | cpio -idm".

"rpm -qlp" reports as going in "pdfstudio", not even "/pdfstudio". I
suspect that rpm and rpmbuild are unhappy about the use of unqualified
filenames.

> Is this meant to be installed by a user in a home directory, like a
> browser extension?
>
>
>> I'd suggest "mkdir /opt", then run 'rpm2cpio" there to get the
>> directory contents. But I'd sooner stick my hand in a blender than
>> trust this thing, gods alone know what they put in the RPM
>> pre-scripts. and post-scripts.
>
> You can install it with "rpm -noscripts --notriggers ..." to avoid any
> bad or malicious scripts.

Well, yes. But those are only examples of the issues. Dropping in an
"/etc/logrotate.d" file that moves aside /lib/libc.so, for example,
would be similarly bad and might not show up for *weeks* if you
weren't careful.

> I'm not too sure about the blender thing but I wouldn't install this rpm as is.

I may overstate, very slightly.....