> On Jan 10, 2017, at 12:56 PM, Elan Ruusamäe <g...@pld-linux.org> wrote:
>
> On 10.01.2017 19:46, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
>> I will (at least) send the patch to re-add RPM_I18NSTRING_TYPE to pld-devel@
>> when I remove the data type. The RPM_I18NSTRING_TYPE has always been broken
>> in RPM
>> because the type is sometimes a scalar, and sometimes a vector, depending on
>> the desired
>> access context.
>
> (without understanding what the RPM_I18NSTRING_TYPE problem or change is)
> is it possible with simple #define get same behaviour that 5.4.15 has?
>
ATM (and through rpm-5.4.17), the RPM_I18NSTRING_TYPE removal is conditioned
by a #define at the bottom of system.h.
PLD (likely) wants this
/**
* Eliminate RPM_I18NSTRING_TYPE.
*/
#define SUPPORT_I18NSTRING_TYPE 1
(aside)
And while looking at system.h, I am reminded of the well-discussed removal
of —nosignatures/—nodigests in order to support MANDATORY signature verification
in RPM.
PLD (likely) wants this
/**
* Eliminate signature/digest disablers.
*/
#define SUPPORT_NOSIGNATURES 1
#define SUPPORT_NODIGESTS 1
Patches to re-add the code of both of the above will be made
available when the code is removed (before rpm-5.4.18 is released).
Through rpm-5.4.17, RPM has been tested with/without those defines
and is known to “work” with either setting. The remaining step
is to commit RPM to a simpler release pathway by removing the code.
> from your post i understand RPM_I18NSTRING_TYPE is still there in
> 5.4.16/5.4.17
>
Yes.
73 de Jeff
_______________________________________________
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
