ydario commented on this pull request.
> @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+%__os2_provides%{_rpmconfigdir}/os2deps.sh --provides
+%__os2_requires%{_rpmconfigdir}/os2deps.sh --requires
+%__os2_magic ^(32|64)-bit.*$
mmhh is it ran across which file types? e.g. DLL magic
ydario commented on this pull request.
> @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+%__os2_provides%{_rpmconfigdir}/os2deps.sh --provides
+%__os2_requires%{_rpmconfigdir}/os2deps.sh --requires
+%__os2_magic ^(32|64)-bit.*$
The full output is
32-bit OS/2 executable [WINDOW
Conan-Kudo approved this pull request.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/350#pullrequestreview-74173395___
Rpm-
Conan-Kudo requested changes on this pull request.
> @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+%__os2_provides%{_rpmconfigdir}/os2deps.sh --provides
+%__os2_requires%{_rpmconfigdir}/os2deps.sh --requires
+%__os2_magic ^(32|64)-bit.*$
This magic is too broad. Is there a may to m
Added file magic and parser for LX executable format.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/351
-- Commit Summary --
* Add OS/2 magic and dependency parser for LX executables.
-- File Changes --
M Makefile.am
Disable PIC flags in OS/2 build.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/350
-- Commit Summary --
* Building with PIC enabled is not supported in OS/2.
-- File Changes --
M configure.ac (8)
-- Patch Links --
Detec OS/2 operating system when running configure script.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/349
-- Commit Summary --
* Replace hardcoded lib path with python prefix value.
* Detect OS/2 operating system in c
Fussing with env-shebangs is the tip of a deeper problem: scripts can/will
execute other executables, and there are no attempts to auto-generate rpm
dependencies for other needed executables within scripts, including searching
run-time (not build-time) PATH to see if executable exists.
--
You
The idea was to return a valid file name, so called code has something to
open/close.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/345#issuecomment-341742426
I did try on Zanata, but I don’t think it allows to edit .po headers (including
Plural-Forms).
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/347#issuecomment-341738032___
@ydario Sure, but then the question becomes, why `/dev/tty` is hardcoded then?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/345#issuecomment-341733198
ah ok now I see. Is "Test for ctermid() existence. This is done because the
OS/2 platform does not provide it" a valid commit message?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-managemen
I just checked SHLIB_EXT in python for OS/2, and it reports ['".dll"\r'] which
is even wrong. I don't know why historically the code is compiling shared
modules with PYD extension. This is a bit strange since DLL is more common and
I don't see a good reason for changing it unless original porter
I was not aware that x86_64 was already ending in 64.But python lib can be
queried using the code in the 2nd comment, I just don't know how to insert into
a .attr file.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https:
Is RPATH being removed on installation?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/348#issuecomment-341713238___
Rpm-maint m
Yes, obviously. But the rationale etc needs to be documented in commit
messages, not somewhere in GH.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/345#issuecomment-34171
This is a follow up of discussion on issue #260
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/345#issuecomment-341710617___
Rp
Previously we needed to set `LD_LIBRARY_PATH` to run the Python bindings for
custom prefix.
```
$ LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$HOME/git/rpm/dest/lib python3 -c 'import rpm;
print(rpm.__version__)'
4.14.90
```
This PR to do "import rpm" without LD_LIBRARY_PATH.
Below is the way to reproduce and test it.
Th
@pmatilai thanks for your checking!
> but I don't see this helping #130 at least in the general case.
OK, perhaps, I may need to send additional PR for that.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.co
Dunno but seriously doubt it. Validated patches welcome ;)
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/334#issuecomment-341685065__
Rpm simply does what gettext documentation recommends:
```
AM_GNU_GETTEXT([external])
```
If you dont have/want gettext, use --disable-nls as explained in the above. I
dont see anything to fix here...
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email dire
Closed #245.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/245#event-1324726714___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm
@pmatilai Wouldn't using `unmap()` + `mmap()` work as an alternative to bombing
out on `mremap()`?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/334#issuecomment-341684
Closed #334.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/334#event-1324715733___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm
Fixed in commit 8c4bfd74b568d9be138e8ec4fd38dc2ca427d433.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/334#issuecomment-341682939___
@ignatenkobrain If we pull in a cleaned up version of #122, we will have a
consistent way to manage brp scripts via option 1.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pul
@pmatilai great! thanks a lot ;)
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/338#issuecomment-341673616___
Rpm-maint mailin
Closed #338.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/338#event-1324633493___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm
Ask nicely and you shall receive :) Example output with commit
1d1ff6c86fc9afb4c6c89b42fdb5be851f13cb7a:
[pmatilai@sopuli rpm]$ rpm -ql python2-libs|./rpmdeps -R --rpmfcdebug -vv
2>&1|grep "^D: Executing"|head -5
D: Executing /usr/lib/rpm/pythondistdeps.py --provides --majorver-provides on
/usr
Merged #327.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/327#event-1324601413___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.o
Because we haven't had a chance to dig into it?
I suppose it's fine for what it is, but I don't see this helping #130 at least
in the general case.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-soft
Sorry for taking so long with this, and thanks for the patch!
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/220#issuecomment-341666296_
Merged #220.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/220#event-1324596559___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.o
Yup, %{_libdir} is wrong on x86_64 and technically like with %{_prefix},
there's no actual guarantee that python shares the same prefix as rpm. So I
guess the really right thing to do would be querying all those different
library paths out of python itself: we have %python_sitelib and
%python_s
JFYI (Python specific)
https://github.com/fedora-python/python-rpm-porting/issues/24
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/344#issuecomment-341651577_
I think it might be actually better to just not export posix.ctermid() on
systems that don't support it. I don't see much good coming out of claiming the
controlling terminal is /dev/tty on a system that doesn't have terminals at all.
And yeah a bit of rationale as for the why part is in order,
Merged, but in general translation updates should go through Zanata.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/347#issuecomment-341645006__
Merged #347.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/347#event-1324449164___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.o
Some rationale (e.g. where function doesn't exist) would be good ;)
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/345#issuecomment-341633520___
ignatenkobrain commented on this pull request.
> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
%__python_provides %{_rpmconfigdir}/pythondeps.sh --provides
%__python_requires %{_rpmconfigdir}/pythondeps.sh --requires
-%__python_path
^((/usr/lib(64)?/python[[:digit:]]\\.[[:digit:]]/.*\\.(py[oc]?|so))|(%{_bindir}/py
> Down that path, you'd probably want to add some further restrictions to some
> interpreters, eg -E / -I / -s for Python etc.
This would be good idea (cc @encukou @hroncok @stratakis @torsava)
> So lets just accept there are valid reasons for both, and not make life
> unnecessarily hard for ei
41 matches
Mail list logo
