Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add optional Class: attribute into Preamble (#236)
@clime Also, you could just reuse the `Group:` tag for this purpose. I'm not sure why you need new metadata tags... -- 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/236#issuecomment-309190760___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Find lang.sh multi names (#235)
@proyvind pushed 1 commit. 7b278b4 change shebang to /bin/bash -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/235/files/e226a2841772fa2295f76f4cf508175fbb6dc073..7b278b41d8547841da461f3e036068446fa752c5 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] add support for %{shrink:}, derived from rpm5.org (#234)
honestly, I'm not sure how is that useful... But that's not up to me to decide that. -- 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/234#issuecomment-309053338___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Find lang.sh multi names (#235)
ignatenkobrain requested changes on this pull request. either you have to change interpreter to bash or not use arrays.. > @@ -54,7 +55,7 @@ fi shift if [ -z "$1" ] ; then usage -else NAME=$1 +else NAMES[0]=$1 ``` $ dash -c "NAMES[0]='x'" dash: 1: NAMES[0]=x: not found ``` -- 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/235#pullrequestreview-44587210___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add support for new package declarations in Perl 5.12+ (#237)
ignatenkobrain approved this pull request. Sadly we have no tests for that, but code looks 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/237#pullrequestreview-44586799___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add support for new package declarations in Perl 5.12+ (#237)
This is a
[patch](https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/Base:System/rpm/perlprov-package.diff)
we apply to rpm in openSUSE. It allows the `perl.prov` script to detect new
variants of Perl package declarations that have been added in recent years.
In [Perl
5.12](https://metacpan.org/pod/distribution/perl/pod/perl5120delta.pod#New-package-NAME-VERSION-syntax)
we got version numbers as part of the package declaration.
```perl
package Foo 1.0;
package Bar v1.0.0;
```
And in [Perl
5.14](https://metacpan.org/pod/distribution/perl/pod/perl5140delta.pod#package-block-syntax)
we got the package block syntax.
```perl
package Foo {...}
package Bar 1.0 {...}
package Baz v1.0.0 {...}
```
We noticed this problem recently because
[Dist::Zilla](https://metacpan.org/source/RJBS/Dist-Zilla-6.009/lib/Dist/Zilla.pm#L1),
a popular Perl module, started using a version number as part of the package
declaration and `perl(Dist::Zilla)` could no longer be resolved.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/237
-- Commit Summary --
* Add support for new package declarations in Perl 5.12+
-- File Changes --
M scripts/perl.prov (6)
-- Patch Links --
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/237.patch
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/237.diff
--
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/237
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add optional Class: attribute into Preamble (#236)
Some kind of this has been discussed in #107.. Basically having `Class` or how you name does not make sense for RPM until it should be handling it differently (which doesn't make sense for RPM from simple POV).. In theory it could start changing RPM behaviour like stop adding debuginfo packages and add some different subpackage... But you really need to describe how is that should be useful. -- 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/236#issuecomment-308974790___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add optional Class: attribute into Preamble (#236)
Why not to add `Provides: rpm(class) = container`? -- 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/236#issuecomment-308974123___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add optional Class: attribute into Preamble (#236)
Hello, right now, spec files do not have any 'type' identifier, which means, they all need to be treated the same way in a distribution. If they contained a class specifier, there could be two (or more) types of packages, each with a different set of requirements given to them by a distribution standard (e.g. Fedora Packaging Guidelines for Fedora distribution). This might be very useful because with containers, the rpm packages can be constrained less heavily in what they can do in the system. At the same time, it will be useful to mark those packages as having those extended capabilities so that user (and tooling like a package manager) knows what to expect from them. That's why this information should be ideally stored in rpm header to be easily accessible to everyone. -- 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/236___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
