Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: differentiate file and directory dependencies using a trailing '/' (#439)
RPM has only path and directory dependencies, largely because the path canonicalization in rpmCleanPath() always strips a trailing '/' character. Luckily, the (arguably hacky) fix is not very complicated. 1) always over allocate paths by 1 byte to accomodate a trailing '/' (if necessary. 2) Copy the trailing character of the input argument to rpmCleanPath() to the return value when it's a trailing '/' The above heuristic starts to propagate a hint to the expected file type throughout rpm, thereby diffentiating dir/file dependencies with stricter tests for, say, %ghost marked paths. -- 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/439#issuecomment-384799422___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: differentiate file and directory dependencies using a trailing '/' (#439)
-- 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/439___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFC: rpmlib efi provides (#438)
You might just as easily do Requires: /sys/firmware/efi/ which has the immediate obvious advantage that no change is needed to any version of rpm. I'm not at all sure why you chose to pollute the rpmlib() dependency namespace other than that it's an expedient hack. (aside) There is a need to generalize "probe" dependencies like this that should NEVER be provided by any package. That in fact has been done a decade ago in the unmentionable alternative version of rpm. -- 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/438#issuecomment-384772183___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFC: rpmlib efi provides (#438)
This makes it possible for a package to do: Requires: system(EFI) or Conflicts: system(EFI) I'm certainly open to other ways to do this, or other ways it needs to be phrased. You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/438 -- Commit Summary -- * rpmlib: add mechanism for system(...) RPMSENSE_RPMLIB provides. * rpmlib: Make rpmlib give us a provide when we're on a UEFI system. -- File Changes -- M build/reqprov.c (3) M lib/rpmds.c (28) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/438.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/438.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/438 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Add --nomanifests disabler (#437)
The real problem is that there are two places where manifests are read: lib/rpminstall.c (extremely old code) should be extended to use rpmgi* argument processing, thereby removing duplicated code and simplifying rpminstall.c. Don't forget to move the popt entry from poptQV.c if/when you do so. -- 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/437#issuecomment-384698847___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Add --nomanifests disabler (#437)
You might also consider supporting manifests to be downloaded and treated like lists of urls to download. *shrug* -- 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/437#issuecomment-384693742___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Add --nomanifests disabler (#437)
Good. Meanwhile I suggest you look at the refactored lib/rpminstall.c tryReadManifest(). There is no logic there preventing the call. -- 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/437#issuecomment-384692929___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Begin consolidating our tribal dependency knowledge into a struct/table (e66bf74)
THANK YOU FOR THIS. :+1: :hearts: -- 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/commit/e66bf7425b450c9baf52c280fb892031b38b15df#commitcomment-28754376___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Add --nomanifests disabler (#437)
Um, there already is such a disabler since prehistoric times (certainly it was in 4.4.x already) and working just fine (it's even tested in the testsuite), only it's --nomanifest instead of your suggested plural. -- 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/437#issuecomment-384624912___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Add --nomanifests disabler (#437)
Closed #437. -- 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/437#event-1596384016___ 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 deltarpm support (#433)
May be one could construct a package with only the modified (and config) files in the payload. That might only require very minimal changes on the rpm side. -- 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/433#issuecomment-384564424___ 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 deltarpm support (#433)
The idea here is to not copy the unchanged files at all. So to not only save the compression but the moving around of most of the data. Sure, we would still need to read and check sum them (twice probably). Yes, this is inherently more risky than reconstructing the original package. But it is also much quicker. -- 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/433#issuecomment-384563532___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
