Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] [RFC] Make "%patchlist -f patches" work. (#874)

[ニール・ゴンパ]

Wouldn't this also make sense for `%sourcelist` too?

-- 
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/874#issuecomment-536698409___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Tags as an alternative to Groups (#632)

[jengelh]

>every single typo stands out

Which I would consider a good thing, because then I can fix the spello.

-- 
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/632#issuecomment-536691329___
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] Make "%patchlist -f patches" work. (#874)

[Peter Jones]

@vathpela pushed 1 commit.

ef44ff173f42517ebebfe5b31c35e3bd1e9c6388  Make "%patchlist -f patches" work.


-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/874/files/de678886588f17a4541d388e56e1708372df4f41..ef44ff173f42517ebebfe5b31c35e3bd1e9c6388
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Change in behaviour from 4.14 to 4.15 when calling rpmbuild --nobuild (#875)

[Sacha]

I noticed a change in the functioning of rpmbuild with the option --nobuild 
activated. I use this option to check the spec file but also to check 
unsatisfied build dependencies. In the previous version "rpmbuild --nobuild" 
would check the build requirements but not in version 4.15.

I have looked at the code and perhaps it might be an option to add -bd, -td and 
-rd to call only the doCheckBuildRequires subroutine.

Thank you for considering this.

-- 
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/875___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] [RFC] Make "%patchlist -f patches" work. (#874)

[Peter Jones]

This adds a -f argument to %patchlist, similar to that for %files.

There is no limit to how many patchlist files you specify, and doing so
does not restrict the use of an inline patch list.  Patches get added
from the leftmost list to rightmost, and any patches listed below get
added after that.

I couldn't find other code that obviously just reads a list of lines
from a file without assuming it's a .spec, so I've open coded this.  If
there's a better way, I'm open to suggestions.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

  https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/874

-- Commit Summary --

  * Make "%patchlist -f patches" work.

-- File Changes --

M build/parseList.c (84)
M system.h (1)
M tests/Makefile.am (1)
A tests/data/SOURCES/patchlist (2)
A tests/data/SPECS/hello-patchlist-f.spec (30)
M tests/rpmbuild.at (18)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/874.patch
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/874.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/874
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpmbuild: %patch: fix a memory leak (#873)

[Peter Jones]

While debugging something else, I noticed that when I run rpmbuild,
valgrind says:

==189844==
==189844== HEAP SUMMARY:
==189844== in use at exit: 12,088 bytes in 45 blocks
==189844==   total heap usage: 61,336 allocs, 61,291 frees, 28,975,297 bytes 
allocated
==189844==
==189844== 24 bytes in 4 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 4 of 21
==189844==at 0x483880B: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:309)
==189844==by 0x4FB5168: poptSaveArg (popt.c:1206)
==189844==by 0x4FB5168: poptGetNextOpt (popt.c:1510)
==189844==by 0x485EDF0: doPatchMacro (parsePrep.c:442)
==189844==by 0x485F44A: parsePrep (parsePrep.c:513)
==189844==by 0x4862C9F: parseSpec (parseSpec.c:924)
==189844==by 0x40322C: buildForTarget.constprop.0 (rpmbuild.c:506)
==189844==by 0x40340A: build.constprop.0 (rpmbuild.c:539)
==189844==by 0x40267F: main (rpmbuild.c:701)
==189844==

This looks pretty suspicious to me, so I went and looked at the code.
poptSaveArg() says:

case POPT_ARG_STRING:
/* XXX memory leak, application is responsible for free. */
arg.argv[0] = (con->os->nextArg) ? 
xstrdup(con->os->nextArg) : NULL;

This is the case where we've got a string argument pointer in
poptOption->arg.  In the case of %patch -P, we also keep a second copy
of it, obtained from poptGetNextArg(), which we *are* freeing.

This patch makes doPatchMacro() not need an extra allocated copy of
opt_P, and frees all the poptOption->arg strings that are allocated.

Signed-off-by: Peter Jones 
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

  https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/873

-- Commit Summary --

  * rpmbuild: %patch: fix a memory leak

-- File Changes --

M build/parsePrep.c (14)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/873.patch
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/873.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/873
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Make %setup use %{__tar_opts} to set tar options. (#859)

[Peter Jones]

Closed #859.

-- 
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/859#event-2673358275___
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 the marker to the appropriate expression error messages (#869)

[Panu Matilainen]

"p" is used for this purpose throughout the code otherwise, please stick with 
that. Calling it "position" all of a sudden makes it look like something 
entirely different and somehow more important due to the longer name.

https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.10/process/coding-style.html#naming is good 
guidance even if rpm style differs differs on the details.

-- 
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/869#issuecomment-536473295___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] `%triggerin -- %{name} < %{version}-%{release}` is always triggered on upgrade (#209)

[pavlinamv]

Case `%triggerin -- %{name} < 1.0-2.new`:

RPM triggers `%triggerin -- %{name} < 1.0-2.new`. It is according to the 
description in the documentation [1] (_The %triggerin script is also run when 
your package_ (`baz-1.0-2.new`) _is installed or upgraded, should the target 
package_ (`baz-1.0-1.old`) _be already installed._)

Case `%triggerin -- %{name}`:

In this case more natural would be running the triggerin scriptlet only once. 
Note that if `baz-1-3.new
` is the same as `baz-1-2.new` (the only difference is the release number), 
then after upgrading from `baz-1-2.new` to  `baz-1-3.new` the %triggerin is run 
three times.

I think that this should be improved to call %triggerin in all cases maximally 
once.

[1] Fedora documentation  (but it holds generally):
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora_Draft_Documentation/0.1/html/RPM_Guide/ch10s02.html

-- 
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/209#issuecomment-536463178___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint