Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] The max lengthe of RPM package name is 66? (#974)
See https://refspecs.linuxbase.org/LSB_3.1.1/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/pkgformat.html covers the fundamentals of rpm package file format, http://ftp.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-file-format-rpm-file-format.html has more background and rationale about the evolution. But as ffesti already pointed out, the data in the lead is not actually used at all, it mostly just needs to exist, have the right maging and be of right length. 4.4.2 will look at the "type" field as well, but not the name. -- 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/974#issuecomment-570145725___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] The max lengthe of RPM package name is 66? (#974)
Closed #974. -- 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/974#event-2917182677___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Trying to upstream Debian patches: Use the Debian standard (and safe) mechanism of generating temporary files. (#987)
Please squash the commits, we don't want two separate commits for this. Also it'd be good to have the original author mentioned - surely Debian has package change history available somewhere? Other than that, mktemp seems pretty obviously right thing to do here. The only question is whether the vpkg-provides.sh script should be just axed instead, in my 15+ years of rpm involvement I've yet to see a single person actually use or refer to it... -- 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/987#issuecomment-570147145___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] fix zstd magic (#991)
Merged #991 into master. -- 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/991#event-2917200467___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] fix zstd magic (#991)
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/991#issuecomment-570147630___ 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 reading BDB without the library (#980)
Oh my. I'm not exactly overjoyed about the idea of having custom BDB reader code in rpm, but given the alternatives, it actually looks almost pretty :grin: Oh and our database team will love you forever for 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/pull/980#issuecomment-570150288___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Trying to upstream debian patches: Fix compilation on platforms without MAP_POPULATE (#985)
> How do you propose to change it? Just note that MAP_POPULATE is safe to drop in this manner as it's only an optimization, so future generations won't need to chase it down. -- 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/985#issuecomment-570150974___ 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 reading BDB without the library (#980)
> ``` > 5 files changed, 837 insertions(+) > ``` > > :/ To put it into perspective: ``` $ find db-5.3.28 -name "*.[ch]" |wc -l 1037 ``` In other words, this is fewer lines than the BDB has *source files*. -- 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/980#issuecomment-570152993___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpmconstant API should exist in librpm itself (#992)
Um. What exactly does this thing *do*? -- 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/992#issuecomment-570154231___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [PATCH] fix zstd magic
On 12/23/19 6:09 PM, Thierry Vignaud wrote: Hi The attached patch fixes the zstd magic bytes detection. I spot it while adding support for zstd compressed metadata in URPM/urpmi, which was broken by this typo… Thanks (done against 4.15.x but should apply cleany to master) Merged via https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/991 These days, GH pull-requests are actually the preferred format of patch submission (simply because it's much less work for us to handle). - Panu - ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Trying to upstream Debian patches: Use the Debian standard (and safe) mechanism of generating temporary files. (#987)
@pmatilai Original patch header information: ``` - vpkg-provides.sh, vpkg-provides2.sh: Use tempfile(1) for safe creation of all temporary files. Many changes and untested. These scripts do not work on linux anyway. -- Joey Hess Thu, 19 Dec 2002 00:31:10 -0500 ``` For what it's worth, I've seen the script used for getting rpm to be useful on UNIX systems so that rpm functions as a package manager when the core system isn't managed by it (e.g. AIX mainly). I have a variation of this script I use for macOS as well. -- 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/987#issuecomment-570158975___ 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 reading BDB without the library (#980)
> In other words, this is fewer lines than the BDB has source files. This is a wonderful and equally terrifying statistic. -- 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/980#issuecomment-570159789___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Trying to upstream debian patches: Do not use bashism for gettext (#984)
@KOLANICH That's really not the point. And webarchive systems do not necessarily have this indexed. The correct thing to do here would be to change the commit to have relevant information: ``` $ git commit --amend --author="Michal Čihař " --date="Tue, 30 Dec 2014 11:55:15 +0100" ``` With the following commit message: ``` Do not use bashism for gettext (DebBug:772404) There are no translations anyway... ``` -- 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/984#issuecomment-570160992___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Trying to upstream Debian patches: Use the Debian standard (and safe) mechanism of generating temporary files. (#987)
Also... It appears `mktemp(1)` does not exist on AIX, which might be why this script doesn't use it. Cf. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/10224921/how-to-create-a-temporary-file-with-portable-shell-in-a-secure-way -- 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/987#issuecomment-570161555___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Trying to upstream debian patches: Fix compilation on platforms without MAP_POPULATE (#985)
@KOLANICH Here's a suggestion: ``` $ git commit --amend --author="Michal Čihař " --date="Sat, 11 Nov 2017 14:27:10 +0100" ``` With the following commit message: ``` tools/sepdebugcrcfix: Conditionally use MAP_POPULATE with mmap() Not all architectures offer MAP_POPULATE. As MAP_POPULATE is only an optimization to improve performance, it is safe to drop it when it is unavailable. ``` -- 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/985#issuecomment-570163037___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Trying to upstream Debian patches: Use the Debian standard (and safe) mechanism of generating temporary files. (#987)
Well, that's a good point. We'd be rendering this script unusable for what it does by making it "more correct" on Linux where it's not even supposed to be used at all. We also don't actually install these scripts since 2007 (see commit 4e52d18de873a861447a589f52c85de2326cd863) so I think it's best to just leave the bad alone, and Debian drop that unused patch, or just 'rm' the stupid file if it offends some checkers. -- 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/987#issuecomment-570164299___ 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 reading BDB without the library (#980)
It really is :joy: Actually the above stats are a bit off, because the Fedora sources include db-1.85 compat. But the point does hold even with a pristine BDB tarball: it has 894 *.[ch] source files. And that's missing quite a bit of other stuff, the tarball has 9241 files in total (including docs and all). -- 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/980#issuecomment-570165573___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Trying to upstream debian patches: Do not use bashism for gettext (#984)
Yup, commit messages must be self-contained. Providing external links for additional background data such as originating bug report is fine, but not sufficient. -- 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/984#issuecomment-570166524___ 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 reading BDB without the library (#980)
@pmatilai I'm pretty sure I'm going to want this for transitioning OpenMandriva away from BDB. We're using db6 (even though I didn't want to...), and with the latest versions of DNF okay with non-BDB, I can finally start considering it... -- 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/980#issuecomment-570166601___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Zstd magic is wrong which breaks detecting zstd files for reading (#990)
Fixed by #991 -- 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/990#issuecomment-570168608___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Zstd magic is wrong which breaks detecting zstd files for reading (#990)
Closed #990. -- 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/990#event-2917386231___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Berkeley DB not disabled with --disable-bdb (#983)
Closed #983. -- 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/983#event-2917390343___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Berkeley DB not disabled with --disable-bdb (#983)
Since the fix that went into git is exactly what was proposed here as a verified fix I think we can safely close this now. -- 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/983#issuecomment-570169020___ 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 reading BDB without the library (#980)
@pmatilai The code works surprisingly well for me (which is terrifying and awesome in itself), but I think I'd be more comfortable with this if it conflicted with the regular bdb backend option. -- 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/980#issuecomment-570175276___ 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 reading BDB without the library (#980)
Greetings from our DB people: "truly like X-mas gift" :santa: One possibility to handle the "conflict" might be making it an argument to --enable-bdb (eg --enable-bdb=readonly), which then skips the other variants. In that case it could technically be called "bdb" and avoid all the "configured to blabla, using blabla" warnings from backend detection. OTOH for various purposes (testing etc) its useful to be able to support both from one rpm version. -- 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/980#issuecomment-570181492___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Trying to upstream Debian patches: Use the Debian standard (and safe) mechanism of generating temporary files. (#987)
>Also it'd be good to have the original author mentioned - surely Debian has >package change history available somewhere? It is stored in [the form of the patch](https://salsa.debian.org/pkg-rpm-team/rpm/raw/master/debian/patches/tempfile.patch) in which it is written >Description: Use the Debian standard (and safe) mechanism of generating >temporary files >Author: Unknown This metadata tags were added in https://salsa.debian.org/pkg-rpm-team/rpm/commit/9bc82bea6dc2af7f07c7dd5044d8cbe0c4ab4a2e#591d515b5331531e8f14b02280b3cb48e2bb72d2 by @nijel. That file was introduced in https://salsa.debian.org/pkg-rpm-team/rpm/commit/bb4e4de86405c3d1fb77c53a71c4fc84f6f83d48#7925069534c3fb9b5bf5c78b20291c070694a2da by @lool then the description was added in https://salsa.debian.org/pkg-rpm-team/rpm/commit/5c1b5e3a67e2170c9e0898a16ccf57a4f4f9bac8#4c9800bfef626d61e9bd3915cec97b4e42ad0224 by `Anand Kumria` (`wildf...@progsoc.org`, `wildf...@progsoc.uts.edu.au`, I haven't found any recent activity on GH by him, there are plenty of Anands Kumria on GitHub). Should we attribute the patch to him? -- 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/987#issuecomment-570182748___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Trying to upstream Debian patches: Use the Debian standard (and safe) mechanism of generating temporary files. (#987)
@KOLANICH The patch was created by @joeyh in 2002, per `debian/changelog`. -- 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/987#issuecomment-570185660___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Trying to upstream Debian patches: Use the Debian standard (and safe) mechanism of generating temporary files. (#987)
Yup. But more to the point: this file is not even installed anywhere. The patch was added in 2002, and still applies because the file is in the source tree but it hasn't been installed in the last 12 years. Just drop the patch, and lets leave the patch as it is to avoid breaking platforms to which the script is targeted for. Thanks for bringing it to our attention anyway. -- 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/987#issuecomment-570187741___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Trying to upstream Debian patches: Use the Debian standard (and safe) mechanism of generating temporary files. (#987)
Closed #987. -- 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/987#event-2917551976___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpmconstant API should exist in librpm itself (#992)
Per the packaging description from Mageia: > rpmconstant provides basic functions to map internal RPM constant values > with their name. This is useful for perl/python or other language which has > binding over rpmlib. Based on that description and what the code _looks_ like it does, it allows a relatively trivial automatic mapping of internal values to their names (such as for RPMTAGs and other header properties). That said, the code for rpmconstant is not documented much, it's used as a component to support the perl-RPM4 binding module. -- 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/992#issuecomment-570192627___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: %exclude should not permit files to bypass check-files and be omitted from all packages built from spec (#994)
As part of some of the work I've done in OpenMandriva in transitioning the RPM stack from rpm5.org to rpm.org RPM, I've discovered that there was an _interesting_ behavioral difference with `%exclude`. In rpm5.org RPM, `%exclude` does not give you a "get out of jail free" card to bypass the file list check. A file that is marked by `%exclude` in one subpackage but isn't included in any other subpackage triggers the unpackaged files error. This does not happen in rpm.org. RPM. I would argue that the rpm.org behavior is a bug, as there's not a particularly obvious reason for why it works this way. Moreover, it leads to accidental packaging bugs. Can we change this behavior for the upcoming RPM 4.16? -- 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/994___ 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: %exclude should not permit files to bypass check-files and be omitted from all packages built from spec (#994)
(as for why I'm filing this now... well, I forgot about this in the shuffle two years ago, and I was just reminded of this again today...) -- 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/994#issuecomment-570195212___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpmconstant API should exist in librpm itself (#992)
Yeah I can imagine it does *something* like that. But "internal RPM values" doesn't sound sane at all - internals are internals for a reason. Tags have a public API in librpm as it is, and lot of the other constants in headers you'd only want to export to languages selectively if at all. Exporting all random gunk you can find in headers to language bindings without actually understanding what they are and what they do only leads to trouble - seen it all too many times by now. Rpm API can always be improved, but I'm *not* going to accept something that blindly exports every constant there might be in rpm source tree. Specific use-cases of this rpmconstant thing would be more helpful. -- 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/992#issuecomment-570196741___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpmconstant API should exist in librpm itself (#992)
Perhaps @soig could explain rpmconstant use-cases? He's the maintainer of rpmconstant and perl-RPM4... -- 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/992#issuecomment-570196990___ 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: %exclude should not permit files to bypass check-files and be omitted from all packages built from spec (#994)
Sounds like a bug indeed. 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/994#issuecomment-570196946___ 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: %exclude should not permit files to bypass check-files and be omitted from all packages built from spec (#994)
I am predicting this will break multiple packages in Fedora, but I think this would be good behavior. -- 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/994#issuecomment-570210074___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: Only add setuptools requirement for egg-info … (#973)
gordonmessmer commented on this pull request.
> @@ -178,8 +178,10 @@
depsextras.remove(dep)
deps = depsextras
# console_scripts/gui_scripts entry points need pkg_resources from
setuptools
-if (dist.get_entry_map('console_scripts') or
-dist.get_entry_map('gui_scripts')):
+if ((dist.get_entry_map('console_scripts') or
+ dist.get_entry_map('gui_scripts')) and
+(lower.endswith('.egg') or
I *think* so... If I "bdist_egg" the molecule package, and then install the
resulting egg, the console_script is installed. However, I don't get useful
results from this script on egg files. I'm unclear on whether we ever package
egg (or wheel) files, so I'm not actually sure whether that's something that
needs to be reviewed and fixed, or dropped.
--
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/973#discussion_r362623655___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: Only add setuptools requirement for egg-info … (#973)
hroncok commented on this pull request.
> @@ -178,8 +178,10 @@
depsextras.remove(dep)
deps = depsextras
# console_scripts/gui_scripts entry points need pkg_resources from
setuptools
-if (dist.get_entry_map('console_scripts') or
-dist.get_entry_map('gui_scripts')):
+if ((dist.get_entry_map('console_scripts') or
+ dist.get_entry_map('gui_scripts')) and
+(lower.endswith('.egg') or
OK. we can keep it be, until proven otherwise.
--
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/973#discussion_r362666385___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
