Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Dynamic Spec generation (#1485)
@pmatilai requested changes on this pull request. Okay so to recoup the on-off discussions over many moons: there are further details to sort out. While we can work on the details later, the bare minimum requirements for merging are: - documentation - a test-case or two For clarity, flagging as changes-needed for these two. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1485#pullrequestreview-1145177165 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ 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 a handler for libselinux log messages (RhBug:2123719, RhBug:2050774) (PR #2201)
Merged #2201 into master. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2201#event-7608258654 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ 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 manual page for File Mode (PR #2215)
@pmatilai commented on this pull request. > + +The `flags` parameter is optional and contains compressor-specific options, +most commonly a compression *level* or the *number of threads*. If an option +is omitted, the compressor's default value is used. For the actual supported +values, consult the given compressor's section below. For some real-world +examples, see [Example modes](#example-modes). + + GZIP flags + +These can include a compression level (from 0 to 9) and a strategy (e.g. `h` +for Huffman-only compression). See the description of `gzopen()` in +`/usr/include/zlib.h` for more details. + + BZIP2 flags + +These can include a compression level (from 1 to 9) and `s` (enables "small Oh okay, 's' is another compressor-specific (small) flag. The real problem with these is that they leak the API of the underlying library through librpmio, which we do not want. So even if we may currently let them pass through unnoticed, I think we should not document these, but only the bits explicitly supported by librpmio. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2215#pullrequestreview-1145159961 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Parametric macro arguments are not expanded (#127)
thank you for heads up/ -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/127#issuecomment-1280712224 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] PANDOC automake conditional not checked (Issue #2229)
Rpm is supposed to be built from release tarballs, where stuff like this is pre-generated and does not require pandoc. That said, this was just fixed in https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/commit/1b8f7a182fe917ed5af5086d715cae529540a4d3 -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2229#issuecomment-1280623877 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] PANDOC automake conditional not checked (Issue #2229)
Closed #2229 as completed. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2229#event-7600626410 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Separate tags for SRC and binary RPM (Discussion #2228)
For license, we recently added separate SourceLicense tag. BuildArch is far trickier as it send the spec parser to recurse with all manner of funny side-effects, I'm not sure that is solvable within the existing spec syntax because of all the historic quirks involved. Allowing a "sub-package" to share the main package name may get around some while introducing others. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2228#discussioncomment-3894881 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
