Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Enhance requires with version information from the build root. (PR #2372)
Does anyone have any opinions on whether the version needs to be massaged in any way? Libtool's version system is ... kinda weird. In most cases, we probably only really care about the leading number, and using the second is more restrictive than strictly necessary. I'm OK with that, but I expect someone to eventually point out that libtool versions don't work quite like release versions. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2372#issuecomment-1426154339 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] Enhance requires with version information from the build root. (PR #2372)
Is everyone happy with the naming of things? Especially the macro and the command line option? -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2372#issuecomment-1426130025 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] Enhance requires with version information from the build root. (PR #2372)
> there's no requirement to run elfdeps through chroot OK. I just wanted to be clear that those tests weren't run in chroot for a reason. > add a corresponding AT_SKIP_IF() in the tests Thanks. Tests are conditional now with coverage of both GNU and non-GNU builds. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2372#issuecomment-1426049776 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] Enhance requires with version information from the build root. (PR #2372)
@gordonmessmer pushed 1 commit. 159dd2d9ddef13c1b7a55b1007007619a62739eb Add tests for the elf dependency generator fallback version feature. -- View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2372/files/8894e4873ec8ab5795aa0ec53a99d8310eff93ce..159dd2d9ddef13c1b7a55b1007007619a62739eb 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] Enhance requires with version information from the build root. (PR #2372)
> the tests would need to be conditional on the presence of dlmopen(), but I'm > not sure how that works in this framework. You can communicate this kind of a thing to the test-suite via tests/atlocal.in (the WITH_CAP example probably being most similar to this), and then just add a corresponding AT_SKIP_IF() in the tests. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2372#issuecomment-1425637500 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] Enhance requires with version information from the build root. (PR #2372)
We're working to replace fakechroot so that's a (relatively) short-term concern. And actually there's no requirement to run elfdeps through chroot (fake or otherwise) because it's a self-contained, non-privileged thing. Then again, the added tests seem to be working okay as this is passing CI. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2372#issuecomment-1425631147 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] Eliminate RPMTAG_NOT_FOUND signedness mismatch, take II (PR #2391)
Merged #2391 into master. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2391#event-8488189803 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] RFE: store SBOM data in rpm headers? (Issue #2389)
Both #1532 and #607 seem to touch on the same subject. I'm not opposed at all in principle, the question is more in the details: should the info be in the header of each binary package, or would a buildinfo-style file/subpackage (with a strong identifier tying it to the same build) be enough? The latter allows more flexibility for those who don't need the stuff. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2389#issuecomment-1425406909 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] Eliminate RPMTAG_NOT_FOUND signedness mismatch, take II (PR #2391)
@pmatilai pushed 1 commit. c0c2a33314c05c3ecfcaa0e956fc546664567703 Use proper type for copyTagsFromMainDebug -- View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2391/files/5b8a35cfc5aa2dcdd40d10bee96dce4fea9c5ec0..c0c2a33314c05c3ecfcaa0e956fc546664567703 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
