> On Feb 5, 2018, at 5:46 PM, Tomasz Pala wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 15:20:55 -0500, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>
>>> No, it only hidden the problem behind getconf binary being handled
>>> _somehow_. I once even wondered how this is done, apparently rpm is
> On Feb 5, 2018, at 3:23 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> I'd probably argue that libexec should have the same multi-arch
> handling that (s)bin does (primary arch "wins" and secondary arches
> are ignored), though last I checked this isn't specific to paths and
> should Just Work(TM).
>
>
And the
> On Feb 5, 2018, at 10:13 AM, Tomasz Pala wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 10:47:32 +0100, Jacek Konieczny wrote:
>>
>> Using lib/lib64/libx32 instead of libexec was much smarter in this case.
>
> No, it only hidden the problem behind getconf binary being handled
> _somehow_. I once even
rpm-5.4.18 (soon) will embed the paho-mqtt client to do MQTT messaging.
I will likely do a snapshot of 5.4.18 as soon as I haul out some
MQTT debugging trash and repair portability damage.
TL;DR
Don't install paho-mqtt-1.1.0 and/or build rpm-5.4.18 --without-mqtt
and ignore the rest of th
On Jul 6, 2016, at 10:05 AM, Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz wrote:
> On Wednesday 06 of July 2016, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
>> vote: no
>>
>> %lang has always been used in system way you want locale/localization
>> stuff installed
>
> mysql is kind of special that doesn't fit well into typical %lang rules.
>
On Jun 20, 2016, at 10:11 AM, Jacek Konieczny wrote:
>
>> reality is that we have no consistency,
>
> Some people seem to don't care at all. :-(
> I am afraid, that whatever scheme we decide on, people will still commit
> crap. That is minority, but quite annoying.
>
Distro package naming is
On Jun 7, 2016, at 10:45 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> On 07.06.2016 17:39, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>> Were the files present on the file system (presumably not, but I'd like
>> confirmation)?
> yes of course they were present. otherwise there would not be messages from
> rp
On Jun 7, 2016, at 10:44 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
>
>> Do the repackaged rpm’s contain those files.?
>
> the config files are present in .rpm file and in rpmdb where i installed the
> .rpm file:
>
> # rpm -qplvc 1465233457/pam-1.1.8-8.x86_64.rpm|grep auth
> -rw-r--r--1 rootroot
On Jun 7, 2016, at 10:37 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> On 07.06.2016 17:31, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
>> Its still not clear to me whether the new package files were installed or
>> not.
> they were not
>
> mv -i will ask to overwrite files, it never asked ... so...
>
Yes I read the man page.
Were
On Jun 1, 2016, at 6:29 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
>
> 1. were in middle of 5.4.15 -> 5.4.17 change
The attached patch (for db-6.1.26/db-6.2.23) is necessary with rpm-5.4.x).
Earlier versions of db-x.y.z need no modification.
hth
73 de Jeff
==
jbj13.patch
On May 31, 2016, at 6:30 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> On 01.06.2016 00:47, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>> Verified ... how?
> in first post i said it's 100% reproducible,
> so,
>
> i applied your patch to rpm,
> rebuilt rpm, installed
>
> and retried the 100% repr
On May 31, 2016, at 4:47 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> On 31.05.2016 23:37, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>> On May 31, 2016, at 4:33 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
>>> i prefer reliability over broken optimization.
>>>
>> So disable the optimization. I'm quite sure
On May 31, 2016, at 4:33 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
>
> i prefer reliability over broken optimization.
>
So disable the optimization. I'm quite sure I have described
how to disable the optimization on this (and other) mailing lists
in the past 10 years.
73 de Jeff
___
On May 31, 2016, at 2:52 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> On 31.05.2016 09:45, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
>> [root@57c8cccdc671 bin]# poldek -u procps
> oh, and it's 100% reproducible:
>
Yes. And it has been discussed many times over the last 15y,
several times on this list.
Short answer:
Disable
On May 10, 2016, at 6:30 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> On 10.05.2016 09:12, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
>>> Fixed in lirc-0.9.3a-2 / man-pages-4.05-2.
>>> >
>> Is file conflict detection an RPM misfeature?
> no. it's packaging mistake (two packages installing same file path)
>
Of course it is a packagi
On May 6, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> On 06.05.2016 10:11, Jacek Konieczny wrote:
>>
>> I guess the python dependency generator should be fixed in our RPM, to
>> ignore the 'extras' dependencies (or to make them 'suggest', skipping the
>> ':python_version' ones.
> is there python
On Apr 28, 2016, at 4:43 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> On 27.04.2016 21:09, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>> What I am suggesting is using --justdb --noscripts --notriggers on the v2
>> package before attempting an upgrade.
>
> you're solving the problem in wrong order.
On Apr 28, 2016, at 4:41 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
>
> but rpm i use to manage configuration and expect %noreplace to mean "do not
> replace the file". that one technical detail makes it behave differently on
> high level does not change my expectation. i'd rather consider it flaw in
> impleme
On Apr 27, 2016, at 1:08 PM, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>
> So why are you claiming RPM "destroyed" your secret_key.php file when you are
> misusing
> %config(noreplace)
> with expectations of behavior that have never been implemented, and cannot be
> imple
On Apr 27, 2016, at 10:12 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> On 27.04.2016 16:55, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>> On Apr 27, 2016, at 3:13 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
>>
>>> and it did it again!
>>>
>> You are smart enough to identify a better solution for your problems than
On Apr 27, 2016, at 3:13 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> and it did it again!
>
You are smart enough to identify a better solution for your problems than
blaming RPM
for destroying your files ... again ... and again.
73 de Jeff
___
pld-devel-en mailing
On Apr 24, 2016, at 3:29 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> On 24.04.2016 22:23, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>> When was the last time a distro rebuilt a package to correct a spelling
>> error typo in, say,
>> the Swahili translation?
>
> fedora rebuilds *all* packages for each re
On Apr 24, 2016, at 3:20 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> On 24.04.2016 21:08, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>> The fix is --without-sasl2 (not --without-sasl). My brain fart, now verified.
>
> thanks. indeed that's the option.
>
> seems libacl is also new library depend
On Apr 24, 2016, at 10:25 AM, Jeff Johnson wrote:
...
>
> I think that I18N could (and should) be done better in RPM. Meanwhile
> devising a transparent
> "legacy compatible" retrofit for RPM_I18NSTRING_TYPE is/was the necessary
> first step to attempting
> a
On Apr 24, 2016, at 12:49 PM, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>
> On Apr 24, 2016, at 12:32 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
>
>> On 24.04.2016 18:28, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>>> So specifiying --without-sasl when building is the only (well you could
>>> configure/install sasl
>&
On Apr 24, 2016, at 12:49 PM, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>
> (aside)
> BTW, there is one other 1-line patch to rpmio/pkgio.c needed to plug a 16b
> memory leak
> in rdSignature(). The final code should look like
>
> ...
>/* All packages should have RPMSIGTAG_M
On Apr 24, 2016, at 12:32 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> On 24.04.2016 18:28, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>> So specifiying --without-sasl when building is the only (well you could
>> configure/install sasl
>> correctly before executing rpm too) way to remove the syslog'd message
On Apr 24, 2016, at 10:41 AM, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>>
>> something logs to syslog at this time:
>> Apr 24 12:48:27 new-server rpm: looking for plugins in '/usr/lib/sasl2',
>> failed to open directory, error: No such file or directory
>>
>
> Tha
On Apr 24, 2016, at 6:03 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> On 24.04.2016 12:51, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
>>
>> anyway, i finally installed the built version. the sasl2 error is probably
>> from somewhere else.
>>
>> 12:48:25 root[load: 0.00]@new-server /# rpm -q rpm
>> rpm-5.4.16-0.1.i686
> There are 1
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Elan Ruusamäe
> Subject: Re: rpm-5.4.16 snapshot
> Date: April 24, 2016 5:51:58 AM EDT
> To: "PLD: Developers list (English)"
> Reply-To: "PLD: Developers list (English)"
>
> On 20.04.2016 15:38, Jeff Johnson wrote
On Apr 24, 2016, at 6:29 AM, Jan Rękorajski wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2016, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>
>> There is a 3rd snapshot release of rpm-5.4.16 now available at
>>
>>
>> http://rpm5.org/files/rpm/rpm-5.4/SNAPSHOT//rpm-5.4.16-0.20160321.src.rpm
>>
&g
On Apr 20, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> On 20.04.2016 18:01, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
>> On 20.04.2016 15:38, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>>> There is a final snapshot release of rpm-5.4.16 now available at
>>>
>>>http://rpm5.org/files/rpm/rpm-5.4/SN
to enable link time optimization (-flto) and run-time
checking (-fsanitize=address et al) have been added.
73 de Jeff
On Mar 15, 2016, at 4:50 PM, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> There is a snapshot release of rpm-5.4.16 now available at
>
>
> http://rpm5.org/files/rpm/rpm-5.4/
On Apr 19, 2016, at 4:59 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> i'm pretty sure this has happened before, just did not payed attention
>
I believe you. Meanwhile ...
> so, if i use --nodeps rpm forgets it has to put .rpmnew?
> and instead no config files left on the original path (mv -i would had said
>
On Apr 18, 2016, at 4:52 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
>
> pld rpm links with system libmagic, not using bundled version. i think this
> is something broken on library level.
>
Perhaps the libmagic code is broken, yes. Usually the issue is new definitions,
which
are increasingly using *RE pattern
On Apr 17, 2016, at 9:44 AM, Jan Rękorajski wrote:
> I removed it from ftp and downgraded on builders, building
> gnome-initial-setup or jbig2dec causes rpm to hang indefinitely on
> "processing files" step.
>
The coupling between rpmbuild <-> file is through /etc/magic rules
(whatever path is
On Mar 23, 2016, at 5:37 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> On 22.03.2016 01:44, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>> There is a 3rd snapshot release of rpm-5.4.16 now available at
>>
>>
>> http://rpm5.org/files/rpm/rpm-5.4/SNAPSHOT//rpm-5.4.16-0.20160321.src.rpm
>
> it co
There is a 3rd snapshot release of rpm-5.4.16 now available at
http://rpm5.org/files/rpm/rpm-5.4/SNAPSHOT//rpm-5.4.16-0.20160321.src.rpm
This addresses the following issues:
1) mongoc.h needed #include to rebuild with PLD configuration
2) build with or without in "system.h"
E next.
hth
73 de Jeff
On Mar 18, 2016, at 3:49 AM, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> I have uploaded another snapshot release that addresses
> all the issues you have reported:
>
> rpm-5.4.16-0.20160318.src.rpm
>
> The issue of garbled text is both locale and rpm version depen
On Mar 16, 2016, at 12:46 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> On 16.03.2016 18:28, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>> There is a recent API change in libtomcrypt (like last few months)
>
> ah, tomcrypt,
>
> i think will switch to previous method in pld for now for maximum
> compatib
On Mar 16, 2016, at 12:12 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> On 15.03.2016 22:27, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>> There is a snapshot release of rpm-5.4.16 now available at
>>
>>
>> http://rpm5.org/files/rpm/rpm-5.4/SNAPSHOT/rpm-5.4.16-0.20160315.src.rpm
>
> have
On Mar 16, 2016, at 1:09 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> On 15.03.2016 22:27, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>> 3) (recommended) rpm-5.4.16 uses db-6.1.23 (not 6.1.26) with
>> DB_MULTIVERSION and DB_TXN_SNAPSHOT.
>> DB_TXN_SNAPSHOT avoids deadlocks with copy
I will add
shortly.
hth
73 de Jeff
On Mar 15, 2016, at 6:14 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> On 15.03.2016 22:27, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>> There is a snapshot release of rpm-5.4.16 now available at
>>
>>
>> http://rpm5.org/files/rpm/rpm-5.4/SNAPSHOT/rpm-5.4.16-0.2
On Mar 16, 2016, at 3:20 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> On 15.03.2016 22:27, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>> There is a snapshot release of rpm-5.4.16 now available at
>>
>>
>> http://rpm5.org/files/rpm/rpm-5.4/SNAPSHOT/rpm-5.4.16-0.20160315.src.rpm
>
> some rpmi
There is a snapshot release of rpm-5.4.16 now available at
http://rpm5.org/files/rpm/rpm-5.4/SNAPSHOT/rpm-5.4.16-0.20160315.src.rpm
This is the first SRPM built by itself that is headed for release
in the next few weeks that is being provided as a public reference
point for integration an
On Feb 23, 2016, at 2:21 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
>
> i first noticed it in a code that was invoked from in bash prompt:
>
> rpm --define "_specdir $PWD" --specfile $specfile -q --qf '%{VERSION}\n' |
> head -n1
>
> but later i noticed rpm/rpmbuild (invoked from pld builder script) the same
>
On Feb 23, 2016, at 12:58 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> On 23.02.2016 19:42, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>> On Feb 22, 2016, at 5:23 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
>>
>>> sometimes i see such message when building packages:
>>>
>>> warning: existing POPT configuratio
On Feb 22, 2016, at 5:23 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> sometimes i see such message when building packages:
>
> warning: existing POPT configuration file
> "/usr/lib/rpm/rpmpopt:/usr/lib/rpm/%{_target}/rpmpopt:/etc/rpm/rpmpopt.*:/etc/rpm/rpm
> popt:/etc/rpm/%{_target}/rpmpopt:~/.rpmpopt" considere
On Aug 24, 2011, at 8:26 AM, Pawel Golaszewski wrote:
>
> Maybe each file in filesystem? :P
>
That won't work: one needs to put every byte in a virtualized
environment with full hardware enforced isolation to please
everyone.
And RPM will *still* have extraordinary abilities to be able
to con
On Jul 14, 2011, at 3:52 PM, Artur Wroblewski wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 14, 2011, at 2:31 PM, Artur Wroblewski wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Jacek Konieczny wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
On Jul 14, 2011, at 2:31 PM, Artur Wroblewski wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Jacek Konieczny wrote:
> [...]
>> We lose:
>> - a little bit of the disk space
>> - some 'purity' some people see in not distributing 'sources'
>
> IMHO, it was not about purity but quite practical aspect of
On Jul 14, 2011, at 11:10 AM, Tomasz Pala wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 17:04:02 +0200, Tomasz Pala wrote:
>
* I had an idea once upon a time to verify content of repackaged files
against original digest, I really miss this feature in rpm (rpm -Vp
verifies package against fi
On Jul 14, 2011, at 9:23 AM, Tomasz Pala wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 08:57:40 -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>
>> (aside)
>> Do you actually use repackaged packages? For what purpose?
>
> Unfortunately yes, for restoring working set - too often...
> And during tes
On Jul 14, 2011, at 8:05 AM, Tomasz Pala wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 07:19:34 -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>
>> You also need to decide whether all compilations are on
>> the build system or after installation: there are different
>> implementations.
>>
>>
On Jul 14, 2011, at 8:04 AM, Tomasz Pala wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 07:21:35 -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>
>>>> compiles stuff? If so, can we then launch a suid helper that injects
>>>> the newly created files into the rpm package that contained the
&
On Jul 14, 2011, at 7:17 AM, Tomasz Pala wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 10:35:17 +0200, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
>
>> compiles stuff? If so, can we then launch a suid helper that injects
>> the newly created files into the rpm package that contained the
>> original .py?
>
> OMG...
> Please don'
On Jul 14, 2011, at 4:35 AM, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
>
>> In case some automated mechanism is provided, in the future, for keeping
>> the compiled python code files in the RPM database without listing them
>> in the spec files, we loose nothing by having the files there already
>> (by explicitly l
On Jul 14, 2011, at 3:44 AM, Jacek Konieczny wrote:
>
> Ok, you may be right. But what than? We don't even have an idea how
> should the proper rpm solution work and no volunteers to design and code
> it. At the same time Python 3.2 is waiting for being included in PLD,
Um, that isn't true: I d
On Jul 13, 2011, at 9:07 AM, Jakub Bogusz wrote:
>
> I don't like the idea of __pycache__ not managed by rpm (or not
We likely disagree on the details, perhaps sharply, of
__pycache__ managed by rpm
but not on the general goal.
> maintained with rpm database in case of more robust post
On Jun 4, 2011, at 9:41 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 12:17:20 -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>> On Jun 3, 2011, at 11:55 AM, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
>>>
>>> We don't have such thing. Feel free to implement (cvs/pld-ftp-admin) but
>>&g
On Jun 3, 2011, at 11:55 AM, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
>
> We don't have such thing. Feel free to implement (cvs/pld-ftp-admin) but note
> that in needs to be fast (and speed is the major problem).
>
Its rather easy to do
rpm -ivh --dbpath /somewhere/rpmdb --justdb --nonothing *.rpm
On May 30, 2011, at 2:05 PM, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
> On Monday 30 of May 2011, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>> On May 30, 2011, at 1:45 PM, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
>>> On Monday 30 of May 2011, Tomasz Pala wrote:
>>>> While updating my system I've noticed that
On May 30, 2011, at 1:45 PM, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
> On Monday 30 of May 2011, Tomasz Pala wrote:
>> While updating my system I've noticed that xorg* packages still got
>> *.la files, while they all got *.pc as well.
>> Are there any other (not discussed before) reasons not to remove them?
On Apr 9, 2011, at 8:36 PM, Tomasz Pala wrote:
> BTW it's you who wrote we've got good engineering practices often.
>
Let's just leave it here:
PLD is my favorite distro, solves problems (like *.pyo files
changing in python 3.2+), devises fixes, and moves on
months and
On Apr 9, 2011, at 7:38 PM, Tomasz Pala wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 19:05:33 -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>
>> FOr a distro containing >1M files, empty string tags require (at least) '\0'.
>>
>> But ~1Mb (for a 1M file distro) additional info is m
On Apr 9, 2011, at 6:49 PM, Tomasz Pala wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 17:09:54 -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>
>> And I'm not disagreeing. How rpm should handle xattr's like
>> that capabilities you want is a whole different matter.
>>
>> Attaching Yet
On Apr 9, 2011, at 4:52 PM, Tomasz Pala wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 16:32:01 -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>
>>> And I've shown that this "way" is wrong - having xattrs outside package
>>> manager is bad design per se.
>>
>> You WILL have
On Apr 9, 2011, at 4:16 PM, Tomasz Pala wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 15:56:04 -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>
>>>>>> There's no known reason why xattr's can't be done in other ways.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like what?
>>>>
On Apr 9, 2011, at 3:50 PM, Tomasz Pala wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 15:34:55 -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>
>>>> There's no known reason why xattr's can't be done in other ways.
>>>
>>> Like what?
>>
>> Like not hav
On Apr 9, 2011, at 3:29 PM, Tomasz Pala wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 15:26:46 -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>
>> There's no known reason why xattr's can't be done in other ways.
>
> Like what?
>
Like not having RPM attach xattr's. 5+ years ago, I ha
On Apr 9, 2011, at 2:13 PM, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
> 2011/4/9 Elan Ruusamäe :
>> so my vote goes for keeping the old .py[co] method, and perhaps change to
>> make is package only .pyc, it is rather ratre somebody invokes python with
>> -O option so the .pyo is to be needed. or why it was packaged
On Apr 3, 2011, at 4:01 PM, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>> I see a problem with /usr/bin/__pycache__/* and the rest of
>> the python litter on a file system. While __pycache__ subdirs "works" in
>> python
On Apr 3, 2011, at 9:15 AM, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Jacek Konieczny wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 02:38:49PM +0200, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
>>> Except in Python you can execute/import .py files just fine. If the
>>> program is not closed source, .pyc/.pyo/__py
On Apr 3, 2011, at 9:00 AM, an...@green.mif.pg.gda.pl wrote:
> Jeff Johnson wrote:
>> Another approach would be to not bother with static *.py* content
>> packaged in *.rpm at all, but rather let python establish its own
>> format/implementation for install/upgrade
On Apr 3, 2011, at 8:38 AM, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
>
>>> and sources are often the only source of (up to date)
>>> documentation.
>> So the source code is the documentation. What else is new? Are you
>> simply trolling, or just are too ignorant to be aware that's also what
>> happens with all oth
On Nov 20, 2010, at 11:25 AM, Jan Palus wrote:
> Recently I added small patch to python-paramiko and built for testing, but
> upgrading failed with:
>
> error: unpacking of archive failed on file
> /usr/share/python2.7/site-packages/paramiko-1.7.6-py2.7.egg-info: cpio:
> rename failed - Is a dir
On Oct 30, 2010, at 8:08 PM, Paweł Zuzelski wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, caleb wrote:
>
>> Author: calebDate: Thu Oct 28 09:53:02 2010 GMT
>> Module: packages Tag: HEAD
>> Log message:
>> - TODO was accidentally removed (sorry), but having [perc
On Jun 24, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Bartosz Taudul wrote:
>>> New group hierarchy proposition can be found at
>>> http://cvs.pld-linux.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/PLD-doc/nowe-grupy?rev=HEAD.
>> This tree is as good as any other I've seen, certainly far far
>> better than synaptic/aptitude choices.
> It was bas
On Jun 24, 2010, at 9:42 AM, Bartosz Taudul wrote:
> 2010/6/24 Jeff Johnson :
>>> Why do we care about RPM groups?
>> What else would we discuss if RPMTAG_GROUP did not exist?
> I was referring to the general shit state of the group hierarchy in
> PLD. Basicall
On Jun 24, 2010, at 10:11 AM, Artur Wroblewski wrote:
> 2010/6/24 Jeff Johnson :
>>
>> On Jun 24, 2010, at 9:36 AM, Paweł Zuzelski wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> [...]
>>>> Did Poland do well in South Africa?
>&
On Jun 24, 2010, at 9:42 AM, Bartosz Taudul wrote:
> 2010/6/24 Jeff Johnson :
>>> Why do we care about RPM groups?
>> What else would we discuss if RPMTAG_GROUP did not exist?
> I was referring to the general shit state of the group hierarchy in
> PLD. Basicall
On Jun 24, 2010, at 9:36 AM, Paweł Zuzelski wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>> What else would we discuss if RPMTAG_GROUP did not exist?
>
> Sorry, I don't get it.
>
Translation from obscure jbj-speak:
RPMTAG_GROUP is utterly broken
On Jun 24, 2010, at 7:31 AM, Bartosz Taudul wrote:
> 2010/6/24 Paweł Zuzelski :
>> Any comments?
> Why do we care about RPM groups?
>
What else would we discuss if RPMTAG_GROUP did not exist?
Did Poland do well in South Africa?
73 de Jeff
___
pld-de
On May 2, 2010, at 3:14 PM, Przemyslaw Iskra wrote:
> On Sun, May 02, 2010 at 02:57:39PM -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> chroot(".") = 0
>>> -- chroots back to /tmp !
>>>This way /tmp becomes new root.
>&
On May 2, 2010, at 2:45 PM, Przemyslaw Iskra wrote:
> On Sun, May 02, 2010 at 02:22:03PM -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>>
>> On May 2, 2010, at 2:11 PM, Przemyslaw Iskra wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Makes rpm lose track of current root directory. That is, it is u
On May 2, 2010, at 2:11 PM, Przemyslaw Iskra wrote:
> On Sun, May 02, 2010 at 05:38:14PM +0200, Paweł Zuzelski wrote:
>> or I'm missing something?
>>
>> mkdir /th
>> poldek --update --upa
>> rpm --initdb -r /th
>> poldek -r /th
>> poldek> install geninitrd
>> (...)
>> error: open of
>> /root/tm
On Feb 6, 2010, at 11:56 AM, Tomasz Pala wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 12:04:07 +0100, Zbyniu Krzystolik wrote:
>
>>> Anyone knows if it is or is going to be possible in rpm to store xattrs?
>>
>> Not possible now.
>
> And how about The Other RPM? This is a must-be feature and sooner or
> l
On Nov 18, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Przemyslaw Iskra wrote:
>
> I only really care about %__enable_disable macro which replaces such
> obscure PLD idiom:
> --%{?with_runtime:en}%{!?with_runtime:dis}able-runtime-cpudetection
> with much more readable:
> %{__enable_disable runtime runtime-cpu
Before you get into a litter of additional macros for
bconds, please note that when originally implemented
(by PLD, always first ;-) bcond's were intended as booleans.
When bconds were picked up by RPM using --with/--without popt aliases
(that are essentially just --define wrappings to conventiona
On Oct 11, 2009, at 8:01 AM, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
>
> Does anyone remember why we use such configure macro:
>
> ./configure \
>--host=%{_target_platform} \
>--build=%{_target_platform} \
>
> instead of
>
> ./configure \
>--host=%{_host_platform} \
>--build=%{_build_platform
On May 13, 2009, at 1:41 PM, Tomasz Pala wrote:
> How to verify digest of files in rpm package (like when repackaged
> modified files)? For example I've got:
>
> ~: rpm -qplv xorg-proto-xproto-devel-7.0.14-1.i586.rpm
> -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 167477 Oct 28 2008 /usr/
> include/X1
On May 3, 2009, at 6:26 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> why not have such default macros:
>
> %_topdir%{expand:%%global _topdir %(d=$([ -d ../../
> packages ] && (cd ../.. && pwd)); d=${d:-$([ -d ../packages ] &&
> (cd ..; pwd))}; echo ${d:-$HOME/rpm})}%_topdir
> %_specdir %{_topdir}/
On May 2, 2009, at 5:25 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
>>
>> I don't want any sources to be fetched.
>
> those are "patches" not "sources"
>
> indeed --fetch-only-spec option would be nice
>
Likely achievable with L and R macro overrides, and
a popt alias to hide the --define.
(3+ years since "fetch"
On Jan 18, 2009, at 10:56 AM, Radoslaw Zielinski wrote:
> Jeff Johnson [18-01-2009 16:31]:
> [...]
>> Is the AUTODEP_PKGNAMES portion of the rpm-pld-autodep.patch, which
>> maps
>> dependencies back to package names, actually useful/used by PLD? The
>
> No.
>
I'm actively merging PLD patches for RPM from SOURCES found at
:pserver:c...@anoncvs.pld-linux.org:/cvsroot
into @rpm5.org CVS HEAD over the next couple months.
My immediate goal is to get global dependency filtering through
exclude patterns
into @rpm5.org. The rpm-pld-autodep.patch is c
On Dec 7, 2008, at 4:29 AM, Łukasz Jernaś wrote:
2008/12/7 Jeff Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Heck even gasoline is now US$1.60/per gallon now ...
Well, where most PLD devs/users live it's about 4.61498478 USD per
gallon of super...
The more interesting questions are
On Dec 6, 2008, at 6:37 PM, wrobell wrote:
[1] my desktop machine is so huuug, baby
Well I dunno nothin' about your desktop.
But my desktop has accumulated 1,337,924.20 cobblestones
patiently grinding away, mostly [EMAIL PROTECTED], through BOINC.
I hope to contribute 0.005% to
On Dec 6, 2008, at 5:35 PM, wrobell wrote:
But points noted fer sure, TeX is not easy packaging, never has been.
indeed :)
Note I dinna say either of
(Diskspace|bandwidth) is cheap.
Being stoopid is way more costly than commodity items. Ugly and evil
have the same flaws.
He
On Dec 6, 2008, at 4:41 PM, wrobell wrote:
[1] my asus eee pc has 4GB of storage, so don't event try to tell me
that
sdd space is cheap
[2] i am accessing internet via 3G, so please don't tell me that
bandwith
is cheap, as well
Well asus eee is not exactly representative hqrdwar
On Nov 10, 2008, at 4:39 PM, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
>
> What's AIDA?
>
The wife of Rademes? ;-) ;-)
> Please fix sorting, you broke it.
>
Those high notes are ever so hard to reach if you are merely a
contralto ...
73 de Jeff
___
pld-devel-en
1 - 100 of 175 matches
Mail list logo
