Re: cpio: File digest mismatch

> On Aug 14, 2017, at 2:31 PM, Jan Palus wrote: > > I've created a basic package for libguestfs fixed appliance > (http://download.libguestfs.org/binaries/appliance/) however there seems to > be an issue with how filesystem image is packaged by rpm. It's an ext2 fs > file with size of 4G and

Re: rpm-5.4.18 snapshot available

> On Jul 18, 2017, at 6:47 AM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > > There’s a work-in-progress snapshot of the next version of RPM at >rpm-5.4.17-0.20160510.src.rpm > <http://rpm5.org/files/rpm/rpm-5.4/SNAPSHOT/rpm-5.4.17-0.20160510.src.rpm> > Forgot to refresh my brow

rpm-5.4.18 snapshot available

There’s a work-in-progress snapshot of the next version of RPM at rpm-5.4.17-0.20160510.src.rpm I’m mostly interested in early feedback on the contents before deciding what (e.g. gnulib) should be included in a final

Re: [packages/rust] rpm4 noarch

> > You don't need to remove anything. > This directive here is for antiquated rpm4 that did not support > BuildArch in subpackages. I want those %if's gone. > Ah yes, thanks. I’ve forgotten ... Yes: recent (like last 8y? I forget) rpm.org also supports noarch sub-packages, so there’s no need

Re: [packages/rust] rpm4 noarch

> On Jul 3, 2017, at 2:07 AM, Jan Rękorajski wrote: > > Why do you keep adding that cruft? Please stop doing this. > We don't use rpm4 for 5 (five) years. > Hmmm … there’s the other incompatibility side as well Why isn’t BuildArch needed for RPM4? I can remove (or at least make optional)

Re: PLD *.src.rpm cannot be installed by rpm-4.13

> On Mar 4, 2017, at 5:43 PM, Jan Rękorajski wrote: > > On Thu, 02 Mar 2017, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > >> Here is the RHBZ bug report >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1427287 >> >> This issue has been discussed ad nauseum back in 2009

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

> On Mar 4, 2017, at 4:35 PM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > > > I have a dim memory of a compatibility patch fix for immutable region trailers > that was needed like a 10+ years ago that I deleted (because deemed unneeded). > Good: the hack that I recall was very very ancient (

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

> On Mar 4, 2017, at 3:59 PM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > > > > I will know more from examining RPMTAG_RPMVERSION and other build tracking > tags … > OK, here is RPMTAG_RPMVERSION: 0428 0006 01ac 0001 ... d+01ac 342e3500 which is “4.5”, and t

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

> On Mar 4, 2017, at 4:30 AM, Jakub Bogusz wrote: > > And one more patch, to make rpm4compat.h header usable again. > fdSize() became exported function, so stop defining static function of > the same name. > Thanks for the patch. Note that maintaining an API compatible rpm4compat.h include fo

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

> On Mar 4, 2017, at 4:17 AM, Jakub Bogusz wrote: >> >> >> The variable il is derived and may be tainted, while off and nb are de facto >> positioning >> within the header memory blob. And yes, it may not matter. > > il is already used earlier to calculate dataStart. And length of the > whole

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

> On Mar 4, 2017, at 1:21 PM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > > > > A header with nested immutable regions would then look like > Y X ABCD QRST abcd x qrst y > where Q,R,S,T are tags associated with the outer immutable region. > Grrr … but at least a picture hel

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

> On Mar 2, 2017, at 4:05 PM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > > >> On Mar 2, 2017, at 3:52 PM, Jakub Bogusz > <mailto:qbo...@pld-linux.org>> wrote: >> >> >> As far as I understand the code, rdl is size of immutable entry infos >> part, while off is

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

> On Mar 2, 2017, at 3:52 PM, Jakub Bogusz wrote: > > > As far as I understand the code, rdl is size of immutable entry infos > part, while off is an offset in tags data part. > And when immutable tags data is short enough (shorter than entry infos > of immutable part), this check refuses to lo

PLD *.src.rpm cannot be installed by rpm-4.13

Here is the RHBZ bug report https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1427287 This issue has been discussed ad nauseum back in 2009. PLD has 2 choices: 1) Retrofit RPMTAG_SOURCEPACKAGE and rpmlead boolean into RPM5 and rebuild everything OR 2) patch rpm.org rpm-4.13 (and perhaps olde

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

> On Feb 28, 2017, at 3:42 PM, Jakub Bogusz wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 07:15:22PM -0500, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> >>> On Feb 23, 2017, at 3:36 PM, Jakub Bogusz wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 01:43:14PM -0500, Jeffrey J

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

> > I’m sure your analysis is correct … > > … meanwhile what was the core issue? What problem are you trying to solve? > > Issues relating to whether a cursor COULD (or SHOULD) read uncommitted data > are quite complex, including whether the flags are inherited from the > database open > and a

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

> On Feb 24, 2017, at 5:03 PM, Jakub Bogusz wrote: > >>> >> >> Update: still the same with uid>0 (no write permission to /var/lib/rpm). >> It seems that DB_READ_COMMITTED and DB_READ_UNCOMMITTED require +w, >> so they should be filtered out in unprivileged mode. > > Issue explained: > > DB_R

Re: RPM + SEMANAGE?

> On Feb 23, 2017, at 3:33 PM, Jakub Bogusz wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 02:15:12PM -0500, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> I see that semanage has been enabled 3 days ago >> >> https://github.com/pld-linux/rpm/commit/ec7b8d8fb16f5789772693ff807e0a93a5c653e

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

> On Feb 23, 2017, at 3:36 PM, Jakub Bogusz wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 01:43:14PM -0500, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> This one is left though: >> >>> error: db3: header #187105280 cannot be loaded -- skipping. >>> error: db3: header #4127850496 cann

OpenMandriva upgrade 5.4.15 -> 5.4.17+

(This is largely a FYI … PLD includes many Mandriva patches) OpenMandriva is attempting an upgrade to 5.4.17 (or rpm-5.4.18) with 300+ patches, ~90 of which need to be rebased (or dropped): https://www.mail-archive.com/om-cooker@ml.openmandriva.org/msg09198.html I was asked to help port t

RPM + SEMANAGE?

I see that semanage has been enabled 3 days ago https://github.com/pld-linux/rpm/commit/ec7b8d8fb16f5789772693ff807e0a93a5c653e4 Be forewarned: the semanage code in RPM hasn’t been looked at for quite some years: at the time I implemented, semanage was just being invented. If there is a

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

This one is left though: > error: db3: header #187105280 cannot be loaded -- skipping. > error: db3: header #4127850496 cannot be loaded -- skipping. How to check what these "headers" mean? (old, unsupported keys? some old packages with missing fields which are now required?) The error message is

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 4:23 PM, Tomasz Pala wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 14:58:51 -0500, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > >> AFAIK there???s only a handful of files that benefit from capabilities (but >> I haven???t looked recently: for all I know > Hmmm … that seems

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 2:26 PM, Jakub Bogusz wrote: > > By the way - are there any plans to implement fcaps in rpm5? > (like in rpm.org since 4.7.0) > > e.g. mtr.spec looks sad with > %attr(4755,root,root) %{_bindir}/mtr > instead of %caps(cap_net_raw=ep)… > The problem I have with capabilitie

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 12:51 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > > On 12.01.2017 19:20, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> Otherwise: >> Did rpm-5.4.17 build correctly? > yes. otherwise i wouldn't able to get the db error, right? :) > > anyway, i haven't looked yet t

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 12:05 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > > On 11.01.2017 00:33, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >>> >i sent it also to pld builders, so you can inspect the logs if you wish. >>> > >>> >but do note that is not the same build i had problem

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

> On Jan 10, 2017, at 4:50 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > > On 10.01.2017 21:49, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> What version of Berkeley DB are you intending? > > pld still intends to use db5.2, not changing db version in "patch" release of > rpm (5.4.15->5.4.17)

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

> On Jan 10, 2017, at 2:49 PM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > >> >> On Jan 10, 2017, at 2:36 PM, Elan Ruusamäe > <mailto:g...@pld-linux.org>> wrote: >> >> not cool. >> > > You (likely) have misbuilt rpm somehow, likely by picking up >

Re: pld rpm 5.4.17

> On Jan 10, 2017, at 2:36 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > > not cool. > You (likely) have misbuilt rpm somehow, likely by picking up #include in /usr/include rather than the version specific db.h using -I/usr/include/dbXY. > $ rpm -q rpm > BDB0056 DB->cursor: DB_READ_COMMITTED, DB_READ_

Re: ERRORS: rpm.spec

> On Jan 10, 2017, at 12:56 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > > On 10.01.2017 19:46, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> I will (at least) send the patch to re-add RPM_I18NSTRING_TYPE to pld-devel@ >> when I remove the data type. The RPM_I18NSTRING_TYPE has always been broken >> in

Re: ERRORS: rpm.spec

> On Jan 10, 2017, at 11:58 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > > On 10.01.2017 18:38, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> The configure option —without-java is known to work in CVS and in rpm-5.4.17. > > 5.4.17 compiles here as well (with gcc6), Good. > but pld is not ready, som

Re: ERRORS: rpm.spec

> On Jan 10, 2017, at 11:45 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > > On 10.01.2017 18:38, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> What is the issue here? > and some more sources (c++) affected: > > /usr/lib64/ccache/x86_64-pld-linux-gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I. -I./build > -I./lib

Re: ERRORS: rpm.spec

> On Jan 10, 2017, at 11:44 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > > On 10.01.2017 18:38, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >>> On Jan 10, 2017, at 11:35 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: >>> >>> On 10.01.2017 18:28, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >>>> Add —without-java to conf

Re: ERRORS: rpm.spec

> On Jan 10, 2017, at 11:35 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > > On 10.01.2017 18:28, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> Add —without-java to configure will disable no matter what the default is. > > ./rpmio/Makefile.am compiles rpmjni.cc with no conditions. at least 5.4.15 > The c

Re: ERRORS: rpm.spec

> On Jan 10, 2017, at 11:23 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > > what is this? > > i didn't know we have hava Java JNI support? Yes, where support == RPM embeds a Java JVM running the bean shell interpreter > > ./configure --help outputs: > --with-java build RPM with java suppor

Re: how disable %pretrans scripts?

> On Dec 26, 2016, at 4:02 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > > rpm has --notriggers, —noscripts > Yes. > but neither of them cover disabling %pretrans > Yes (arguably preserving ancient rpm legacy option behavior). (aside) Changing the define in rpmts.h #define _noTransTriggers\ ( RPMTR

Re: Did anyone notice when storing files as #/NAME get broken?

> On Dec 4, 2016, at 1:50 PM, Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz wrote: > > Some rpm change? > Not an expansion change in rpm AFAIK: rpm expands macros everywhere, in comments, within quoted strings, everywhere since forever. But perhaps a problem with precedence, since rpm build does map Name: and Versio

Re: rpm --nosignature reversed meaning

> On Sep 11, 2016, at 6:38 AM, Jan Rękorajski wrote: > > Done. > I removed RSA key from the > ftp://ftp.pld-linux.org/dists/3.0/PLD-3.0-Th-GPG-key.asc > file, as we indeed sign only with DSA key. > There is also a patch to rpm —verify to disable header signature checks that can now be remove

Re: rpm --nosignature reversed meaning

> > The usage scenario rpm has to allow: > > 1. rpm -qp unknown.rpm -> signature verification failed, > 2. rpm -qpilv --scripts --nosignature unknown.rpm -> analyze > 3. rpm2cpio ... -> content analyze IF required (trusting the vendor) > 3. rpm --resign unknown.rpm (not with MY key, but some gen

Re: rpm --nosignature reversed meaning

> On Sep 10, 2016, at 2:32 PM, Tomasz Pala wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 09:46:17 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > >>>> is not enough/complete. And I've just found this (some 'triple negation' >>>> issues), as recently noted in

Re: rpm --nosignature reversed meaning

> On Sep 10, 2016, at 7:48 AM, Tomasz Pala wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 12:53:25 +0200, Tomasz Pala wrote: > >> our rpm and reverting it. Since nobody playing with rpm did this, my >> GUESS is, that: >> >> rpm-5.4.9-support-signatures-and-digest-disablers.patch >> >> is not enough/compl

Re: %config loses

> On Aug 30, 2016, at 3:51 PM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > > >> On Aug 30, 2016, at 3:48 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: >> >> On 30.08.2016 22:34, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >>> Fix the following flaws in your bug report (sic). >> this is not bugreport. complet

Re: %config loses

> On Aug 30, 2016, at 3:48 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > > On 30.08.2016 22:34, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> Fix the following flaws in your bug report (sic). > this is not bugreport. complete reproducer and expectations were sent in > previous thread. > >> 2) Don’t u

Re: %config loses

> On Aug 30, 2016, at 12:34 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > > just reminder, that old bug never got resolved. > I am reminded. Fix the following flaws in your bug report (sic). 0) You refuse to report through recommended rpm5.org bug reporting, either at http://launchpad.net/rpm, or discussing on

Re: rpm --nosignature reversed meaning

> On Aug 30, 2016, at 7:47 AM, Tomasz Pala wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 05:56:43 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > >>> Is there any macro/option that prevents me from installing any >>> unsigned/unverified package? >> >> The question as asked can

Re: rpm --nosignature reversed meaning

> > It would be nice to have some tool to import from hkp:// directly. I did > lynx/wget/vi magic to fetch them, how to do this straight from codlin? The tool already exists. E.g. rpm —import 0x01234567 or rpm —import 0x0123456789abcdef But that won’t do you much good if you

Re: rpm --nosignature reversed meaning

>> >> > > If so, rpm should either ignore secondary key or refuse to install such > joint at all. > RPM *does* ignore secondary keys. And look carefully at this well-formed pubkey (scroll through the page) http://keys.niif.hu/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x0B7F8B60E3EDFAE3 It is not

Re: rpm --nosignature reversed meaning

> On Aug 30, 2016, at 6:44 AM, Tomasz Pala wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 06:30:24 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > >>> But I believe the PLD-Th-GPG issue was discussed in spring 2015 on >>> pld-devel. >> >> This was the issue I was rememb

Re: rpm --nosignature reversed meaning

> > Let me guess for the last time: if handled properly, > rpm --import PLD-3.0-Th-GPG-key.asc > should result in 2 gpg-pubkeys in rpm database. There is one, not working. > There are no circumstances that a single rpm —import will result in multiple pubkeys being imported into an

Re: rpm --nosignature reversed meaning

> > But I believe the PLD-Th-GPG issue was discussed in spring 2015 on pld-devel. > This was the issue I was remembering: http://pld-devel-en.pld-linux.narkive.com/ZssnN7t4/rpm-va-bad-key-id That specific issue was resolved by disabling signature verification during —verify, largely t

Re: rpm --nosignature reversed meaning

> On Aug 30, 2016, at 5:57 AM, Tomasz Pala wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 11:50:45 +0200, Tomasz Pala wrote: > >>> D: PUB: AF3F93BC E4F1BC2D V4 DSA >>> D: SIG: AF3F93BC E4F1BC2D V4 DSA-SHA1 POSITIVE >>> D: PUB: 732FDFDE EAE6F8B8 V4 RSA >>> D: SIG: 732FDFDE EAE6F8B8 V4 RSA-SHA1 POSIT

Re: rpm --nosignature reversed meaning

> On Aug 30, 2016, at 5:17 AM, Tomasz Pala wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 03:24:02 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > >>> ~: strace -erecvfrom rpm --nosignature -qp keepassx-2.0.2-2.x86_64.rpm >>> recvfrom(12, "\25\24\201\200\0\1\0\5\0\0\0\0\2ha\4p

Re: rpm --nosignature reversed meaning

> On Aug 29, 2016, at 6:53 PM, Tomasz Pala wrote: > > Should this work this way? Is it upstream bug or PLD-specific? How about > RH-rpm? > I need more info if you think its an RPM bug. The implementations in RH-rpm and RPM5 are significantly different. For starters, RPM5 abandoned header+pay

Re: rpm --nosignature reversed meaning

> On Aug 29, 2016, at 10:19 PM, Kacper Kornet wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:53:49AM +0200, Tomasz Pala wrote: >> Should this work this way? Is it upstream bug or PLD-specific? How about >> RH-rpm? > > >> ~: strace -erecvfrom rpm -qp keepassx-2.0.2-2.x86_64.rpm >> keepassx-2.0.2-2.x86_

Re: rpm -Uhv --oldpackage loses configs

> On Jun 8, 2016, at 5:58 AM, Tomasz Pala wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 00:10:36 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > >>> http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-maint/2008-February/001911.html >> >> OK, I???ll bite: you quote James Antill from 8 years ago ?

Re: rpm5 (Re: rpm -Uhv --oldpackage loses configs)

> On Jun 8, 2016, at 2:04 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > > On 08.06.2016 01:04, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> (aside) >> I spent a week converting the entire @rpm5.org cvs repository to git >> last year at git.rpm.org. There has been exactly zero interest in accessing, >

Re: rpm -Uhv --oldpackage loses configs

> On Jun 7, 2016, at 10:57 PM, Tomasz Pala wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 14:29:24 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > >>>> There are also better solutions than /var/spool/repackage that can be >>>> attempted these >>>> days. >>> >&

Re: rpm -Uhv --oldpackage loses configs

... git.rpm5.org ... *shrug* no idea how to do cut'n'paste reliably on an iPad. 73 de Jeff Sent from my iPad > On Jun 7, 2016, at 6:04 PM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > > > > Sent from my iPad > >>> On Jun 7, 2016, at 2:49 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: >>

Re: rpm -Uhv --oldpackage loses configs

Sent from my iPad > On Jun 7, 2016, at 2:49 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > >> On 07.06.2016 21:31, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> Next time you can wait for proyvind to give you a patch to >> solve whatever rpm problem you report, if that is what you prefer. > no i

Re: rpm -Uhv --oldpackage loses configs

> On Jun 7, 2016, at 2:27 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > > On 07.06.2016 21:18, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> Patches cheerfully accepted at > > seen how you bashed proyvind when he submitted his patches to the list! > 40% of pld patches originate from him. > &g

Re: rpm -Uhv --oldpackage loses configs

> On Jun 7, 2016, at 2:07 PM, Tomasz Pala wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 13:42:23 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > >> There are also better solutions than /var/spool/repackage that can be >> attempted these >> days. > > What are they? Filesystem-level

Re: rpm -Uhv --oldpackage loses configs

> On Jun 7, 2016, at 2:21 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > > On 07.06.2016 21:07, Tomasz Pala wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 13:42:23 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> >>> >There are also better solutions than /var/spool/repackage that can be >>> &g

Re: rpm -Uhv --oldpackage loses configs

> On Jun 7, 2016, at 1:58 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > > >> Meanwhile abandoning %config renaming (and doing a git check-in with >> RPM+LIBGIT2), >> is likely the best forward-looking solution. > pld will not sign up to this. %config handling needs to be fixed. Then PLD has its solution …

Re: rpm -Uhv --oldpackage loses configs

> On Jun 7, 2016, at 1:37 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > > > here it is: > https://hub.docker.com/r/glen/rpm-repackage-bug/builds/btjwvf77j6gvmiu67jpbiek/ > > > OK. (aside) If you take out the -h progress bar, th

Re: rpm -Uhv --oldpackage loses configs

> On Jun 7, 2016, at 1:49 PM, Tomasz Pala wrote: > > Note: I'm not referring to %config issue reported, this is only by-the-way > question. > > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 13:16:45 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > >>> A propos - would it be possible for

Re: rpm -Uhv --oldpackage loses configs

> On Jun 7, 2016, at 1:29 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > > On 06.06.2016 22:00, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: >> (pld has --downgrade alias to --oldpackage via popt) >> >> downgrading from repackage lost config files, >> i.e saved them as .rpmsave leaving original path missing > > remote reproducer using

Re: rpm -Uhv --oldpackage loses configs

> On Jun 7, 2016, at 12:18 PM, Tomasz Pala wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 10:48:51 -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote: > >> Yes the metadata header contains those files. >> >> Are the files in the payload? >> rpm2cpio *.rpm | cpio -itv >> >> If the files are not in the payload, then they wil

Re: rpm -Uhv --oldpackage loses configs

> On Jun 7, 2016, at 4:35 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > > On 07.06.2016 06:33, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> I’m not sure how repackaged rpm’s are involved: that isn’t entirely clear >> from the report. > again, it was included in report that files were installed from repackag

Re: rpm -Uhv --oldpackage loses configs

> On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:04 PM, Tomasz Pala wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 17:00:23 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > >>> downgrading from repackage lost config files, >>> i.e saved them as .rpmsave leaving original path missing > [...] >> What exac

Re: rpm -Uhv --oldpackage loses configs

> On Jun 6, 2016, at 3:00 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > > (pld has --downgrade alias to --oldpackage via popt) > > downgrading from repackage lost config files, > i.e saved them as .rpmsave leaving original path missing > > # ls -l */*pam* > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 326K 6. juuni 20:17 1465233457/

Re: man-pages-4.05-1.noarch conflicts with lirc-0.9.3a-1.x86_64

> On May 10, 2016, at 12:25 AM, Jakub Bogusz wrote: > > Fixed in lirc-0.9.3a-2 / man-pages-4.05-2. > Is file conflict detection an RPM misfeature? It would not be impossibly hard to resolve a file conflict automatically, perhaps with an alternatives-like symlink farm analogue mechanism to per

Re: rpm-5.4.16 snapshot

> 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-5.4.16-0.20160315.src.rpm > it's text fields seem to contain garbage: >

Re: Terrible performance of Python dependency generator

> On Nov 23, 2015, at 4:16 AM, Jacek Konieczny wrote: > > On 2015-11-22 22:03, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> Dependencies are automatically generated only for executable files. > > That is not true for Python dependencies and this would not work for > Python depende

Re: Terrible performance of Python dependency generator

> On Nov 23, 2015, at 3:54 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > > On 22.11.2015 22:39, Jacek Konieczny wrote: >> /usr/lib/rpm/pythoneggs.py is used to find the dependencies and it is >> not that slow by itself… but it is called twice (Provides + Requires) >> for each file in /usr/share/pythonX.Y. And big

Re: Terrible performance of Python dependency generator

> On Nov 22, 2015, at 3:39 PM, Jacek Konieczny wrote: > > Hi, > > We will probably need to rebuild the python-* packages again and I > already hate that. Such python-django takes 45 minutes to build and most > of that is in the auto-dependency generator. That is insane! It should > not take tha

Re: disabling rpm fetch

Sent from my iPad > On Nov 4, 2015, at 5:06 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > >> On 04.11.2015 00:22, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: >> how do you disable rpm from fetching sources? >> from build/parsePrep.c i see such macros, but defining them to %{nil} had no >> effect. > > disabled like this for now: > >

Re: rpm unwanted autodep

> > so used _noautoreqfiles macro > > https://github.com/pld-linux/fpm/commit/2a24ca30d7e85b0e4d9a8680f634819e097999f7 > > aside, content check here is worse than extension check. > i needed to input 5mb junk beginning of file to prevent file(1) detecting > content as python! > (aside) You j

Re: rpm unwanted autodep

> On Aug 30, 2015, at 6:36 PM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > > >> On Aug 26, 2015, at 5:03 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: >> >> On 26.08.2015 11:55, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: >>> hi >>> >>> how to avoid rpm to generate python(abi) dependency on this f

Re: rpm unwanted autodep

> On Aug 26, 2015, at 5:03 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > > On 26.08.2015 11:55, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: >> hi >> >> how to avoid rpm to generate python(abi) dependency on this file > i tried to input bunch of junk in front of the file, but file-5.24 is S > persistent, it still considers it as p

Re: rpm overwriting config files again

On Jun 9, 2015, at 5:50 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > ping jbj? > Yes? I don't think your change to %config handling is worth the effort and disruption to the existing %config algorithm. Grep the code for FA_ALTNAME (for .rpmnew) and FA_BACKUP (for .rpmorig/.rpmsave) handling, patch as you wish.

Re: [packages/systemd] do not inherit $HOSTNAME when setting up /etc/hostname in systemd-units post scriptlet

> On Jun 3, 2015, at 10:14 AM, Jacek Konieczny wrote: > > On 2015-06-03 15:57, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: >> >> the previous code caused permission issues in docker: >> >> [root@localhost] # docker run -i -t pld bash >> [root@fee5a8d66c6a /]# echo $HOSTNAME >> fee5a8d66c6a >> [root@fee5a8d66c6a /]#

Re: %{_hkp_keyserver} in rpm

> On Jun 4, 2015, at 6:56 AM, Kacper Kornet wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 12:46:00PM +0300, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: >> On 04.06.2015 12:19, Kacper Kornet wrote: >>> And the original slow command was: > >>> rpm -qp --nodigest --nosignature --qf %{R} >>> google-chrome-stable-43.0.2357.81-1.x86

Re: sysinfo/providename

> On Jun 4, 2015, at 6:34 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > > how it's supposed to be used? > > does not seem to have effect: > > [root@e13092785543 /]# echo "virtual(init-daemon)" >> > /etc/rpm/sysinfo/Providename > [root@e13092785543 /]# poldek -u nfs-utils > error: $TERM undefined > Loading [pndi

Re: rpm overwriting config files again

> On May 30, 2015, at 11:19 PM, Tomasz Pala wrote: > > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 23:22:39 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > >> You do realize that RPM5 embeds libgit2 sufficiently well to perform >> a commit that git(1) understands? > > No... any docs? examples? How

Re: rpm overwriting config files again

On May 29, 2015, at 3:25 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > On 29.05.2015 17:43, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> I won't make the change in RPM upstream because I believe it's >> more important to have consistent %config handling than it is to >> preserve unpackaged configur

Re: rpm overwriting config files again

On May 29, 2015, at 4:28 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > On 29.05.2015 00:13, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: ... >> Was this behavior seen in a multiple package upgrade that you have snipped >> out? > nop. this was 1 package upgrade: > OK thanks for -vv output. > # rpm -q nagios-n

Re: rpm overwriting config files again

On May 25, 2015, at 9:01 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > again rpm is ovewriting existing files, not creating them as .rpmnew when the > file is "new" in the package itself. > Claiming "overwriting" is premature (see below). > imho this got solved at least in 4.5... > Comparisons to rpm-4.x beha

Re: [packages/systemd] - add epoch to triggers (yes, both need it)

On May 27, 2015, at 12:22 PM, Jan Rękorajski wrote: >> >> what's the current state of multiple triggers per package combination? >> are they both fired? in what order? >> >> i recall, that in old times, it was just better to move triggers to one >> trigger (one with biggest version combinatio

Re: (rpm)db 5.2 files

On May 16, 2015, at 5:49 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > On 16.05.2015 00:29, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> Some mixture of these commands will make Packages portable for a chroot. >> >> dbXY_recover -v # remove ___db files >> >> dbXY_che

Re: (rpm)db 5.2 files

On May 15, 2015, at 4:49 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > i'm writing code to make minimal chroot of pld. > > how to get rid of these files in safe manner, so they would not be missed, or > not needing any kind of rpm db rebuild, /bin/rpm is just ready to be used: > > /var/lib/rpm/log/log.01

Re: rpm loses configs!

On May 4, 2015, at 10:01 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > On 04.05.2015 16:42, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> On May 4, 2015, at 7:37 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: >> ... >>> warning: /etc/ssh/sshd_config saved as /etc/ssh/sshd_config.rpmsave >>> warning: /etc/pam.d/sshd

Re: rpm loses configs!

On May 4, 2015, at 7:37 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: ... > > warning: /etc/ssh/sshd_config saved as /etc/ssh/sshd_config.rpmsave > warning: /etc/pam.d/sshd saved as /etc/pam.d/sshd.rpmsave ... > > 5:openssh-server warning: /etc/ssh/sshd_config created as > /etc/ssh/sshd_config.rpmnew ...

Re: noarch main package, arch subpackage?

> On Mar 25, 2015, at 3:24 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > > > afaik rpm.org permits other values than just "noarch" to > "BuildArch:" value. > Um … no. 73 de Jeff ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http:/

Re: noarch main package, arch subpackage?

On Mar 24, 2015, at 3:53 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > it's possible to create noarch subpackage with rpm5, > but what if the main package (%files) ought to be noarch but some subpackage > to be arch package? > > example: > https://github.com/pld-linux/gnome-themes-standard/blob/auto/th/gnome-them

Re: [packages/redis] - up to 2.8.19

On Mar 2, 2015, at 2:04 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > > aside: why rpm doesn't complain about this. should complain with a > possibility to whitelist by pattern or globally. > rpm cannot dictate Fascist packaging policies: if you want to split symlinks and their end points into different builds

Re: rpm -Va BAD, key ID

On Feb 15, 2015, at 5:00 AM, Jan Rękorajski wrote: > On Sun, 15 Feb 2015, Jan Rękorajski wrote: > >> On Sat, 14 Feb 2015, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> >>> >>> On Feb 13, 2015, at 10:06 AM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>

Re: rpm -Va BAD, key ID

On Feb 13, 2015, at 10:06 AM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > >> On Feb 13, 2015, at 3:17 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: >> >> On 12.02.2015 19:55, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >>> OK. So you have a workaround (by disabling header signature verification) >>> for -

Re: rpm -Va BAD, key ID

> On Feb 13, 2015, at 3:17 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > > On 12.02.2015 19:55, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> OK. So you have a workaround (by disabling header signature verification) >> for -Va for the moment. >> and also have an alternative means to verify header signat

Re: rpm -Va BAD, key ID

On Feb 12, 2015, at 4:44 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > On 11.02.2015 19:58, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >>> i found something weird, if i do rpm -V pkgname, the header verification >>> error is not printed, but rpm -Va shows the error for every package >>> (bes

Re: rpm -Va BAD, key ID

On Feb 11, 2015, at 12:51 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > On 11.02.2015 16:06, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >> Meanwhile -- as a developer -- I need to to be able to build from source >> and diagnose/repair the problem. I cannot do that from a pile of vm bits in >> either vagrant nor q

  1   2   3   >