Closed #116.
--
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/116#event-937790684___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.or
Fixed it up and pushed 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/116#issuecomment-275394230___
Rpm-maint mailing list
R
Right, this is (yet another) case where rpm unnecessarily shoots itself in the
foot: it does a relatively complex thing of reconstructing the original header
from the one we just read and imported in order to check the digest and
signature, when it could just check the raw data before looking in
While I have some sympathy for the idea as such I think just putting random
stuff in a tags is a bad idea. We should at least force some key:value
structure. This way someone parsing the tags has a fair chance of filtering out
the entries of interest without other data littering the results.
Whi
Closed #106.
--
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/106#event-937859097___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.or
The check for the missing states should not be done by file but per package.
rpmfsSetAction(fs, recs[j].fileno, FA_SKIP);
prevents new files from being removed on an update. This is not something we
want to leave out light heartedly.
Possible things to do are:
Error out and state that the rpmdb
I've encountered a similar issue when I was building pythonX-rpm by hand on
PCLinuxOS when I was attempting to upgrade them from 4.8.1 to 4.12.0.1. There
didn't appear to be an obvious way to fix this, as the setuptools is wont to
refer to system libraries for linking rather than the ones provid
2017-01-16 8:04 GMT+01:00 Panu Matilainen :
> On 01/16/2017 02:51 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Ralf Corsepius
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/15/2017 04:03 PM, Neal Gompa (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not sure how true it is, but it seems to bear out with the number of
2017-01-26 15:28 GMT+01:00 Florian Festi :
> While I have some sympathy for the idea as such I think just putting
> random stuff in a tags is a bad idea. We should at least force some
> key:value structure. This way someone parsing the tags has a fair chance of
> filtering out the entries of inter
