Thanks Owen, that's quite more elegant. I wish I would've thought of 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/538#issuecomment-422812158__
Thanks for raising this issue, Yanko! I'd like to see something similar - in
fact I filed https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rpm/pull-request/15 to change
this in the Red Hat packaging. I don't have a lot of input for the best
approach.
> Another possibility might be only scanning for info and
On 9/19/18 12:23 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On 8/23/18 12:01 AM, Vladimir D. Seleznev wrote:
You convinced me that there should be whitelist filter, so I rewrote
code for it. Follow Panu suggestion [1] I wrote .C generator to filter
proper rpm tags.
Sorry for the terribly late response, I kee
Oh, I'm totally fine with a "package is already installed" message. When you
use `--force` you still need to add that erase element though.
--
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-mana
Remembered this while poking around in the neighborhood...
I'm not convinced that foo-1-1.i686 should be considered an upgrade over
foo-1-1.i586 - architecture never was part of version comparison. That said,
the current behavior is not sensible either, I think the right thing to do here
would
On 8/23/18 12:01 AM, Vladimir D. Seleznev wrote:
RPMTAG_IDENTITY is calculating as digest of part of package header that
marked for identity calculation in rpmtag.h. They are supposed to not
contain irrelevant to package build tag entries.
Mathematically RPMTAG_IDENTITY value is a result of func
On 8/23/18 12:01 AM, Vladimir D. Seleznev wrote:
You convinced me that there should be whitelist filter, so I rewrote
code for it. Follow Panu suggestion [1] I wrote .C generator to filter
proper rpm tags.
Sorry for the terribly late response, I keep intending and intending and
somehow almost
Ugh, the things we have in our source tree. Calling rpm from within rpm was
never a good idea (because there's no guarantee it'll actually work in various
chroot setups) and here we have an upstream macro doing just that, somehow I've
never noticed.
Not argument over LC_ALL placement, just noti
