as it is not POSIX compliant and not supported on BSD and others
Dropping the use of grep here and using -regex of find instead to get rid of
the need for looking at lines terminated by newline.
Using only basic regular expressions for portability.
Resolves: #948
You can view, comment on, or mer
A quick search turns up find-debuginfo.sh which also has xargs -d in 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/issues/948#issuecomment-559395380
Yes I know there's a school of packaging that uses the double-underscore macros
for everything they can. That doesn't mean it's how those macros ever were
meant to be used, the double underscore is a pretty strong hint that these are
*rpm private*.
Fedora folks came up with a pretty good summar
Use -0 instead which is more widly available.
Related: #948
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/956
-- Commit Summary --
* find-debuginfo.sh: Dont use xargs -d for portability
-- File Changes --
M scripts/
Well, I surely am biased towards rpm's macro "language," because of my work on
the interpreter in debbuild, where I not only use the macros in my specfiles,
but also "internally" for preparing the stage scripts. 😄
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to th
Originally reported as a bug on SOURCEPKGID
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741715, but SOURCEPKGID (liberal
quoting):
Rpm only stores the sourcepkgid if the source rpm was built in the same run as
the binary (that is, built with -ba), this is by design AFAICT. It would seem
usefu
MDBX (i.e. [libmdbx](https://github.com/leo-yuriev/libmdbx)) is superior to
LMDB with set of additional features ([the
list](https://github.com/leo-yuriev/libmdbx#improvements-over-lmdb)). For rpmdb
most useful are:
1. Automatic on-the-fly database size control by preset parameters, both
reduct
Seeing that this is a fork of LMDB, how's the key size limit? If it's the same
as LMDB then this is not any better for us.
--
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/issues
@pmatilai, briefly **MDBX support 2 times longer keys than LMDB**.
In details:
- the key size limit depends from the database page size.
- for default (4K) pages MDBX now accepts keys up 1980 bytes (ie slightly less
than half the page size).
- but this value will soon be revised down to be sli
Ack, useful to know.
That said, what we don't need right now is more experimental backends based on
new engines. In time though, who knows.
--
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-man
We have implemented Stribog 256bit filedigest algorithm in RPM 5.
Let's dump hashes of files inside it using RPM which has Stribog-256
implemented:
```
[root@rosa-2019 tmp]# rpm -qp --dump grep-3.3-3-rosa2019.0.x86_64.rpm
/bin/egrep 28 1574950713
aa4ae578ca2323caf35beab739f88ea577ab0119063b1aa47
It seems that dist-info => no pkg_resources, egg-info => pkg_resources is
correct.
--
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/issues/954#issuecomment-559614763_
Merged #951 into master.
--
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/951#event-2840462873___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint
> can we get this merged?
If you say so.
That said, the language specific dependency generators and brp-scripts would be
the next targets for moving out of rpm to a better home, whatever that might
be. I don't have anything like an actual plan for achieving that, just a vague
idea.
--
You ar
Closed #948 via #955.
--
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/issues/948#event-2840478464___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@
Seems obvious enough for me...
--
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/955#issuecomment-559678678___
Rpm-maint mailing li
Merged #955 into master.
--
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/955#event-2840478459___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint
Yeah there's a bug someplace or two. Starting with:
```
/* Hmm, what to do with unknown digest algorithms? */
if (algo && rpmDigestLength(*algo) != 0) {
fi->digestalgo = *algo;
}
```
...and also assuming rpmDigestLength() returns non-zero values in more places
18 matches
Mail list logo
