One important aspect of dbus vs librpm API is that not everybody wants to link
to librpm, which imposes its own signal handling on users when the db is open,
and our ABI hasn't been particularly stable historically, dbus library itself
is much more stable AIUI.
--
You are receiving this becaus
I was kinda expecting others from the Python camp to evaluate, I'm out of loop
with what's going on in this land these days.
--
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
Is this good to be merged?
--
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/1272#issuecomment-649113390___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Le mar. 23 juin 2020 à 14:41, Panu Matilainen a
écrit :
>
> Some fairly important fixes cropped up in the last few weeks so we
> decided to go with a second beta for a change. The highlights since
> beta1 include:
>
> - fix hardlink breakage on upgrade when minimize_writes is enabled
> - fix some
No worries, it's not the first (or last) time mock trips up something because
it's a rather special environment.
--
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/1290#issu
Oh my. Thanks for sharing, I'll check that.
--
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/1290#issuecomment-648804803___
Rpm-
Seems that something in mock environment trips up the new GPG_TTY related
warning, causing (a bogus) test-suite failure due to the extra output:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/pmatilai/rpm-snapshot/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01499743-rpm/build.log.gz
```
--- /dev/null 2020-06-24
Yup, and there's more: every caller of rpmfcExec() does so with slightly
different expectations of what will happen in what situations, and
rpmfcHelper() was doing +1 on errors whereas the lower layers were returning -1
and ... whatnot. It needs a *careful* review on reapproach.
--
You are rec
For references, here's the fallout:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1285
--
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/1183#issuecomment-648710531_
Indeed we can close this one.
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1289 is the only
remaining issue with beta3
--
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/i
Actually with beta3, I can reproduce it locally:
$ LC_ALL=C rm -fr BUILD/rpm-4.16.0-beta3/
(…)
rm: cannot remove
'BUILD/rpm-4.16.0-beta3/tests/testing/data/SPECS/test-subpackages-pathpostfixes.spec':
Permission denied
rm: cannot remove
'BUILD/rpm-4.16.0-beta3/tests/testing/data/SPECS/ifmultiline
Closed #1285.
--
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/1285#event-3476588512___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.r
Fixed in master and beta3, thanks again for reporting.
--
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/1285#issuecomment-648702816_
Maybe a slow mirror somewhere in there. Try again until you get the right
version.
--
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1284#issuecomment-648702149
Closed #1284.
--
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1284#event-3476583293___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.
Closed #1288.
--
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/1288#event-3476574212___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.r
See http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-announce/2020-June/80.html, you
managed to grab the wrong tarball.
--
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/1288#issueco
Le mer. 24 juin 2020 à 11:02, Thierry Vignaud a
écrit :
>
>> This fixes multiple dependency generator related regressions introduced
>>> beta2, by reverting the "fail build on dependency generator failure"
>>> change introduced there.
>>>
>>> We don't usually release new tarballs just because an
Since beta2 introducing parallel mode, some files are not removable.
See build*.log at
http://pkgsubmit.mageia.org/uploads/failure/cauldron/core/release/20200623141813.tv.duvel.19852/log/rpm-4.16.0-0.beta2.1.mga8/
(…)
Wrote:
/home/iurt/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/rpm-apidocs-4.16.0-0.beta2.1.mga8.noarc
Le mer. 24 juin 2020 à 10:59, Thierry Vignaud a
écrit :
>
> This fixes multiple dependency generator related regressions introduced
>> beta2, by reverting the "fail build on dependency generator failure"
>> change introduced there.
>>
>> We don't usually release new tarballs just because an issue
Beta2 was fine besides "rpmbuild.at:482 Dependency generation 3 build":
http://pkgsubmit.mageia.org/uploads/done/cauldron/core/release/20200623145307.tv.duvel.658/rpm-4.16.0-0.beta2.1.mga8/
But beta3 introduces a new failure. See build*.log files & look for "Summary of
the failures" at:
http://pk
Le mer. 24 juin 2020 à 10:47, Panu Matilainen a
écrit :
>
> This fixes multiple dependency generator related regressions introduced
> beta2, by reverting the "fail build on dependency generator failure"
> change introduced there.
>
> We don't usually release new tarballs just because an issue was
This fixes multiple dependency generator related regressions introduced
beta2, by reverting the "fail build on dependency generator failure"
change introduced there.
We don't usually release new tarballs just because an issue was found in
a beta, but since beta2 was released to address just
It is because the problematic test doesn't even exist anymore. But if you were
really hasty, you might've downloaded the wrong tarball (when things go wrong,
they really do...), check that you have one with sha256sum
e6196fac6adcc13ca39699627a1cfc99c79c0beb9acca8c4d065b6cc9d50471c (as per
relea
This one is still not fixed in 4.16.0 beta3 AFAIK…
--
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/1284#issuecomment-648681367
Merged #1287 into rpm-4.16.x.
--
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/1287#event-3476314408___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm
Reopening as the fix was reverted (it was just too broken to live)
--
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/1183#issuecomment-648660465_
Reopened #1183.
--
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/1183#event-3476265711___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists
Reverts the broken dependency generator failure commit. Beta2 was released to
address that sort of annoyances with beta1 and introducing new ones goes
against the spirit of having a trouble-free beta experience.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com
Merged #1286 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/1286#event-3476208995___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-mai
Nah, it deserves to be reverted because it can't be fixed by any one little
thing, it's broken in more ways than we have tickets for and we have two
already. It really needs a restart from scratch.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly
I think we should keep it for master and revert fo 4.16
--
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/1286#issuecomment-648649214__
This is simply too broken to patch up. Revert and back to drawing board.
This reverts commit fb5299b2a49460216c38674b7398296d3a6d767c.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1286
-- Commit Summary --
* Revert "Alwa
Closed #1283.
--
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/1283#event-3476168453___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm
Right, there are ... issues with the error code handling in rpmfcExec().
For now, it's best to just revert the "always fail" commit
fb5299b2a49460216c38674b7398296d3a6d767c, it's just broken.
Thanks for the report.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to t
35 matches
Mail list logo