The target audience for these changes is people building OS images (or anything
else RPM-derived) that desire a reproducible build. The changes are described
fairly clearly but the gist is that `RPMTAG_INSTALLTID` and
`RPMTAG_INSTALLTIME` contain timestamps and current mechanisms make these
imp
@DemiMarie pushed 3 commits.
3a7b40fc54a95ab03ac074f8356bf52a354896ba Check that padding is zeroed and
regions are consistent
e611b50fe7b97ca2265759e1cce28e23b443211b hdrblobVerifyInfo(): reject trailing
junk
0a19ea5c48499940303c134b55d23d9ef8aa9a64 Add assertion to catch an internal
error
I seem to recall being at least half-intentional about `%undefine` but the
non-parametric builtins I didn't even remember to exist...
--
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
Closed #1802.
--
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/1802#event-5483751821___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.r
Those generic warnings are there for a reason because they are likely bugs. Rpm
cannot very well start filtering out warnings on arbitrary macro names just
because some other project uses them.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or
We also broke `%{undefine} foo`, but I think nobody will complain ;-)
And `%undefine foo bar` expanded to ` bar` in rpm-4.16, now it just silently
eats up everything coming after the name.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view
Another data point is that this only happens when both packages are removed in
the same transaction, if removed separately then the wrongcolor state is
honored.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github
> It's quite possible that this is a bug. Can you still please verify that
> these files are not owned by another package by running `rpm -qf
> /usr/bin/strip`? Thanks!
Sure, they are not owned by any package.
```shell
[root@fedora ~]# ll /usr/bin/addr2line
-rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 29128 Mar 12
Another glitch we have introduced with rpm-4.17:
```
$ rpm-4.16 --eval '%getconfdir foo'
/usr/lib/rpm foo
$ rpm-4.17 --eval '%getconfdir foo'
error: %getconfdir: unexpected argument
```
I.e. builtins with nargs == 0 are incorrectly marked as parametric.
--
You are receiving this because you are s
I traced this down to rpm 4.14.2, still happens there. On rpm 4.11.3 (centos 7)
the files do get erased, so we have a regression somewhere between 4.11.3 and
4.14.2. Oh joy.
Thanks @Geass-LL for reporting!
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email
There's a bug alright (a regression I would think), I can easily reproduce (but
note binutils-gold, there's a dependency):
> [pmatilai🎩︎localhost]$ podman run -i -t fedora:34
[root@31dcd520ed8c /]# dnf -y install binutils.i686 binutils.x86_64
[...]
Complete!
[root@31dcd520ed8c /]# rpm -e binutils
It's quite possible that this is a bug. Can you still please verify that these
files are not owned by another package by running `rpm -qf /usr/bin/strip`?
Thanks!
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://gith
Merged #1795 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/1795#event-5482987935___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-mai
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> + if (sigalg->setmpi(sigalg, i, p))
+ break;
Repeating yourself ad nauseum isn't helpful to the cause. Really.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
http
Follow-up for https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpmlint/issues/725
Apparently rpm complains about macros used in `Release:` and `Requires` and
possibly more. With the introduction of `%autorelease`, that doesn't make much
sense as being used there is its purpose.
--
You are receiving
@DemiMarie pushed 1 commit.
f4521694942624460c7238eb7e61a52f290e35cc verifySignature(): package signatures
must be PGPSIGTYPE_BINARY
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1801/files/9069a4cd3
RPM packages are binary documents and must be signed as such.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1801
-- Commit Summary --
* https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1801/commits/9069a4cd36597badd292b
17 matches
Mail list logo
