Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RPM v6 package format, first public draft for commenting (Discussion #2374)

2023-03-14 Thread Daniel Alley
This might be a dumb question >sizes are always 64bit ... RPMSIGTAG_LONGSIZE If "header + payload" signatures are going away, is there any reason to continue storing the combined "header + payload" size? -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] New User and Group handling (Discussion #2277)

2023-03-14 Thread Florian Festi
Quick note: "m" lines in the `sysusers.d` files could be used to create Requires to the user and group. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2277#discussioncomment-5303187 You are receiving this because you are

[Rpm-maint] RPM 4.18.1 released!

2023-03-14 Thread Michal Domonkos
This is a bug fix release addressing a number of regressions and other issues. Highlights include: * Preserve packages bit-by-bit when adding and then removing signatures * Fix install of block and character special files * Disable debuginfod server lookups during package builds *

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add x86-64 architecture levels (v2-v4) as architectures (PR #2315)

2023-03-14 Thread Martin Liška
Hmm, I see and you are right. Well, I hope you can use `__builtin_cpu_supports("x86-64-v3")` in the future once LLVM implements it. It's very unfortunate we've added a useful builti-in, but projects are still forced to parse cpuinfo itself :/ -- Reply to this email directly or view it on

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Stop checking the "signature type" and "rpm package format version" in the Lead structure (Issue #2423)

2023-03-14 Thread Panu Matilainen
Removing the code is not the issue. Don't rush it, thanks. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2423#issuecomment-1467654806 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RPM v6 package format, first public draft for commenting (Discussion #2374)

2023-03-14 Thread Panu Matilainen
Again, this is a facelift and not a redesign. V6 is more about clarfiying dark corners and dropping obsolete, limited formats than adding anything new to avoid scope explosion. So we're not planning to add support for any new payload formats, just dropping the old 2GB limited payload format in