Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Don't rely on pkg-config for Lua (PR #2469)

2023-04-24 Thread Michal Domonkos
OK, reworked to an imported target. Note that we can't use `IMPORTED_LOCATION` as with e.g. libmagic since there can be multiple libraries to link against, all available via `LUA_LIBRARIES`. Instead, define an "imported interface" which seems like a better fit, anyway. I'll probably rework

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Don't rely on pkg-config for Lua (PR #2469)

2023-04-24 Thread Michal Domonkos
@dmnks pushed 2 commits. e2be683d34c5aab1cf17ae3957a59780446a1130 Use CMake Lua module ac142060b907ddeccaf844f8fc2e4ce3e9e1c603 Fix leftover "lua.h" import from days long gone -- View it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Generate requires for "pure" ELF DSO's regardless of executable bit (8901a6b)

2023-04-24 Thread Albert Cervin
Isn't this the wrong way around. As an example, let's say we have a DSO (where `ei->interp` is non-null) which is not executable `ei->isExec == 0`. This would cause the following `return !(true && true) => return !(true) => return false`. My interpretation of this change was that it was

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Provide a decent API for verifying package signatures (Issue #2041)

2023-04-24 Thread Neal H. Walfield
A new API should return better error messages: > We'll need something that can apply to all our backends, and that something > needs to have a sane means of returning error messages. https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2097#issuecomment-1319690012

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RPM package invariants? (Discussion #2025)

2023-04-24 Thread Panu Matilainen
Historically parseEVR() has only looked at packaged data, so the validation is assumed to be done at build-time. As it's now exposed through a public API it should optimally do a better job of sanity checking, but the original use-case of version comparison simply has no notion of errors at