@U2FsdGVkX1 pushed 1 commit.
215bfadaf187ed568bdea7f84bdf1f895964e755 fix wrong parameters
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2540/files/f0f49f5c3d625752019e0d3229ac517427f0ebaa..215bfadaf187ed568bdea7f84bdf1f895964e755
You are receiving this because you a
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> @@ -268,7 +269,7 @@ arch_canon: mipsr6el: mipsr6el 20
arch_canon:mips64r6: mips64r6 21
arch_canon:mips64r6el: mips64r6el 21
-arch_canon:riscv: riscv64 22
+arch_canon:riscv32: riscv6422
This doesn't look ri
@U2FsdGVkX1 commented on this pull request.
> @@ -404,7 +405,7 @@ buildarchtranslate: sh4a: sh4
buildarchtranslate: aarch64: aarch64
-buildarchtranslate: riscv: riscv64
+buildarchtranslate: riscv32: riscv64
> This seems wrong. Surely you don't want riscv32 to generate riscv64 packages
> b
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> @@ -404,7 +405,7 @@ buildarchtranslate: sh4a: sh4
buildarchtranslate: aarch64: aarch64
-buildarchtranslate: riscv: riscv64
+buildarchtranslate: riscv32: riscv64
This seems wrong. Surely you don't want riscv32 to generate riscv64 packages by
defa
This looks risky as it effectively renames an architecture, plus plain wrong in
places (more on those shortly). But, I can see the point: plain "riscv" is not
even supposed to exist, it's always translated to riscv\.
@rwmjones , thoughts?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
h
Yup, this will find its way into 4.19 in Beta (planned for ~ end of month).
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2523#issuecomment-1587284491
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: _
Could you please add this to 4.19 as well?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2523#issuecomment-1587265425
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: __
See #2541
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2542
-- Commit Summary --
* Add doc note about 'disabled option processing'
* Add doc note that getopt processing only supports short options
-- File Changes --
> ... at least implicitly documented via the parametric macro declaration
> syntax, that only short option names are supported by rpm itself.
This could be formulated even more clearly.
> Passing `-` as the option string delegates _all_ option processing to the
> macro (as per
> https://rpm-
> Passing `-` as the option string delegates _all_ option processing to the
> macro (as per
> https://rpm-software-management.github.io/rpm/manual/macros.html),
This is not true for rpm version 4.14 (which is the default on Leap) as
mentioned in the first report, it simply outputs
> $ rpm --d
Draft updated to v0.02:
- all padding must be zeros
- duplicate tags disallowe
- signature header is self-padding (details open)
- all size tags from signature header are dropped
- group tag made optional
Also added a section for open questions, such as the actual format dection.
--
Reply to th
Closed #2541 as completed.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2541#event-9500626147
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint ma
I think it's quite well known, and at least implicitly documented via the
parametric macro declaration syntax, that only short option names are supported
by rpm itself. Passing `-` as the option string delegates *all* option
processing to the macro (as per
https://rpm-software-management.github
With actual rpm releases (Leap: 4.14, Tumbleweed 4:18) it is not possible to
parse options in the form `--` or `-- arg` as shown below:
```
$ rpm --version
RPM version 4.14.3
$ LC_ALL=C rpm --define '%foo(-) "%**"' --eval '%foo --test file1'
foo: invalid option -- '-'
error: Unknown option - in f
14 matches
Mail list logo
