Yes. I think Koji did at one point, and OBS does last I checked.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2633#issuecomment-1703681477
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
>(I don't know anybody using them so dunno)
@Conan-Kudo I believe you may have mentioned in the past that the MD5 headers
(pkgid) are used in some build systems?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@pmatilai thanks.
I would like to start a new package then and work on it together with @stoecker
Should I create a new repo and then request to transfer it to this org?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
## Background
The `rpmtests` script, once built, is designed to be run as root and exercises
the RPM installation in the root filesystem. When an individual test requires
write access to the root filesystem (e.g. to install some packages), a
lightweight container ("snapshot") using a
@pmatilai Thanks for the comments. I tried to address them. Limiting reflinking
to whole files would be a serious limitation. We wouldn't be able to use the
RPM extents format. And I imagine that other users might like to have the
possibility to reflink partial files.
--
Reply to this email
@rphibel pushed 1 commit.
f659678235ea6839e924dec94d39f8fba272c139 Add FA_REFLINK file action
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2557/files/6aff1b9f869f4ca268a48830ccd338ed1966e04d..f659678235ea6839e924dec94d39f8fba272c139
You are receiving this because
rpm-sequoia = 1.4.0 has been in stable updates for a good while now.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2642
-- Commit Summary --
* Drop no longer needed pull from updates-testing for rpm-sequoia
-- File
Merged #2641 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2641#event-10256871302
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
With the new container based test-suite we no longer need these hacks. Leaving
the mknod conditional in place though as that may still be restricted.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2641
-- Commit Summary --
Yup, thanks for bringing us back to sanity here :smile: It really can wait,
more so that we're still planning some changes to the test suite implementation.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2611#issuecomment-1702582782
As discussed separately, dropping the milestone afterall: this is basically
developer-only docs, and developers are expected to be looking at git master,
not release tarball. So it's not critical that this documentation makes it to
rc.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Merged #2639 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2639#event-10254583846
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
Yup, I expect we need to (be able to) selectively disable some plugins at
times, and we'll need some better mechanisms for doing so than we have now, but
we'll cross that bridge when we come to it :grin:
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
LGTM! Of course, not all of the plugins will work in a container setup but as
long as it's handled gracefully in RPM (which the other two commits do),
there's no reason to disable them any more. Nice!
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
The biggest problem with this one is returning the verify result:
rpmfilesVerify() can only return errors through the predefined rpmVerifyAttrs_e
bitfield, whereas arbitrary plugins will need to be able to report arbitrary
errors. So we'll need a better verify API to start with.
--
Reply to
As plugins can add new kinds of metadata to files (selinux, ima, fsverity...)
there also needs to be a way for them to verify that data. Rpm itself can't
because it doesn't know about the metadata in the first place.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Closed #2471 as completed via #2638.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2471#event-10254232483
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Merged #2638 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2638#event-10254232362
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
@pmatilai pushed 3 commits.
835a0e54a25c468124dcf49448b5b9daca4875c3 Suppress inhibition lock warning
message when DBus service is not available
fea281fca0521ee59bbb32170799df587fbf707e Emit a debug message instead of
silence when DBus unavailable
047d4eec90e325aa4c546379c509fc1c4061e0cb Run
With the fancy new container-based test-suite, we can actually enable plugins
in the test-suite :partying_face:
The first commit is required for doing this, the second is merely for
consistency.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
20 matches
Mail list logo
