The problem with adding an option do disable it is precisely that it would then
be possible to disable it. As in, a feature you cannot rely on is a rather
broken feature.
Compressing the parsed spec would be quite reasonable, but we lack a general
mechanism to compress/uncompress header tag dat
For some packages, expanded specfile is so big, it causes srpm headers to
exceed 16 mb, which then can't be extracted by old rpms (pre 4.13) - they throw
an error, "headerRead failed: hdr data: BAD, no. of bytes(20966277) out of
range".
The code in question is in build/pack.c:
/* Include s
Doesn't this bump the required OpenSSL version to something newer than 1.0.2
which is the oldest currently supported version?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2723#issuecomment-1766431891
You are receiving this because you
Nah, no worries. It got buried in the other refactorings in that PR anyway. I
also didn't realize this at first even though it's kinda obvious.
The timing of you finding this is actually just perfect as it makes the other
PR for OCI images that I'm finishing up (for a while now, lol) a little bi
I'm getting this on a local build (this code isn't getting built at all in the
CI):
```
/home/pmatilai/repos/rpm/rpmio/rpmpgp_legacy/digest_openssl.c: In function
‘constructRSASigningKey’:
/home/pmatilai/repos/rpm/rpmio/rpmpgp_legacy/digest_openssl.c:223:5: error:
‘param_bld’ may be used uninit
Closed #2725 as completed via #2726.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2725#event-10677741902
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
R
Merged #2726 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2726#event-10677741626
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mail
Oh. Yep, I even kinda remember seeing that commit. Didn't ring a bell today
though :laughing:
/me feels silly for not investigating at least that much...
I indeed had a feeling that this was a pretty recent thing, but then something
like this *can* go unnoticed for some time.
--
Reply to thi
Sorry about that, I should mention to you that dcgm was not built by me. Will
ping Nvidia, but for the time being, I solved it on configuration management
side.
As far as file goes, it might not work for every case, because dcgm_exporter
and dcgm packages versions have to match for best compati
This turned out to be a pretty recent regression (commit
d4e808ebda3ec1d85fcdb176eae31901b74c6e91) :sweat_smile:
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2726#issuecomment-1766257916
You are receiving this because you are subscrib
Commit d4e808ebda3ec1d85fcdb176eae31901b74c6e91 added cmake caching for mktree
so that we don't rebuild the tree on each "make check"
invocation. However, this means we can now easily miss some test dependencies
being updated since we don't depend on everything, e.g. the data/ dir.
To fix this
Oh, I was somehow under the impression that these were all packages built by
you, but I see the problematic one comes from some nVidia repo. First of all,
complain to them about this. Second, see if there's a *file* in the newer
package that the older one doesn't have, and depend on that.
--
OK, thank you. Will have to solve that outside RPM then I guess.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2724#discussioncomment-7303054
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Yes, like I said an unversioned provides will match any version at all, and
there's nothing the requiring side can do about it.
The only way around that is to require something else that only the newer
package provides.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/
@ffesti commented on this pull request.
> if (!constructDSASigningKey(key))
goto done;
if (!constructDSASignature(sig))
goto done;
-if (DSA_do_verify(hash, hashlen, sig->dsa_sig, key->dsa_key) == 1)
+pkey_ctx = EVP_PKEY_CTX_new(key->evp_pkey, NULL);
+i
@ffesti pushed 1 commit.
009daa3ab584b0e271f08d717c19daaa18de3eed Move OpenSSL code to newer API
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2723/files/f23f894620350dbe35384eb22c88fbca51d0502e..009daa3ab584b0e271f08d717c19daaa18de3eed
You are receiving this because
Make it easy to implement `rpmkeys --list-keys` and `rpmkeys --delete-keys`.
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2404#issuecomment-1766034780
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2041#issuecomment-1766161717
OK, given that the `BUILDHOST` can already be set via `%_buildhost` what is
still missing here? Or can we just close this ticket?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2603#issuecomment-1766142951
You are receiving this becaus
```
# rpm -qp datacenter-gpu-manager-2.4.7-1-x86_64.rpm --provides
datacenter-gpu-manager
datacenter-gpu-manager = 1:2.4.7-1
datacenter-gpu-manager(x86-64) = 1:2.4.7-1
...
```
Is this unversioned provides the problem here? And if it is, is there something
I can do to ignore it so I can have my pa
I have to admit this is a bit too much for me:)
Let me post the output of rpm upgrade and if you can help pointing out the
problem, I'll be very happy:)
Environment:
```
[root@abc ~]# rpm -qa | grep dcgm_exporter
dcgm_exporter-3.1.7-6.el8.x86_64
[root@ abc ~]# rpm -qa | grep datacenter
datacente
Also `gpg-pubkey` is not the prefix of the name but the actual name. Otherwise
`rpm -q gpg-pubkey` wouldn't work. The other gibberish is the hash of the key
stuffed in version and release to make it unique.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-ma
Right place for this would be the `rpmkeys` tool. There actually already is a -
commented out - stub for `--list-keys` and `--delete-key` waiting for someone
to come along and implement them.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/is
Ack, this must be a bug then, will fix, thanks!
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2725#issuecomment-1765956591
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: _
When you change something in tests/data, it doesn't get automatically refreshed
into the actual test-root (mktree.output I guess). Makes it painful to work on
(new) tests when you change something and then nothing seems to happen.
Technically we're missing dependencies on all the data/ stuff on
24 matches
Mail list logo
