[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Refactor %__file_lineno management into an auxiliary macro (PR #2746)

2023-11-06 Thread Panu Matilainen
Now that we can, just define __file_lineno as an auxiliary macro that only does any work in the rare case where an error or warning occurred. This saves an enormous amount of huffing and puffing defining and undefining macros that are not used at all in the normal paths, on every rpm startup

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] How can I find details on the binary representation of the RPM DB? (Discussion #2211)

2023-11-06 Thread Panu Matilainen
A bug is a bug. The database needs to be as robust as anything else in rpm, security impact or no. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2211#discussioncomment-7495545 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] How can I find details on the binary representation of the RPM DB? (Discussion #2211)

2023-11-06 Thread Demi Marie Obenour
I think @rhdesmond is in the situation of needing to process RPM databases that come from untrusted container images. These databases might be malicious and might try to exploit a bug in librpm to compromise the vulnerability scanner. Such a bug would arguably be out of scope for librpm

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] error: invalid version: v"3" (but only in a a complex conditional) (Issue #1883)

2023-11-06 Thread Jens Petersen
I opened https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-15688 -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1883#issuecomment-1795068331 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] error: invalid version: v"3" (but only in a a complex conditional) (Issue #1883)

2023-11-06 Thread Miro Hrončok
I suppose you care because of RHEL 9. If that's the case, I suggest you open a RHEL 9 Jira. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1883#issuecomment-1795002390 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] error: invalid version: v"3" (but only in a a complex conditional) (Issue #1883)

2023-11-06 Thread Panu Matilainen
4.16 fell out of upstream support with the release of 4.18, about a year ago. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1883#issuecomment-1794994630 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] error: invalid version: v"3" (but only in a a complex conditional) (Issue #1883)

2023-11-06 Thread Jens Petersen
A backport to 4.16 would be good too -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1883#issuecomment-1794989036 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] What's the scope of --root (supposed to be)? (Discussion #2735)

2023-11-06 Thread Panu Matilainen
`--macros` is problematic because it requires rewriting the entire path, most of which is fairly critical to normal operation. Basically rpm must always initialize itself with the macros from the same version, otherwise there's weird stuff can happen. Which means, rpm from the host must

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Declarative build system support (#1087)

2023-11-06 Thread Panu Matilainen
To recoup the very useful discussion and ideas from the now withdrawn draft PR: To make things properly declarative, overriding sections should not be a part of the plan at all. Instead there should be a way to declare independent build options one by one. And the "auto" in the name needs to go.

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Implement a declarative autobuild system (prototype) (PR #2620)

2023-11-06 Thread ニール・ゴンパ
`BuildSystem`, `BuildType`, and `BuildOption(stage)` makes sense to me. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2620#issuecomment-1794452101 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Implement a declarative autobuild system (prototype) (PR #2620)

2023-11-06 Thread Panu Matilainen
Ok, back to drawing board, now with a much nicer plan. Thanks for the very valuable feedback + ideas! -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2620#issuecomment-1794447770 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Implement a declarative autobuild system (prototype) (PR #2620)

2023-11-06 Thread Panu Matilainen
Closed #2620. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2620#event-10870320486 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Implement a declarative autobuild system (prototype) (PR #2620)

2023-11-06 Thread Panu Matilainen
So... the conclusion from all the above rant is that there seems to be an actual design wanting to come out, that would probably be: `BuildOption(section):` to add options to the sections in a truly declarative fashion, and as a shortcut for the most common section, `BuildOption:` without the

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Implement a declarative autobuild system (prototype) (PR #2620)

2023-11-06 Thread Panu Matilainen
For a real-world examle of the 2-3 benefit, a typical bcond case from Fedora rpm.spec: Existing spec: ``` %bcond_without libarchive [...] %if %{with libarchive} BuildRequires: libarchive-devel %endif [...] %prep cmake \ [...] %{!?with_libarchive:-DWITH_ARCHIVE=OFF}\ ``` Using a section

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Implement a declarative autobuild system (prototype) (PR #2620)

2023-11-06 Thread Panu Matilainen
For a comparison of various alternatives, nothing works better than a real-world test (using an excerpt from Fedora xterm.spec): 1) Just override the section ``` %conf %autobuild_conf \ --enable-meta-sends-esc \ --disable-backarrow-key \ --enable-exec-xterm \