Thanks!
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2861#issuecomment-1905116686
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-
Closed #2835.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2835#event-11563746414
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm
This adds the first argument to file trigger script calls, just like with
regular triggers. The second argument will be added in a separate commit.
Related: #2755
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2871
-- Commit
`packaged` or `package`? I am asking, because the generators are not packaged
yet as I perceive that. But I can live also with `packaged` :)
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2734#issuecomment-1904388907
You are receiving th
@voxik commented on this pull request.
> @@ -132,6 +132,14 @@ Enabling the multifile mode is done by setting
%__foo_protocol multifile
```
+## Using File Attributes in their own Package
+
+Normally file attributes and their dependency generators are shipped in
separate packages that need to
Thanks for the patch!
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2813#issuecomment-1904302993
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint mai
Merged #2813 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2813#event-11558737419
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mail
Thanks for the patch!
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2858#issuecomment-1904268768
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint mai
Merged #2858 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2858#event-11558516273
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mail
@teknoraver commented on this pull request.
> @@ -78,16 +84,81 @@ static char *doUncompress(const char *fn)
return cmd;
}
+/**
+ * Detect if an archive has a single top level entry, and it's a directory.
+ *
+ * @param path path of the archive
+ * @return 1 if archive as only a direc
@teknoraver pushed 1 commit.
170bfc9dcd8e04b5a6681a56dbaa9414f6d3a2a5 add build directory auto path to
%autosetup
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2859/files/4817366827aa1ae0a9ed72c57a34872aa4e50744..170bfc9dcd8e04b5a6681a56dbaa9414f6d3a2a5
You are rece
@teknoraver pushed 1 commit.
c50d761a07872da8073a4fde11af0f2f1ddd2b01 add build directory auto path to
%autosetup
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2859/files/fa5e4d372bc1ca9adac586050ef098161294fb02..c50d761a07872da8073a4fde11af0f2f1ddd2b01
You are rece
OK, I replaced the word "local" as its meaning is just too vague here.
"Packaged" discourages using file attributes that are just on the machine
without being shipped or being installed from another package. While this is
technically possible this is something we clearly don't want to encourage.
@ffesti pushed 2 commits.
2468b76d5b7e4bae8c55ddabb188d0d2f4807dbf Filter duplicate file attributes
57334a2b0b0ad7d84e8e398bf6c6e6a8b53d2481 Add documentation for
__packaged_file_attrs
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2734/files/5059816af9185cc7c3f19ad
@pmatilai converted this issue into discussion #2870.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2863#event-11556184345
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
@pmatilai converted this issue into discussion #2869.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1595#event-11556131967
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
Actually, there is a kind of a way to access the values from Lua even now.
%-f* macro has the last definition of the macro. If you pop (ie undefine) it,
you get the one underneath. And with that, you can walk all the values. It wont
work on normal macros as "%undefine -f*" is not permitted, but
But the change that documented it was commit
a5bd7571358c7974da1c909e331525b13dce1264 by Ralf done March 2023
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2449#issuecomment-1903870809
You are receiving this because you are subscrib
Just realized %{-f} and %{-f*} explictly documented as being the last
occurence. So yep, we can't change that.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2449#issuecomment-1903868651
You are receiving this because you are subscribed
I know its that way historically, just doubtful of people actually relying on
multivalues being handled that way. But then, I wouldn't know.
Yet another possibility could be letting macros declare the way they want their
arguments, ie "I can handle multiple values, bring em on", just like we hav
(We might be able to change the behavior of %-f so that it includes all
occurrences, but even that makes me a bit uneasy.)
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2449#issuecomment-1903859438
You are receiving this because you are
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> + int r, ret, rootLen;
+ char *rootName;
+
+ a = archive_read_new();
+ archive_read_support_filter_all(a);
+ archive_read_support_format_all(a);
+ r = archive_read_open_filename(a, path, 10240);
+ if (r != ARCHIV
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> @@ -78,16 +84,81 @@ static char *doUncompress(const char *fn)
return cmd;
}
+/**
+ * Detect if an archive has a single top level entry, and it's a directory.
+ *
+ * @param path path of the archive
+ * @return 1 if archive as only a directo
Historically it has always been just the last occurrence, so I don't think we
can change this.
Regarding the array of values part: we now can deal properly with it because of
ME_QUOTED. But I'm fine if the functionality is only available to lua (but it
currently is not).
--
Reply to this ema
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> @@ -78,16 +84,81 @@ static char *doUncompress(const char *fn)
return cmd;
}
+/**
+ * Detect if an archive has a single top level entry, and it's a directory.
+ *
+ * @param path path of the archive
+ * @return 1 if archive as only a directo
Like I said before, I'm not convinced this is the way we want to represent the
multivalue case.
Assuming we can technically do this now, is there a reason not to put those
values into the normal -x* macro? It seems to me we can't really break any
significant existing users as we just haven't su
I don't think %-x** should repeat the option name, though. It should just be
the arguments, i.e. just like %-x* but with multiple values.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2449#issuecomment-1903806133
You are receiving this
Closed #2109 as completed.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2109#event-11555365840
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint m
What's considered rpm-level C code no longer knows about such packet level
details, backends will need to deal with RFC compliancy on their own.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2109#issuecomment-1903798717
You are receiv
Closed #2826 as completed via #2843.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2826#event-11555214340
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
R
Merged #2843 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2843#event-11555214102
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mail
> It seems like the commit hash mentioned in the commit message isn't correct
> (it's the "Bump CI" commit which doesn't seem to have anything to do with
> this).
It's actually explained in the message:
> rpmugUname() and rpmugGname() are have no users in the current codebase,
> so this was de
@teknoraver commented on this pull request.
> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ target_link_libraries(rpmlua PRIVATE LUA::LUA)
target_link_libraries(rpmbuild PRIVATE librpmbuild)
target_link_libraries(rpmspec PRIVATE librpmbuild)
target_link_libraries(rpmdeps PRIVATE librpmbuild)
+target_link_libraries(rpmun
@teknoraver pushed 1 commit.
fa5e4d372bc1ca9adac586050ef098161294fb02 add build directory auto path to
%autosetup
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2859/files/8a6a1b73597487f1103994a9f796e00e7217be22..fa5e4d372bc1ca9adac586050ef098161294fb02
You are rece
A `%triggerprein` scriptlet receives `1` as the first argument (`$1`) when the
package containing the trigger is upgraded. This is inconsistent with `%prein`
which receives `2` in such a case.
This is because, for triggers, `handleOneTrigger()` applies
`psm->countCorrection` to the package coun
Yep. The gaps in our documentation are so enormous they're difficult to see.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2867#issuecomment-1903746094
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
As a closing note, catching up 20 years of documentation neglet doesn't happen
in a single PR. I've no illusions about this being complete or error-free, just
that it's a basis on which more can be built.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-mana
Closed #2462 as completed via 1b32d3c87f41a5f821e066e17918adb782068b45.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2462#event-11554951324
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
__
Merged #2861 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2861#event-11554950922
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mail
Closed #1481 as completed.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1481#event-11554939051
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint m
The region tag and the trailer are now documented in #2861.
I'm not going to document common sense like no data can overlap. This is also
not a wishlist, refining further limitations belongs to v6.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-managemen
Funnily enough, we currently don't document how scriptlets receive their
arguments when called. We do touch upon that in the file trigger chapter,
however this should be documented for the normal triggers as well as normal
scriptlets (`%pre`, `%post`, etc.) since they (mostly) all share these
s
@pmatilai pushed 6 commits.
2e2fe7350f8e6e2f2693a70225aabb9b46afebf2 Use markdown formatting features for
package format, fix links
ae0d06db4e7db78c069cfb912bdefc362da025bf Split the lead and header structure
to their own documents
4719e49d4e33e9e3bcad0e159ae88cb0b606d83e Fix some inaccuracie
With the new ME_QUOTED support added end of last year we could make this work
correctly. So the question is if we want `%-x**` or not.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2449#issuecomment-1903696713
You are receiving this bec
@rhabacker
> shows that the quoting is done by the shell and not by getopt itself. The
> conclusion is that something similar must be done before calling getopt in
> rpm to process macro parameters with quotes.
Isn't that `%quote`, like @pmatilai mentioned? Going back to your experiments
(bra
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ target_link_libraries(rpmlua PRIVATE LUA::LUA)
target_link_libraries(rpmbuild PRIVATE librpmbuild)
target_link_libraries(rpmspec PRIVATE librpmbuild)
target_link_libraries(rpmdeps PRIVATE librpmbuild)
+target_link_libraries(rpmunco
Another fine idea by @dralley: in the 25+ years of rpm format, the packages in
the wild have any number of various quirks (bugs, design mistakes, forks and
whatnot) that rpm and other software may need to deal with. I can recall at
least half a dozen off-hand but that info should instead be writ
The IMA signatures and their journey from there to here are a tragic mess, just
opened up a new ticket to remind me: #2865
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2462#issuecomment-1903493987
You are receiving this because you
The IMA file signature tags are a mess: they were originally added to the main
header so the tags were defined in the > 5000 range. They were moved to the
signature header where they belong in later releases, and new tags in the
signature range (256-999) were reserved for the use there. These ne
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> +## Lead Format
+
+The Lead is stored as a C structure:
+
+```
+struct rpmlead {
+unsigned char magic[4];
+unsigned char major, minor;
+short type;
+short archnum;
+char name[66];
+short osnum;
+short signature_type;
+ch
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> +0048: 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 05
+```
+
+Bytes 76-77 ("00 01" above) form an int16 that indicates the OS the
+package was built for. In this case, 1 == Linux. The next 2 bytes
+(78-79) form an int16 that indicates the signature type. T
51 matches
Mail list logo
