Closed #2519 as completed via #3006.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2519#event-12352647496
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
R
Merged #3006 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3006#event-12352647299
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mail
If this breaks something, we're not going to find it by studying this on a
petri-dish.
I'll merge and if all hell breaks loose in testing, we'll just revert the damn
thing.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3006#issuecommen
Closed #1346 as completed via #3004.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1346#event-12352564431
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
R
Merged #3004 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3004#event-12352564263
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mail
Closed #2816 as completed via ad0eb9a461bce444271d9cf18748e8de821a8960.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2816#event-12352560560
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
__
Merged #2990 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2990#event-12352560333
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mail
@ffesti pushed 1 commit.
c3ea56e308e81e83a55ffb1a5b4fe5bb4b6b7cad Add support for sysusers group
membership lines
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2990/files/8558a2c2bf06c4b89a4ea59b50cedb80b00c6d87..c3ea56e308e81e83a55ffb1a5b4fe5bb4b6b7cad
You are rece
> I believe this is not true. I see no code in rpmbuild that would elevate UID
> to root. Nor any consolehelper. Nor setuid bits.
In the container.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3005#issuecomment-2036268291
You are re
Having a separate short-circuit for check is fine, but it's NOT the same
benefit! I get that you look at the world through mock lenses, but not
everybody does :smile:
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3010#issuecomment-2
@pmatilai approved this pull request.
Other than the dependencies doc nit, looks fine to me now.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2990#pullrequestreview-1978812025
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> @@ -25,6 +25,9 @@ user/group allocation altogether by using
## Dependencies
+Explict group membership (m) will create a dependency on both the user
+and the group name.
It's a bit weird to have this as the first thing in this section. I'd put it
What I mean is rpm's own test-suite:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/blob/5d4a476d14998f8f7ebc7e0c15a5263ca7803f5d/tests/mktree.oci#L53
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3005#issuecomment-2035694448
You are
As far as I know, the blocking issue here is simply a decision about where to
get the version of the library. Among others, options include:
1: the rpm version of the package that owns the library. Not a good solution
because I think the maintainers don't want elfdeps to access the RPM DB duri
> One possible disadvantage: you wouldn't be able to e.g. dnf downgrade xz*
I think it's important to differentiate the real binary dependencies from RPM's
knowledge of those dependencies.
In Fedora 40, it was safe to downgrade xz because libsystemd had been built
before xz 5.6. If it had been
That's currently possible and can lead to various subtle runtime failures
instead.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2372#issuecomment-2035405478
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
I opened https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3015, which I
believe will be much easier to implement. And will gain the same benefit.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3010#issuecomment-2035392608
You are
> we're running the entire test-suite as root.
I believe this is not true. I see no code in rpmbuild that would elevate UID to
root. Nor any consolehelper. Nor setuid bits.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3005#issuecomm
We can `--short-circuit` to almost any phase. But we cannot short circuit
directly to `%check` phase.
This should be trivial to implement and would allow to implement isolation of
`%check` phase in Mock
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/mock/issues/1352
--
Reply to this email directl
One possible disadvantage: you wouldn't be able to e.g. `dnf downgrade xz*`
without also downgrading everything that was built against xz. (You might also
consider that an advantage, but most users probably wouldn't.)
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-
@ffesti pushed 1 commit.
8558a2c2bf06c4b89a4ea59b50cedb80b00c6d87 Add support for sysusers group
membership lines
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2990/files/81acc230b3b7c84b519e4bca4aee13bdbf9952b2..8558a2c2bf06c4b89a4ea59b50cedb80b00c6d87
You are rece
OK, fixed the issue in the code and made sure the test cases actually checks
for group membership. Added a bit to the docs and the commit message.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2990#issuecomment-2034875120
You are receiv
@ffesti pushed 2 commits.
1e4e9648b114131b8a872878ef8c5cc5739efaf9 Re-Word User / Group handling a bit
81acc230b3b7c84b519e4bca4aee13bdbf9952b2 Add support for sysusers group
membership lines
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2990/files/e96d496349e191e4
...since the keyring changes done in 2008. I'm so out of touch with rpm...
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2004#issuecomment-2034700620
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: __
OTOH rpm only looks at the keyid to check if the key is already present since
some time...
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2004#issuecomment-2034511695
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
M
Maybe not the greatest example but at least something:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/commit/5d4a476d14998f8f7ebc7e0c15a5263ca7803f5d
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2998#issuecomment-2034434069
You are r
Doubly more embarrassing as you mentioned that in the ticket description
:laughing:
Will fix.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2998#issuecomment-2034411616
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread
Oh, thanks for pointing that out! I didn't even remember we have that in the
documentation (although it was written by me, so ... age doesn't come alone as
they say around here)
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2998#issu
Thanks.
I noticed the `BuildOption(prep)` documentation was not updated in that PR.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2998#issuecomment-2034393793
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message
After a bit of pondering, filed
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3014 instead, we'll
revisit the aliases with this is fixed.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/3008#discussioncomment-8995444
You
I know the split is somewhat painful this way, but it was the least painful (or
only) way I could see to accomplish this within reasonable time/effort.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2984#issuecomment-2034208979
You are r
Ah, I missed that. Then please ignore me ;-)
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2984#issuecomment-2034198154
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: __
Oh, I guess I wasn't clear: sure rpm-sequoia supports and exports all the
digest functionality rpm needs. What I mean is that it does NOT support using
libgcrypt/openssl from rpm side to do that.
libgcrypt/openssl digest support in rpm is only for the case where rpm-sequoia
is not available.
-
Why wouldn't it make sense? Sequoia needs to do digesting anyway to verify the
signatures, it might as well expose the functionality. Securitywise it is bad
design if two implementations are used.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/r
The sole reason for this exercise is to be able to build rpm *without*
rpm-sequoia.
rpm-sequoia doesn't support external digest, and wouldn't make much sense for
it to do so.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2984#issuecomm
Merged #3012 instead
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2995#issuecomment-2034120680
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint mail
Closed #2995.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2995#event-12338936477
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm
Closed #2819 as completed via dc47a50c6345a25b861305d8aa8ae464098834ff.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2819#event-12338919876
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
__
Merged #3012 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3012#event-12338919518
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mail
You really should use Sequoia for digesting. It makes no sense to use
openssl/libgcrypt in rpm and something else in sequoia. If it's not already
exposed, can you please add expose digesting functionality in Sequoia?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-s
It needs to get a new release when the key us updated, otherwise the rpm
--import will just do nothing.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2004#issuecomment-2034037416
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to th
I.e. pgpDigParamsCreationTime() is somewhat misnamed, it does not the key
creation time.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2004#issuecomment-2033982940
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Mes
This somehow slipped my radar. The "time" used in rpm is not supposed to be the
key creation time, but the last time the key was changed. I don't think you
should break this.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2004#issueco
Reopened #2004.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2004#event-12337884161
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Closed #2998 as completed via #3002.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2998#event-12337492251
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
R
Merged #3002 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3002#event-12337492048
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mail
Oh and update (some of) the tests to use the new macros, optimally add a new
one for the clamp_to_buildtime behavior.
The above nits aside, I'm not going to say no to a reproducible builds patch
that appears to have consensus from everybody :sweat_smile:
--
Reply to this email directly or vie
After a few nights sleep - sorry but no. It'd be this strange macro you can
never use because something else might be relying on it. Just like you
shouldn't be overriding %_fixperms for your use because it breaks other things.
The idea of a pre/post action slots for macros and whatnot is not a b
Closed #2961.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2961#event-12336249093
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> @@ -240,10 +240,12 @@ Supplements: (%{name} = %{version}-%{release} and
> langpacks-%{1})\
# Is ignored when SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is not set.
%use_source_date_epoch_as_buildtime 0
-# If true, make sure that timestamps in built rpms
-#
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
>
-/* Limit the maximum date to SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH if defined
- * similar to the tar --clamp-mtime option
- * https://reproducible-builds.org/specs/source-date-epoch/
- */
-if (srcdate && rpmExpandNumeric("%{?clamp_mtime_to_source_da
Coming to the conclusion that it's just not worth the trouble right now. I'll
revive this once we've fixed the order (filed a ticket for that)
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3011#issuecomment-2033714434
You are receiving
Closed #3011.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3011#event-12336023902
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm
And, once we do, revive https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3011
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3014#issuecomment-2033713203
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
54 matches
Mail list logo
