alternatively, you could just process this in a "linting" context, i.e. at
package building simply refuse building if the deps listed in the new ELF note
are not listed under either Requires, Suggests, or Recommends (or some ignore
list). That way it is guaranteed the packager figures out what t
Looking at the dynamic spec, specifically at
5d288554719095d1c67fd87cad65224743152d06, it is silly that the `FULLDYNAMIC` is
external information. If it was possible to distinguish the `SRPM` / `RPM`
build, it would be more interesting. E.g. if there was `_srpm_build` macro
defined during the S
Ah, right, there is rpm-4.20.0-alpha tag. I was somehow under impression that
this should have been already in Rawhide. Sorry for the noise.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3038#issuecomment-2061313183
You are receiving
It seems this header is intended to indicate the list of libraries that _might
possibly_ be dlopened, which would best correspond to an RPM Suggests
dependency. Suggests has limited value because dnf doesn't do anything with it
by default. We might need a way for the ELF header to distinguish be
We welcome an automatic way to add these sort of dependencies automatically
without packagers needing to care. I don't have a deeper insight or strong
opinion whether these ELF entries are the best way of doing that. Having this
as part of the (C) code is probably a good idea if upstreams can be
And also delete the no longer needed include statements.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3045
-- Commit Summary --
* Relax openssl version requirement
-- File Changes --
M rpmio/CMakeLists.txt (2)
M
Thanks for your response. So can I just revert the related patches introduced
in 4.6.0 for now? I'm worry that you might change some behaviors in 6.0 and it
will be somewhat different from 4.6.0.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rp
Closed #3038 as completed.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3038#event-12505232396
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint m
Feel free to try out the alpha release at
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pmatilai/rpm-snapshot/package/rpm/ or
build it yourself from https://rpm.org/download.html
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3038#issuecomm
The current behavior is a mistake really, and one that we'll be reverting in
6.0: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2581
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/3044#discussioncomment-9140144
You are rec
This is a feature of the upcoming 4.20 release. This is not expected to work
with 4.19.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3038#issuecomment-2060808561
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Mes
My [comment][1] in #3010 is relevant for this issue too.
[1]:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3010#issuecomment-2060781335
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/3009#discussioncomment-9140068
You ar
**Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.**
When upgrading kernel, we will make initrd in `posttrans` script. But the
process of making initrd may fail in some unusual situations, and we only get a
warning message, the rpm command returns 0.
If the rpm command is running
This issue shows misunderstanding of how the xz backdoor was intended to work.
Although its payload was hidden in the test files, it was extracted [when
running the `./configure` script][cox] that happens at the `%build` stage. If
you run tests on read only filesystem or even disable them, that
I guess you'd need a lawyer to answer this one, but the autogenerated
debugsource can only contain stuff that was built.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/3035#discussioncomment-9139731
You are receiving this because
15 matches
Mail list logo
