It may not make much difference for performance for our current use-cases, but
since its not really any more code now... Natively allocate the rpmug
struct to enable this.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3076
@pmatilai pushed 1 commit.
edf4f7ca46eff2c3626e4ef16640b78abfd32fad Replace home-grown hashes with STL
unordered_map in rpmal
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3075/files/1844c24d487f0a5cc48cc0b842657ba0a226d718..edf4f7ca46eff2c3626e4ef16640b78abfd32fad
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3075
-- Commit Summary --
* Use vectors for returning multiple values from rpmalAll*()
* Natively allocate rpmal struct itself
* Use a vector for rpmal available package
Merged #3074 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3074#event-12712137504
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
While these were necessary to get things going, they are only counterproductive
now: we want to be able to freely use C++ features inside rpm.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3074
-- Commit Summary --
*
Closed #3049 as completed via #3071.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3049#event-12711076211
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Merged #3071 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3071#event-12711076023
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
No problem. Thanks for your time and inputs.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3072#issuecomment-2095342827
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
Closed #3072.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3072#event-12710658133
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Sorry but I agree with @nwalfield , this is just strange churn for churn's
sake. Like advertising use of goto but then still using return for the cases
that *could* use a central clean-up point. Even the changes that I could use
because I suggested them are mixed with unrelated other changes,
v6 will have signed payload size information :
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3017/commits/784bb9076d614da33d29123f5ef6236a57d38463
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
> So is there a way to detect the SRPM build?
Whether an SRPM gets generated by a build is not something the spec should be
aware of. It's not a separate thing - it may take place as an isolated step or
as a part of a binary build. A plain SRPM build does not invoke the dynamic
spec generation
Sub-package noarch's a special case hack that doesn't cause spec parse
recursion. So the answer is: nothing.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3071#issuecomment-2095257485
You are receiving this because you are subscribed
13 matches
Mail list logo
