Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add support for ARM 64bit (aarch64) - Add arm32 and arm64 macros (#173)

I've no objections except that the cat is out of the bag already: existing users of %{arm} are, out of necessity, relying on it to mean just the 32bit arm versions. Changing that to include aarch64 would almost certainly break stuff and force people to change what's been working for years. --

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] work with lua 5.3 without compat mode (#169)

In general we want to keep rpm buildable on recent RHEL which in this case means RHEL-7, and that in turn means Lua 5.1. But compat stuff for older than that can go, as far as I'm concerned. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or vie

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] debugedit.c patches (#171)

Closed #171. -- You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/171#event-991302904___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] debugedit.c patches (#171)

MJW also says not needed, closing. -- You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/171#issuecomment-285035471___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@l

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Bump file digests to SHA256 by default, finally (0cd74ad)

On 03/08/2017 06:04 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > shouldn't default mark be moved? > > — > You are receiving this because you authored the thread. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub >

Re: [Rpm-maint] [PATCH] generateBuildIDs: Don't warn or error for object files without build-id.

On 03/09/2017 10:34 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote: From: Mark Wielaard Only loadable ELF images (executables, shared libraries, kernel modules) should have build-ids. So don't warn or error out when an object file is found without one. Signed-off-by: Mark Wielaard Applied, thanks. - Panu

Re: [Rpm-maint] [PATCH] generateBuildIDs: Don't warn or error for object files without build-id.

On 03/09/2017 11:29 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote: On Thu, 2017-03-09 at 12:22 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 03/09/2017 10:34 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote: From: Mark Wielaard Only loadable ELF images (executables, shared libraries, kernel modules) should have build-ids. So don't warn or erro

Re: [Rpm-maint] [PATCH] build/files.c: Unset __debug_package implies missing build-ids aren't fatal.

On 03/09/2017 04:52 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote: From: Mark Wielaard Historically we have only checked build_ids when __debug_package was defined. So don't terminate the build if __debug_package is unset, even when _missing_build_ids_terminate_build is. Only warn. Signed-off-by: Mark Wielaard A

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Accept --nocaps also for the package installation (#178)

No objections on adding --nocaps, traditionally rpm has disablers for just about everything and this should've really been there from the start. What I am wondering about is whether the capability business actually belongs into a plugin along with SELinux and the like, which would change the lan

[Rpm-maint] [PATCH v2] Unbreak short-circuited binary builds (RhBug:1434235)

Commit bbfe1f86b2e4b5c0bd499d9f3dd9de9c9c20fff2 broke short-circuited binary builds (which can be handy for testing when working on large packages), eg: rpmbuild -bi foo.spec; rpmbuild -bb --short-circuit foo.spec The problem is that in a short-circuited build all the links already exist and

Re: [Rpm-maint] [PATCH] build/files.c: Only check build-ids for executable files in the main package.

On 03/20/2017 12:52 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote: From: Mark Wielaard generateBuildIDs should mimic what find-debuginfo.sh does. Only check build-ids for executable files in non-debuginfo packages. This moves the isDbg check up so the is executeble check can be done when the file is part of the main

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add armv5tl support (#179)

All this doesn't really mean anything to me, but then it's an ARM so I didn't expect anything different. Seems harmless enough. /me shuts his eyes, holds his nose and uses the remaining hand to merge. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email dire

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add armv5tl support (#179)

Merged #179. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/179#event-1010327269___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.o

Re: [Rpm-maint] [PATCH v2] Unbreak short-circuited binary builds (RhBug:1434235)

On 03/22/2017 01:34 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote: On Tue, 2017-03-21 at 14:15 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: Commit bbfe1f86b2e4b5c0bd499d9f3dd9de9c9c20fff2 broke short-circuited binary builds (which can be handy for testing when working on large packages), eg: rpmbuild -bi foo.spec; rpmbuild

Re: [Rpm-maint] [PATCH] debugedit: Fix off-by-one adding DW_FORM_string replacement slashes.

On 03/21/2017 05:57 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote: From: Mark Wielaard We would put one too many slashes in between the new dest_dir and file name part of the replacement of a DW_FORM_string in the .debug_info. If there was file part then we would overwrite the first character of the name. If there w

Re: [Rpm-maint] [PATCH v2] Unbreak short-circuited binary builds (RhBug:1434235)

On 03/23/2017 04:37 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote: On Wed, 2017-03-22 at 14:37 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: Guess there's some unhandled corner left still :) Yeah, that was because my fix was bogus :{ It didn't construct the linkpath correctly (because it was relative). It checked wit

Re: [Rpm-maint] [PATCH 3/5] Drop local implementation of xsetprogname/xgetprogname

On 03/23/2017 10:48 PM, Dmitry V. Levin wrote: On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 03:08:57PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Gleb Fotengauer-Malinovskiy wrote: It can be dropped because this code was never actually enabled. Actually, this implementation *surely* never ever compil

Re: [Rpm-maint] [PATCH 3/5] Drop local implementation of xsetprogname/xgetprogname

On 03/23/2017 09:08 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Gleb Fotengauer-Malinovskiy wrote: It can be dropped because this code was never actually enabled. Actually, this implementation *surely* never ever compiled. Are you sure of this? Because this is supposed to be wired

Re: [Rpm-maint] [PATCH 2/5] Only build bundled fts if system has a bad version that doesn't handle LFS

On 03/23/2017 08:21 PM, Gleb Fotengauer-Malinovskiy wrote: Older versions of glibc included an fts implementation that didn't have Large File Support on 32-bit systems. We worked that around by bundling fts into rpm codebase. Thanks to Mark Wielaard, glibc >= 2.23 has LFS support in fts. Unfor

Re: [Rpm-maint] [PATCH 3/5] Drop local implementation of xsetprogname/xgetprogname

On 03/24/2017 11:02 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 03/23/2017 10:48 PM, Dmitry V. Levin wrote: On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 03:08:57PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Gleb Fotengauer-Malinovskiy wrote: It can be dropped because this code was never actually enabled

Re: [Rpm-maint] [PATCH 2/5] Only build bundled fts if system has a bad version that doesn't handle LFS

On 03/24/2017 12:13 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote: On Fri, 2017-03-24 at 11:15 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 03/23/2017 08:21 PM, Gleb Fotengauer-Malinovskiy wrote: diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac index bdcb741..687d58c 100644 --- a/configure.ac +++ b/configure.ac @@ -717,6 +717,9

Re: [Rpm-maint] [PATCH] build/files.c (generateBuildIDs): Fix small memory leak.

On 03/23/2017 04:46 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote: From: Mark Wielaard mainiddir and debugiddir are allocated through rpmGetPath () and should be released when done. Signed-off-by: Mark Wielaard --- build/files.c | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/build/files.c b/build/files.c i

Re: [Rpm-maint] [PATCH 5/5] Include system.h in ima and syslog plugins

On 03/23/2017 08:23 PM, Gleb Fotengauer-Malinovskiy wrote: Currently, there is no harm if config.h is not included in these files because they are not sensitive to macros defined in config.h, but any code added later or any plugin created using these plugins as examples might be affected by these

Re: [Rpm-maint] [PATCH 3/5] Drop local implementation of xsetprogname/xgetprogname

On 03/23/2017 08:22 PM, Gleb Fotengauer-Malinovskiy wrote: It can be dropped because this code was never actually enabled. Actually, this implementation *surely* never ever compiled. Signed-off-by: Gleb Fotengauer-Malinovskiy After spending a few minutes looking at what it'd take to properly

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Tags in the signature header are not sorted (#181)

Closed #181. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/181#event-1016065337___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Tags in the signature header are not sorted (#181)

Yes there was a bug in rpm 4.9.1.3 - 4.11.1 that causes the tags to be partially out of order. Already fixed three years ago but existing packages can hardly be helped. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Reserving space in the signature header (#183)

We've had that for almost three years now so don't bother. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/183#issuecomment-289661326__

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Reserving space in the signature header (#183)

Closed #183. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/183#event-1017880476___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add support for debugsource subpackages and split debuginfo subpackages (#180)

pmatilai commented on this pull request. > + +static rpmTag copyTagsForDebugMain[] = { +RPMTAG_ARCH, +RPMTAG_SUMMARY, +RPMTAG_DESCRIPTION, +RPMTAG_GROUP, +/* see addTargets */ +RPMTAG_OS, +RPMTAG_PLATFORM, +RPMTAG_OPTFLAGS, +}; + +/* this is a hack: patch the summ

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add support for debugsource subpackages and split debuginfo subpackages (#180)

pmatilai commented on this pull request. > + +/* add the debug dwz files to package pkg. + * return 1 if something was added, 0 otherwise. */ +static int addDebugDwz(Package pkg, char *buildroot) +{ +int ret = 0; +char *path = NULL; +struct stat sbuf; + +rasprintf(&path, "%s/usr/

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add support for debugsource subpackages and split debuginfo subpackages (#180)

pmatilai commented on this pull request. > +return pkg && pkg->fileList ? pkg : NULL; +} + +/* add a requires for package "to" into package "from". */ +static void addDebugRequires(Package from, Package to) +{ +const char *name; +char *evr, *isaprov; +name = headerGetString(to->h

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add support for debugsource subpackages and split debuginfo subpackages (#180)

pmatilai commented on this pull request. > +RPMTAG_PACKAGER, +RPMTAG_DISTRIBUTION, +RPMTAG_DISTURL, +RPMTAG_VENDOR, +RPMTAG_ICON, +RPMTAG_URL, +RPMTAG_VCS, +RPMTAG_CHANGELOGTIME, +RPMTAG_CHANGELOGNAME, +RPMTAG_CHANGELOGTEXT, +RPMTAG_PREFIXES, +RPMT

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add support for debugsource subpackages and split debuginfo subpackages (#180)

pmatilai commented on this pull request. > +return pkg && pkg->fileList ? pkg : NULL; +} + +/* add a requires for package "to" into package "from". */ +static void addDebugRequires(Package from, Package to) +{ +const char *name; +char *evr, *isaprov; +name = headerGetString(to->h

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add support for debugsource subpackages and split debuginfo subpackages (#180)

Minor nits aside, conceptually I've nothing against merging this. But then I'm also trying to maintain a hands-off approach to the debuginfo business, so others (Mark in particular), pay attention please. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email d

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] add getter function to python bindings for retrieving parsed spec file (#186)

spec.parsed is a nice little addition, I'll be happy to merge, but please drop the cosmetics part. I'm not at all fond of trailing whitespace fixes in general, but if you really really want to do it, do it as a separate pull request and for the entire python directory at once to minimize histo

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Mono dependencies are not always completely accurate (#185)

The Mono dependency extraction scripts were contributed by an "outsider" about ten years ago and have been untouched ever since, so it's not exactly a big wonder that world around them has moved on a bit. My knowledge about Mono ends shortly after the "it exists" level, so this would be a case

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Accept --nocaps also for the package installation (#178)

Merged #178. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/178#event-1027819924___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.o

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Accept --nocaps also for the package installation (#178)

Merged, thanks for the patch! -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/178#issuecomment-291406650___ Rpm-maint mailing lis

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] add back --target as global option (#142)

Like I noted in my first comment, the --target in rpmbuild is different (it takes a comma-separated list) and can't be replaced this way. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-manage

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] add back --target as global option (#142)

Actually, never mind... dropped the rpmbuild part and squashed the other two into one, merged. Thanks for the patch. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/142#is

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] add back --target as global option (#142)

Closed #142. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/142#event-1027884285___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.o

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] add getter function to python bindings for retrieving parsed spec file (#186)

Merged the spec.parsed part, thanks for the patch. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/186#issuecomment-291419576___

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] add getter function to python bindings for retrieving parsed spec file (#186)

Closed #186. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/186#event-1027887725___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.o

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add macro to force fsync() on close() (#187)

Actually I'm more on the side of questioning the need for a command line switch in the first place. This is a highly special tweak that you'd permanently enable and forget on those systems benefitting from it AIUI, and not something you enable for every third transaction on the system. -- You

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add macro to force fsync() on close() (#187)

pmatilai commented on this pull request. > @@ -231,6 +232,9 @@ static int expandRegular(rpmfi fi, const char *dest, > rpmpsm psm, int nodigest, i exit: if (wfd) { int myerrno = errno; +if (rpmExpandNumeric("%{force_fsync_on_close}")) { You don't really want to invoke the

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add macro to force fsync() on close() (#187)

pmatilai commented on this pull request. > @@ -1116,6 +1116,28 @@ int Fseek(FD_t fd, off_t offset, int whence) return rc; } +int Fsync(FD_t fd) +{ +int rc = 0, ec = 0; + +if (fd == NULL) + return -1; + +fd = fdLink(fd); +for (FDSTACK_t fps = fd->fps; fps != NULL; fp

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpm -q --xml output still broken in git master (#188)

Discovered while investigating something else, filing instead of fixing to avoid getting completely distracted from the original issue... Originally broken in commit 7f47cbbd7d1600ae280e48a655c9e870cf9361e0, partially resurrected in commit ead9cdd587bbf052722f0f8598e0983e565e3415 but now only th

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add macro to force fsync() on close() (#187)

pmatilai commented on this pull request. > +int rc = 0, ec = 0; + +if (fd == NULL) + return -1; + +fd = fdLink(fd); +for (FDSTACK_t fps = fd->fps; fps != NULL; fps = fps->prev) { + if (fps->fdno >= 0) { +rc = fsync(fps->fdno); + if (ec == 0 && rc

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add macro to force fsync() on close() (#187)

@jaymzh - yes the implementation has significant implications, which is pretty much my objection: you're not calling fsync on close to make data safer somehow, you call it there just because it's a simple implementation of getting rpm to call fsync more often in order to balance the IO load. So

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] multiple signatures support? (#189)

Technically speaking, there's no inherent limitation to just one signature because the header as a data structure can store fairly arbitrary amount of data. But no, multiple signatures per package is not implement currently. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. R

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] multiple signatures support? (#189)

I've been looking at various things related to rpm signatures and their handling, and multiple signatures happens to be one of them. Your use-case is not just a matter of more signatures though, it'd require a particular verification policy and a way to express that within rpm as well, roughly:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix non-standard inherented modes of directories in debuginfo (#194)

Merged #194. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/194#event-1035851393___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.o

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix non-standard inherented modes of directories in debuginfo (#194)

Thanks for the patch! -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/194#issuecomment-292854485___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-ma

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: option for initial-only content in files (#152)

Thinking about it some more... what we're actually talking about here is a file update policy. An update policy is a selection of operations such as whether to replace modied files or not, to backup or not etc. When looking at it from this perspective, it all starts making more sense: %config is

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: option for initial-only content in files (#152)

Just to enumerate what sort of things an update policy would consist of, from the top of my head: - whether to install the file in the first place (default obviously yes, but %ghost does not get installed at all) - whether to replace files (default being yes, currently only changable with %confi

Re: [Rpm-maint] [PATCH] Make rpmsign tests work for builddir != srcdir.

On 04/15/2017 02:03 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote: The gpg HOME is in the builddir testing directory. But the keys to import are in the srcdir data/keys directory. Signed-off-by: Mark Wielaard Gah, I always get these things wrong (might have something to do with using builddir == srcdir) Applied

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Remove unnecessary memset (#201)

Merged #201. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/201#event-1052257553___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.o

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Remove unnecessary memset (#201)

BTW please don't push personal branches to the rpm main repository, only official release branches should be there. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/201#issu

Re: [Rpm-maint] RFE -- flag when installing to list files as they are installed

On 04/21/2017 07:10 PM, L A Walsh wrote: Would it be possible to produce a list of files as they are installed -- similar the output of "rpm -ql", but with the files listed as they are extracted from the rpm and written to disk (sorta like 'tar's 'v' option). There's no direct tar -v equivalent

Re: [Rpm-maint] [PATCH] debugedit: Only output comp_dir under build dir (once).

On 04/21/2017 06:33 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote: The fix for rhbz#444310 (commit c1a5eb - Include empty CU current dirs) was a little greedy. It would also include comp_dirs outside the build root. Those are unnecessary and we don't have a good way to store them. Such dirs (e.g. /tmp) would then show

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Incorrect __progname definition (#203)

Closed #203. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/203#event-1056636827___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Incorrect __progname definition (#203)

This has been fixed in git master for quite some time, see commit 61109446ac67ca8f3d96a5592814561db908d83c. When reporting issues, please note the version used and preferably try to check upstream situation first. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to th

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Incorrect __progname definition (#203)

fa06b68 could not have broken it because the removed part was uncompilable and thus had never been enabled in any setup. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] dbus_connection_unref(bus) after dbus_connection_close(bus) (#207)

Merged, thanks for the patch. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/207#issuecomment-297650141___ Rpm-maint mailing lis

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] dbus_connection_unref(bus) after dbus_connection_close(bus) (#207)

Merged #207. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/207#event-106171___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.o

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add %mutable and %noupdate update policies (#152) (#200)

Based on a rather quick look: I don't want more DecideFate() clones, I want these brought under the same umbrella, a superset of operations of which one equals %config and allows these new things too, see my comments at https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/152#issuecomment-29353

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpm --verify always show Group ownership change in AIX operating system (#210)

So in AIX, gid 0 is simply called "system" instead of "root"? -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/210#issuecomment-298847637___

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Erasure ordering regression (#213)

Commit decd7e619ee629b5bee0d2a597679cbf58457977 to introduce weak and reverse dependency ordering also introduced a regression to erasure ordering. Using a smallish testcase of mine - first install: ``` [root@sopuli rpm]# rm -rf /srv/test/* [root@sopuli rpm]# ./rpm -Uv --justdb --root /srv/test/

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add support for debugsource subpackages and split debuginfo subpackages (#180)

Had a chat with Mark on irc, he's fine with this. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/180#issuecomment-300784533___ R

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add support for debugsource subpackages and split debuginfo subpackages (#180)

Merged #180. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/180#event-1078211980___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.o

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Erasure ordering regression (#213)

Added a simpler testcase in commit bc58b5c2239b36d9ed3b03d2c57b615b0695c313 -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/213#issuecomment-300807933_

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] AIX has system instead of root as the primary group (#215)

pmatilai requested changes on this pull request. Um, littering the source with ifdef AIX is not the way to do it. Check for gid 0 name in configure and use that in the sources so there are zero ifdefs required. And if we bother with that, might as well do it for uid 0 too because it practically

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Three fixes for rpmdeps (#216)

pmatilai commented on this pull request. While I can sort of see your point for standalone rpmdeps usage, as a general rule diagnostic messages belong to stderr. Rpm breaks that rule in many places but it's a behavior we want to eventually eliminate, not add more of. -- You are receiving thi

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpm expands macro args twice (#217)

Funny how things seem clearer without a headache... Obviously one needs to be able to pass escaped macros as arguments, another example to show current non-sensical behavior: ``` $ rpm --define "%foo() %1" --eval "%foo %{_lib}" --eval "%foo %%{_lib}" lib64 lib64 ``` I have a fix for that, just t

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpm expands macro args twice (#217)

The latter case fixed now in commit 9ae7d1df313b7a2b9fd74fef5a176dcdce40b88b, thanks for the cases! -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/217#issuecomment-30235

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpm expands macro args twice (#217)

Closed #217. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/217#event-1087571377___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpm expands macro args twice (#217)

...and the initial case fixed in 767d61ca3dba9745d392fa28bbe09a209bd49522. Again, thanks for spotting and reporting! It's s much nicer to fix such things pre-release time at your leisure without having an angry mob of packagers yelling "you bastard you broke my stuff" at you :) -- You are

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] AIX has system instead of root as the primary group (#215)

Looks much better, thanks, please update this PR with the new version. Having to awk for the username seems a bit gross but then I would've expected `id` to take numbers since day one, which clearly is not the case (it doesn't work in RHEL-5 or -6 either) maybe we'll just have to live with it.

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] AIX has system instead of root as the primary group (#215)

Oh and BTW, if this fixes the immediate issue you have and then we can deal with the build-side of things(%defattr and the like) in a separate patch later on. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.c

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] AIX has system instead of root as the primary group (#215)

Thats ok too :) -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/215#issuecomment-302379516___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@li

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] set a %_specfile macro during build, holding full path to spec file (#202)

Closed #202. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/202#event-1087823736___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.o

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] set a %_specfile macro during build, holding full path to spec file (#202)

Nope, I don't like it any more than the last time around, and I don't see anything here that would change my mind - "without having to pass extra arguments" doesn't sound like a very convincing argument. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email di

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] AIX has system instead of root as the primary group (#215)

Superceded by #219. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/215#issuecomment-302408410___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-main

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] AIX has system instead of root as the primary group (#215)

Closed #215. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/215#event-1087827090___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.o

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Generalize primary (uid/gid=0) user & group for platforms (#219)

Closed #219. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/219#event-1087841680___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.o

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Generalize primary (uid/gid=0) user & group for platforms (#219)

Like noted in #215, having to awk for the username seems a bit gross but then I would've expected id to take numbers since day one, which clearly is not the case (it doesn't work in RHEL-5 or -6 either) maybe we'll just have to live with it. There was a thinko/editing mistake in the patch (user

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add a new option --all-per-file to rpmdeps (#220)

The thing is, putting ANYTHING extra into stdout breaks the tool normal functionality (which is to emit strictly formatted dependencies on stdout), and that is a no-no for debugging options. I don't see how those error messages would "never be shown to user" whether redirected or not. When you'r

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpm --verify always show Group ownership change in AIX operating system (#210)

The build-side should be taken care of now as well as of commit a56356c30625a2bef60a94d66e06eb9dd01f3c33 and a couple of intermediate dependent patches. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rp

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpm --verify always show Group ownership change in AIX operating system (#210)

Closed #210. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/210#event-1089139862___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] error: Missing build-id in /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/... (#177)

Okay so rpm is right to warn and a disabler exists to allow dealing with the special case, I think we can close this. -- You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/177#issuecomment-3026461

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] error: Missing build-id in /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/... (#177)

Closed #177. -- You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/177#event-1089158062___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rp

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Make source package detection less error prone. (#218)

I'm wondering if a separate headerIsSourceHeuristic() is needed/warranted, why not just make the existing headerIsSource() do that instead? No objections though, this is fiddly business no matter which approach is taken. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Make source package detection less error prone. (#218)

Right, thought it was something like that. As for a cheap way of getting the count, I wouldn't mind something like a HEADERGET_NODATA flag to headerGet(), IIRC I encountered some other use-case for such a thing not so long ago (quite possibly the same: getting count of something) OTOH applyRet

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpm expands macro args twice (#217)

Hmm, expanding after splitting causes different problems (surprise surprise) because, for example this breaks: ```%autosetup -n %{name}-%{srcver} %{?with_int_bdb:-a 1} -p1``` In this case it can be worked around by just dropping the space between -a and 1, but in general the split would now need

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpm expands macro args twice (#217)

Yes it'd be a good thing, just not what I'd like to deal with right now. Patches would be most welcome :) -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/217#issuecomment

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] set a %_specfile macro during build, holding full path to spec file (#202)

You know, that level of hackery and trickery sounds more like an argument AGAINST this than for it. I'm sure there are all sorts of funky hacks that allowing spec to access itself would enable. And my message is: find some better way of doing it. -- You are receiving this because you are subsc

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpm expands macro args twice (#217)

You pretty much convinced me expand after split is by far the saner thing to do with this example: ``` $ rpm --define "%foo() 1:%1 2:%2" --eval "%foo %nil bar" 1:bar 2:%2 ``` At least in the %autosetup case, the empty argument is harmless, and I think given the %nil example, it could be consider

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpm expands macro args twice (#217)

Hmm. OTOH that "argument shift" is exactly what happens with shell too: ``` [pmatilai@sopuli ~]$ cat argtest.sh function foo() { echo 1:$1 2:$2 } foo $none bar [pmatilai@sopuli ~]$ sh argtest.sh 1:bar 2: ``` Difference of course being that shell has a quoting mechanism. So maybe the saner

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpm expands macro args twice (#217)

> Should be easy to arrange by using poptParseArgvString() instead of > argvSplit() except that poptParseArgvString() strips out empty arguments, so it doesn't work for this purpose. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view i

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Macro arguments do not support quoting (#222)

Originally came up while discussing #217: Especially now that rpm is expanding macro arguments, it needs a way to quote the arguments to handle whitespace, empty arguments etc. This matches what shell does when undefined arguments are passed to functions: ``` rpm --define "%foo() 1:%1 2:%2" --eva

<    5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   >