Closed #2440.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2440#event-8884908198
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-
Fixed in a slightly different manner in commit
a2b49273aa0935dcb88743c216925fc4d42723a8
Thanks for reporting and the patch!
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2440#issuecomment-1489938278
You are receiving this because you a
It's possible to move config.h.in processing later, and set PARENT_SCOPE on
RPMCANONVENDOR in makemacros() but it probably wants a bit of reorganization
instead.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2440#issuecomment-147384814
Hmm, it's not the value of vendor changing that breaks the CI. This breaks
setting RPMCANONVENDOR in config.h, which in turn breaks the build.
Currently RPMCANONVENDOR is set on global scope early on, but with this it only
gets set inside makemacros() which is called *after* config.h.in is proce
I'm not in the least surprised that there are multiple bugs in that area, all
that is basically from very early days to just get a builds with cmake
*somehow* going :laughing:
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2440#issueco
Will do! 🫡
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2440#issuecomment-1473811240
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Do file ticket(s) on such findings so others don't need to rediscover.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2440#issuecomment-1473810274
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
There are other bugs related to the platform setup, but I haven't figured out
how to fix them yet. 😖
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2440#issuecomment-1473808289
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this t
Oops, indeed. Thanks for spotting!
But this causes a bunch of strange failures in CI, I can systematically
reproduce (with local "make ci"). So something somewhere isn't quite right. I
guess those debuginfo tests could be expecting a particular value of vendor for
reproduction, but then we neve
