Closed #46.
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/46#event-546932390___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Added the fixes. Making the new dependency generator the default is probably
going to be up to the distributions. May be we change the default later on.
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/46#issuecomment-182787312
Closed #57.
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/57#event-546952766___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
OK, added the first 3 patches. The later two need to be done in a more
compatible way. I'll have a look on the linked patch for the __progname issue.
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/57#issuecomment-182793012___
On 01/26/2016 01:57 PM, tele wrote:
> I can not find in source code where rpmbuild trying open scripts
> ( for example find-requires )
> Where or how I need looking ?
The dependency generator is using file attributes (see fileattrs/ [1]).
The code handling those can be found in build/rpmfc.[hc] [2
Looks like this fell through the cracks back then. I can only guess why.
May be everyone was on vacation...
Anyway this topic came up recently and this looks like the proper
solution. Pushed upstream as 61109446ac67ca8f3d96a5592814561db908d83c
with only very minor corrections as followup patches.
ependencies and requested a way to
not break Mageia.
After discussing with Florian Festi about it, Mageia's
pythonegg(X)(M) will be supported by adding '--legacy'
as a switch to generate legacy Provides/Requires to maintain
compatibility with Mageia's existing usage and to give
Ok, squashed the last three commits and adjusted the commit message a bit.
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/50#issuecomment-182966562___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm
Closed #50.
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/50#event-547469932___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Closed #58.
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/58#event-550543323___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Pushed. Thanks for the patch!
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/58#issuecomment-184168807___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm
Merged #59.
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/59#event-550799360___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
I wonder if the easier way to fix this is to actually move the two symlinks to
the same directory as the rpm binary...
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/60#issuecomment-184661007__
I am inclined to reject this patch. The danger of missing patches unrecognised
outweighs the benefit of using a svn for applying the patches in my opinion.
Are there any use cases where using svn really gives a substantial improvement
over other tools?
---
Reply to this email directly or view
May be I should have been more clear:
What about
@rm -f $(DESTDIR)$(rpmbindir)/rpmquery
@LN_S@ rpm $(DESTDIR)$(rpmbindir)/rpmquery
@rm -f $(DESTDIR)$(rpmbindir)/rpmverify
@LN_S@ rpm $(DESTDIR)$(rpmbindir)/rpmverify
?
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rp
We'll twice a year someone comes up with some sort of dual/multiple rpmdb
proposal. None of them so far got beyond answering the first main questions:
What's the use case? Would that actually work? Isn't this really the right
solution to this problem?
Which typically go into some more detailed
Pushed upstream. Github still to stupid to get it.
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/61#issuecomment-188681373___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org
Closed #60.
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/60#event-565220329___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Pushed upstream. No idea why Github doesn't get it this time.
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/60#issuecomment-188680860___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://li
Closed #61.
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/61#event-565221851___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
On 02/29/2016 08:53 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> This protection is in the way if the --short-circuit -bb is used to
> build packages for testing the effects of complex dependency changes
> in a spec file.
Would it be sufficient for your use case to change the anti-cheating
Requires to something ot
On 03/01/2016 03:51 PM, Michael Schroeder wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 03:29:41PM +0100, Florian Festi wrote:
>> On 02/29/2016 08:53 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> This protection is in the way if the --short-circuit -bb is used to
>>> build packages for tes
Merged #62.
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/62#event-575984943___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Looks like those macros are being used to build some packages and just removing
them is probably not an option for now. Still I think you have a very valid
point in that the macros are a mess and deserve cleaning up. See rpm-ecosystem
ML for a broader discussion on the topic.
Closing.
---
Repl
Closed #37.
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/37#event-577883375___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Closed #38.
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/38#event-577884246___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Closing. See #38 for reasoning.
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/38#issuecomment-192313053___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/r
This needs to be rebased and cleaned up to go though a second round of review.
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/17#issuecomment-192313529___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.
On 03/07/2016 12:18 PM, Michael Shigorin wrote:
> Hello,
> please see the attached patch for e2k (Elbrus 2000) architecture
> introduction (there's complete enough support in ALT-RPM but that
> will require some porting).
I'd rather like to see an actually working patch before committing th
Merged #64.
---
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/64#event-593522358___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
On 03/07/2016 12:18 PM, Michael Shigorin wrote:
> Hello,
> please see the attached patch for e2k (Elbrus 2000) architecture
> introduction (there's complete enough support in ALT-RPM but that
> will require some porting).
I can not find any "e2k" in http://git.altlinux.org/gears/r/rpm.git.
Closed #63.
---
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/63#event-593230756___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
Merged.
---
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/63#issuecomment-197818930___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.o
Thanks for the patch! Added upstream!
Florian
--
Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com/, Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
Managing Directors: Paul Argiry, Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham,
Michael O'Neill
Thanks for the patch! Added upstream!
Florian
--
Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com/, Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
Managing Directors: Paul Argiry, Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham,
Michael O'Neill
Ops, that mail didn't get to the ML at first...
On 03/22/2016 11:25 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-03-18 at 17:17 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>> configure.ac implies that there is a fall back to the internal db if
>> no external one is specified or found. But that doesn't work since
>> wi
Merged #65.
---
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/65#event-606490875___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
Merged #66.
---
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/66#event-634755887___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
Thanks!
---
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/66#issuecomment-212485148___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.o
On 04/26/2016 12:33 AM, Stefan Berger wrote:
> This series of patches fixes several issues related to signed files
> produced by rpmsign.
Thanks for the patches I already pushed the first few.
Florian
--
Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com/, Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
Commercial register:
I get the following warning:
ima.c:23:1: warning: ‘PACKED’ attribute directive ignored [-Wattributes]
} __attribute__((PACKED));
May be there is an simpler way to check for the header being zeros only?
Florian
--
Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com/, Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
Commercial
Well changing header size limit needs a bit more thought. The main
problem is that packages with bigger header will look broken on older
rpm versions and the usual way of dealing with this (adding rpmlib()
Requires) won't work it needs reading the header.
Also I wonder if we should increase the he
On 04/28/2016 08:20 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 04/27/2016 11:00 PM, Stefan Berger wrote:
>> "Rpm-maint" wrote on 04/27/2016
>> 05:45:56 AM:
>>
>>>
>>> I get the following warning:
>>>
>>> ima.c:23:1: warning: ‘PACKED’ attribute directive ignored [-Wattributes]
>>> } __attribute__((PACKED));
On 04/27/2016 09:47 PM, Stefan Berger wrote:
> "Rpm-maint" wrote on 04/27/2016
> 05:50:54 AM:
>
>
>>
>> Well changing header size limit needs a bit more thought. The main
>> problem is that packages with bigger header will look broken on older
>> rpm versions and the usual way of dealing with th
On 04/29/2016 01:09 PM, Stefan Berger wrote:
> This series of patches fixes remaining issues related to signed files produced
> by rpmsign.
>
> v1->v2:
> - removed already applied patches from series
> - extended header limit to 256MB
> - check zero signature header against an array of 0; do
I really can't see this changes going in upstream. Beside the duplication of a
lot of code, duplication of the API there are lots of unresolved - probably
even unnoticed - issues. Including but not limited to:
* Support in dependency solvers
* UI
* Update requiring changes in both DBs
* Obso
Closed #40.
---
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/40#event-679528736___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
Merged #70.
---
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/70#event-687072626___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
Thanks for the patches. Pushed.
---
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/71#issuecomment-224861402___
Rpm-maint mailing li
Closed #71.
---
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/71#event-687073199___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
Merged #72.
---
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/72#event-687176409___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
Merged #75.
---
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/75#event-739352245___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
Thanks for the patch. Merged.
---
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/73#issuecomment-236216867___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Closed #73.
---
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/73#event-739364600___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
I just merged the Mark Wielaars' patches upstream. Even with this merge
patch things do not apply cleanly. Can you just rebase on top of master,
please?
Thanks!
Florian
--
Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com/, Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HR
Added this and the previous patches upstream. I am still not 100% happy
with the code added to rpmbuild. But let's be realistic here: Adding the
facilities to do this in a clean way is a much bigger thing to do and
postponing these changes till then is not helping anyone. If we ever get
the ability
Closed #76.
---
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/76#event-745065663___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
Sorry, but we are not changing the indentation style to your preference. RPM
uses tabs + 4 spaces everywhere. We are not going to change that here. Adjust
your editor settings!
---
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
Merged #77.
---
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/77#event-745191406___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
Hi!
I use the attached script to build the sources.
Florian
On 08/03/2016 01:25 PM, Jun Aruga wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I tried to build rpm on latest master branch and failed with an error.
> Could you tell me how to build it?
>
> Is there the document for basic build?
> I have checked below files.
Merged #81.
--
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/81#event-765867319___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
Nice catch indeed! Merged!
--
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/82#issuecomment-242038971___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rp
Closed #82.
--
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/82#event-765868066___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
Back from vacation. Sorry, that it took that long to get it in.
--
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/81#issuecomment-242039118
Closed #78.
--
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/78#event-765878218___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
Pushed.
--
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/78#issuecomment-242041012___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.o
Nice catch! Thank you very much for the patch! Pushed.
Florian
On 08/09/2016 04:52 PM, Stefan Berger wrote:
> Use the default hash algorithm md5 on RPMs that do not contain the
> RPMTAG_FILEDIGESTALGO. This may be the case if the default hash
> algorithm used on files is md5 and thus no RPMTAG_FI
Thank you very much for the fix. Pushed.
On 08/24/2016 05:06 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> commit a82119 "configure.ac: use LIBDW always conditionally" contained
> a typo that caused WITH_LIBDW_LIB never to be set when you were using
> libelf. Fixed by reverting the "!=" to "=" again.
>
> Signed-off
On 08/14/2016 10:33 PM, Michal Marek wrote:
> Dne 2.7.2016 v 21:11 Michal Marek napsal(a):
>> Dne 2.7.2016 v 16:28 Mark Wielaard napsal(a):
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Fri, 2016-07-01 at 22:43 +0200, Michal Marek wrote:
this series allows find-debuginfo.sh to run in parallel. It also makes the
dup
Merged #84.
--
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/84#event-770647710___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
On 08/23/2016 10:49 PM, Michal Marek wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 03:19:17PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>> Hi Michal,
>>
>> On Sun, 2016-08-14 at 22:33 +0200, Michal Marek wrote:
>>> Note that I'm still planning to submit the rebased patch series. But I'm
>>> having issues with the tests in rp
Closed #85.
--
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/85#event-782603510___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
Thanks for the patch. Merged.
--
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/85#issuecomment-245641380___
Rpm-maint mailing list
I'd squash the last 5 patches together and put them on to of the current HEAD
if this is ok with you.
--
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/17#issuecomment-245647161_
Merged #17.
--
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/17#event-785843506___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org
Thanks of the effort!
--
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/17#issuecomment-246329016___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
htt
Closed #89.
--
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/89#event-785896906___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
Pushed.
--
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/89#issuecomment-246339456___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.o
Thanbks for the patch! Pushed.
--
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/86#issuecomment-246342158___
Rpm-maint mailing lis
Closed #86.
--
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/86#event-785910474___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
Merged #90.
--
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/90#event-787712037___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
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/90#issuecomment-246716105___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-mai
Merged #91.
--
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/91#event-790579879___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
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/91#issuecomment-247305318___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-mai
On 09/16/2016 01:55 PM, Michal Marek wrote:
> Dne 15.9.2016 v 17:00 Mark Wielaard napsal(a):
>> On Sat, 2016-09-10 at 23:13 +0200, Michal Marek wrote:
>>> Add a -j option, which, when used, will spawn processes to do the
>>> debuginfo extraction in parallel. A named pipe is used to dispatch the
>
Thanks for the patch. Pushed.
Florian
--
Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com/, Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
Managing Directors: Paul Argiry, Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham,
Michael O'Neill
Closed #92.
--
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/92#event-796940680___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org
Nice catch! Always amazing what ancient bugs can still be found in even very
basic code paths... *sigh*
Anyway. Thanks a lot for hunting this down. Pushed.
--
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-managem
On 10/06/2016 02:33 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 10/06/2016 09:10 AM, Pavlina Varekova wrote:
>> Extend %changelog to support full timestamps
>>
>> The newly accepted date format is
>>
>> Mon Jan 6 09:02:22 CEST 2016
>>
>> (like output of "date" command). Original format "Mon Jun 6 2016" is
>> st
Nice catch. I fixed it in a sightly different way that's a bit more in line
with the coding style of the tool.
Thanks for looking into 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-ma
Closed #94.
--
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/94#event-817803539___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
Thanks you very much for the patch, your patiences and the additional effort
trying to implement the parsing strptime().
Merged.
--
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/
Closed #93.
--
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/93#event-819586220___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
Closed #88.
--
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/88#event-820663260___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
OK, looks like Fedora is going for a policy that works with the current version
compare. If version and release strings are chosen with some care (which they
have to be anyway) I do not really see an immediate need for this. Closing for
now.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed
Changing the output format is really a no-go. Adding another (or may be even
more) alias(es) is the more sane option here.
--
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/9
Thanks for the patches. Added.
--
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/95#issuecomment-255337922___
Rpm-maint mailing lis
Closed #95.
--
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/95#event-831801071___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
Closed #97.
--
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/97#event-855854335___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
Pushed.
--
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/97#issuecomment-259948830___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.o
101 - 200 of 1891 matches
Mail list logo
