Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add sysusers.sh script to replace systemd-sysusers (PR #2573)

@ffesti commented on this pull request. > + +hasgroup() { + grep "^${1}:" "$ROOT"/etc/group >/dev/null +} + +user() { + local user="$1" + local uid="$2" + local desc="$3" + local group="$4" + local home="$5" + local shell="$6" + + [ "$desc" = '-' ]

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add sysusers.sh script to replace systemd-sysusers (PR #2573)

> There's also the missing case for the `root` user, as the default shell for > UID 0 is defined to be `/bin/sh` and homedir `/root`. Not sure if we need / want a special case for root here. In my head it is the responsibility of the distribution to create the root user (and all other default s

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Allow setting platform macro settings externally (PR #2585)

@ffesti pushed 1 commit. 6f76e447208072a1ba7971f0fc1bf8efb12a1b8b Update INSTALL -- View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2585/files/98a7615d9db2d43126c453b9bd0f4cc5006c18b7..6f76e447208072a1ba7971f0fc1bf8efb12a1b8b You are receiving this because you are subscri

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Allow setting platform macro settings externally (PR #2585)

Merged #2585 into master. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2585#event-9946483232 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint maili

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpm/rpmbuild vs Yocto BSP platform names (Issue #2578)

Closed #2578 as completed via #2585. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2578#event-9946483467 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rp

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Allow setting platform macro settings externally (PR #2585)

Adjusted the docs a bit to not assume platform is always "linux" - even if it is for many people. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2585#issuecomment-1655442493 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this threa

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Implement a declarative autobuild system (prototype) (PR #2620)

We should probably put those build macros into separate macro files - one per build type. That makes it easier for people to add their own and to hand them over to other communities, if we want to get rid of them upstream. Also the macros file is too big already. -- Reply to this email directl

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add SPDX licenses headers to all files (Issue #2626)

and make the project REUSE compatible. See https://reuse.software/ This will more explicit what license each file is under and will allow to quickly review the overall license of the whole project. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Implement a declarative autobuild system (prototype) (PR #2620)

This needs some design document or at least section in the commit message. This looks awfully like it could also be done with a simple macro or lua script. So we need some explanation why this isn't done that way. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-soft

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Implement a declarative autobuild system (prototype) (PR #2620)

The BuildRequires case is just one example of Preamble content. The dynamic spec feature will soon drop you into the preamble of the main package for each parsed file (PR coming soon). The other option (which is possible now) is to expand a macro directly where the Autobuild directive is encount

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Implement a declarative autobuild system (prototype) (PR #2620)

Yeah, this needs to be non dynamic. But it can use dynamic spec in the implementation of the different build types. So this gets confusing quickly. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2620#issuecomment-1691676788 You are recei

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: optionally validate SPDX identifiers in the License field (Issue #2627)

Issue is less the availability of tools but which one to use - and which dependencies we want to drag in. There is https://github.com/spdx with several relevant repositories. There also are the tools around http://reuse.software https://git.fsfe.org/reuse -- Reply to this email directly or vie

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Move checks and package initialization after build (PR #2646)

as far as possible. This allows setting these tags during the build using the dynamic spec feature. Move copyTagsDuringParse requiredTags optionalTags isMemberInEntry() checkForValidArchitectures() checkForRequired() checkForDuplicates() fillOutMainPackage() copyInheritedTags() from build/parse

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Move checks and package initialization after build (PR #2646)

This is the major part of what is needed for #1240 -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2646#issuecomment-1718917225 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Move checks and package initialization after build (PR #2646)

@ffesti pushed 6 commits. 28dbca6a15efdef33863c1412b331279e9ae2853 Drop NVR parameter to make them easier to reuse fb0d81ef9cb886ec31e34c64b13ade85e023b062 Make functions available to be moved later on 7d3d23cd7c13de952be577f47dfad5bfd0bdda74 Move checks and package initialization after buil

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix tagtbl.C placement in build dir (PR #2670)

Merged #2670 into master. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2670#event-10410724809 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mail

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add new plugin slots for pre/post chroot events (PR #2669)

Looks good and pretty straight forward. May be should get a test case. It might also be a good idea to point out that these are called even when running without --root. Technically we omit the chroot call in this case but the hoooks are ofc executed no matter what (as they should be) -- Reply

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Python tests: Close open files (PR #2675)

Merged #2675 into master. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2675#event-10460704680 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mail

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Python tests: Close open files (PR #2675)

Over are the good old days when one could rely on the garbage collection to just close the files for you. Had to do something very similar recently in my own Python project. Thanks for the patch! -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/r

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Move checks and package initialization after build (PR #2646)

@ffesti pushed 6 commits. 7ec8dd2235d6d684f590d3bb92ec6adfa75d583d Drop NVR parameter to make them easier to reuse 65be4c1e70b7b7745b582dc59be9de1832f550d7 Make functions available to be moved later on 1894a121973c1f93decc64e6a81a9a790d9288a3 Move checks and package initialization after buil

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Move checks and package initialization after build (PR #2646)

OK, I addressed the comments above: Re-Added a check for the NVR tags, renamed RPMSPEC_DONTFINALIZE, added a test case and fixed issues that the test case turned up. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2646#issuecomment-1744

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Move checks and package initialization after build (PR #2646)

Yes, this thought has occurred to me, too. I have not addressed this here as it is mainly an issue of the original dynamic spec change. But it is something we need to address. Funny enough we could actually allow %prep to create later build scripts. Ofc this doesn't work right now. Also there

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Prevent Dynamic Spec part to create things needed earlier (Issue #2693)

As noted in #2646 dynamic spec parts can create/declare tags and sections that cannot be used that late and we should not allow that and error out. First rough list: - all build sections - including %generatebuildrequires - BuildRequires - BuildArch except noarch -- Reply to this email dir

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Docs/README and minor rewording (PR #2705)

You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2705 -- Commit Summary -- * Reword to make sentence easier to understand * Add docs/README.md -- File Changes -- M docs/CMakeLists.txt (1) A docs/README.md (30)

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Document and/or implement the rpm.org content generation process (Issue #2259)

Documented how to build the reference manual locally but we really should actually do that in our cmake files. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2259#issuecomment-1750545445 You are receiving this because you are subscribe

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Macro %-x modifies original flag if argument follows without intervening space (Issue #2454)

See #2455 -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2454#issuecomment-1757463275 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Spec file versioning macros (Issue #2443)

@ffesti converted this issue into discussion #2715. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2443#event-10617291792 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: __

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Move checks and package initialization after build (PR #2646)

@ffesti pushed 6 commits. a830cc6c8c009080a6d78b621c5206f2c4059bb2 Drop NVR parameter to make them easier to reuse 6bb9f49f4380c8ec96ea5ffe104116f97e693c6b Make functions available to be moved later on 7594a223af9cdd4a33f6857ecdc22df5ba84ed6b Move checks and package initialization after buil

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Move checks and package initialization after build (PR #2646)

@ffesti pushed 5 commits. 7258c44f688c7712af9cdcdb12227d3820e77879 Move checks and package initialization after build 80feaf69bf841293daa0707bccc546707ca7968e Remove checks during parsing of packages 2581fecd67178574f5e813e8c97fb5c21045d93f Always start parsing in the preable of the main pac

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Move checks and package initialization after build (PR #2646)

OK, everything that didn't get moved to its own ticket should be addressed. Renamed the constant to NOFINALIZE, fixed warnings and added to more test cases with parsing errors. I am a bit confused that giving Summary two times is only a warning and doesn't break the build. BUt that's not somet

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Queried tag fields not exhibited. Specified package name reported in output (Issue #2411)

The issue here is that these tags are arrays and need to be surrounded by square brackets. The CLI params already do that for you. They also include the flags and version while the using the tags directly only gives you the name part of the tripplets. You can just use `%{conflictnevrs}` and frie

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Queried tag fields not exhibited. Specified package name reported in output (Issue #2411)

Closed #2411 as completed. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2411#event-10661746538 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint m

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Move OpenSSL code to newer API (PR #2723)

Avoid the now deprecated RSA and DSA data types and use the generic EVP_PKEY Resolves: #2294 You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2723 -- Commit Summary -- * Move OpenSSL code to newer API -- File Changes --

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Provide dedicated option to query fake installed RPM packages with GPG keys associated with them (Issue #2404)

Right place for this would be the `rpmkeys` tool. There actually already is a - commented out - stub for `--list-keys` and `--delete-key` waiting for someone to come along and implement them. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/is

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Provide dedicated option to query fake installed RPM packages with GPG keys associated with them (Issue #2404)

Also `gpg-pubkey` is not the prefix of the name but the actual name. Otherwise `rpm -q gpg-pubkey` wouldn't work. The other gibberish is the hash of the key stuffed in version and release to make it unique. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-ma

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: allow overriding buildtime and hostname via environment variable (Issue #2603)

OK, given that the `BUILDHOST` can already be set via `%_buildhost` what is still missing here? Or can we just close this ticket? -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2603#issuecomment-1766142951 You are receiving this becaus

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Move OpenSSL code to newer API (PR #2723)

@ffesti pushed 1 commit. 009daa3ab584b0e271f08d717c19daaa18de3eed Move OpenSSL code to newer API -- View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2723/files/f23f894620350dbe35384eb22c88fbca51d0502e..009daa3ab584b0e271f08d717c19daaa18de3eed You are receiving this because

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Move OpenSSL code to newer API (PR #2723)

@ffesti commented on this pull request. > if (!constructDSASigningKey(key)) goto done; if (!constructDSASignature(sig)) goto done; -if (DSA_do_verify(hash, hashlen, sig->dsa_sig, key->dsa_key) == 1) +pkey_ctx = EVP_PKEY_CTX_new(key->evp_pkey, NULL); +i

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Move OpenSSL code to newer API (PR #2723)

@ffesti pushed 1 commit. 32b12aec2d81690f271cd1cde8b8bf72c358229a Move OpenSSL code to newer API from version 3.0 -- View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2723/files/009daa3ab584b0e271f08d717c19daaa18de3eed..32b12aec2d81690f271cd1cde8b8bf72c358229a You are rece

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Move OpenSSL code to newer API (PR #2723)

OK, turns out this is code based on OpenSSL 3.0 which is from 2021. So it is a bit new. Otoh it no longer is the default variant to be built and the next release shouldn't be backported to some ancient enterprise distribution. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Move OpenSSL code to newer API (PR #2723)

Thank would be great, it's not that I have a clue about OpenSSL either. I just banged it with a hammer until it seemed to work. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2723#issuecomment-1772906920 You are receiving this because yo

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add %_iconsdir macro (PR #2729)

Offer a generic way to place icons in the proper system dir Resolves: #2196 You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2729 -- Commit Summary -- * Add %_iconsdir macro -- File Changes -- M macros.in (1) -- Patch

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: allow overriding buildtime and hostname via environment variable (Issue #2603)

Closed #2603 as completed. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2603#event-10752520725 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint m

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: allow overriding buildtime and hostname via environment variable (Issue #2603)

Guess not. Feel free to re-open if we missed something and there is really something that needs doing. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2603#issuecomment-1777011289 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to thi

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] [RFE] Filter requires per subpackage (Issue #2720)

Yeah, giving the packager more control here is something we generally want. The dependency generators are a bit clunky as soon as they don't exactly what one wants/needs. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2720#issuecommen

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Multiple builds via the BuildArch tag do not work (Issue #2319)

I also don't have too strong of an opinion on that. Only the comment that most build systems may be pretty surprised if suddenly packages from more than one build arch show up. May be we should keep things as they are and just clean up the code. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on Gi

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Use uniform formatting for SEE ALSO sections (PR #2732)

While there is no generally agreed standard for this we should at least use only one. Comma separated lists are commonly used. Let's just pick *italic* for man pages. Thanks to Frank Dana ; for pointing this out. Resolves: #2731 You can view, comment on, or merge thi

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Use uniform formatting for SEE ALSO sections (PR #2732)

Improved wording of the commit message -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2732#issuecomment-1777100699 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Use uniform formatting for SEE ALSO sections (PR #2732)

@ffesti pushed 1 commit. 557112f44791d499b3a5208329a01846af63f480 Use uniform formatting for SEE ALSO sections -- View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2732/files/2449e94632bab36a52bd5cafbff2ac03e86790ed..557112f44791d499b3a5208329a01846af63f480 You are receivi

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Use uniform formatting for SEE ALSO sections (PR #2732)

I don't have a strong opinion. Guess it depends on what pages you sample. I just switched to bold. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2732#issuecomment-1778994409 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thre

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpmbuild: make it possible to not include SPEC tag (rpm-4.17 compat behavior) (Issue #2727)

Closed #2727 as completed. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2727#event-10766717419 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint m

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpmbuild: make it possible to not include SPEC tag (rpm-4.17 compat behavior) (Issue #2727)

We are not planning to add such an option. While we have stricter requirement for the backward compatibility of SRPMs than for normal packages they do not include backward compatibility for all time. Closing. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Multiple builds via the BuildArch tag do not work (Issue #2319)

So I think going back to the old behaviour is just not worth the trouble - even if it may be easy to do code wise. So all that's left is cleaning up the code a little bit. Not keeping a ticket open for stuff like that - otherwise we had tickets for each line of RPM code... -- Reply to this ema

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Multiple builds via the BuildArch tag do not work (Issue #2319)

Closed #2319 as completed. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2319#event-10766742033 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint m

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Trying to rebuild RPM SRPM package on RISC-V Linux (Issue #2085)

Closed #2085 as completed. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2085#event-10767718055 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint m

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Trying to rebuild RPM SRPM package on RISC-V Linux (Issue #2085)

Sorry for the late answer! The spec file runs the rpm test suite which needs fakechroot. It's possible that it is either not available or not working properly on RISC-V Linux. Note that the current release do use a different technology for isolating the test suite. I am closing this as it is ha

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Convert %prep into a regular build scriptlet (PR #2730)

Looks actually quite nice and surprisingly straight forward. I wonder if we should do an announcement if we really want to drop %patchN so distributions have a bit more time to prepare. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/273

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Implement prepend and append modes for all our normal build scriptlets (PR #2728)

@ffesti pushed 1 commit. a8b4e5be21cae2f980e75bc528bff0405ec64689 Reword spec.md change -- View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2728/files/39973be09ef2f0217177fd2afc65cabd1cd3945d..a8b4e5be21cae2f980e75bc528bff0405ec64689 You are receiving this because you are

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Implement prepend and append modes for all our normal build scriptlets (PR #2728)

May be people like this version better. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2728#issuecomment-1781371354 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add support for macro aliases (PR #2722)

I am still a bit puzzled on what this can do that you can't do with a simple macro definition. I mean I have a rough idea. But may be the docs should make a bit more of an effort to explain what to use in which case. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix typos (PR #2737)

Merged #2737 into master. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2737#event-10816892415 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mail

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix typos (PR #2737)

Thanks for the fixes! -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2737#issuecomment-1786683577 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mai

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Obsoleted-by: would be useful in some cases (#1768)

Looks like the conclusion in 2021 was that `Obsoleted-by:` is not the solution. Closing. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1768#issuecomment-1790663062 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Mes

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Obsoleted-by: would be useful in some cases (#1768)

Closed #1768 as completed. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1768#event-10843533706 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint m

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Set %_sharedstatedir to %{_var}/lib (PR #2743)

Configure traditionally sets it to %{_prefix}/com which RPM has followed so far. But this directory is not used anywhere and everybody changes the location to /var/lib. As we are only changing the macro and not the configure default this should be relatively save to do. Resolves: #2092 You can

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] [RFE] Subpackage for excluded files (#1448)

Closed #1448 as completed. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1448#event-10843864415 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint m

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] [RFE] Subpackage for excluded files (#1448)

I agree that there should be more control over what files go where and the current means given to the packagers are not that great. Having more special code for creating sub packages is not something we want, though. We'd rather give the packager the means to do that in the spec - or the build s

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Have templates for ticket creation (Issue #2752)

Have templates for at least Bug Report and RFE. Point to the Discussions in the later. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2752 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: _

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Handling of files during installation via hooks (#1120)

Well, we already have `%pretrans` scriptlets which allow the packagers to do arbitrary stuff. We don't need a second mechanism like that. Labeling the files needing special treatment is a possible solution for the symlink problem but is not something we need a separate ticket for. Closing -- R

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Handling of files during installation via hooks (#1120)

Closed #1120 as completed. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1120#event-10898285096 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint m

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: store a copy of files maked as config in /usr/lib/rpm/config (#1178)

This can probably be done as a plugin nowadays. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1178#issuecomment-1812090168 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: _

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: set builsubdir to the *first* extracted archive not the last one (#551)

With the latest changes to the `%setup` macro this may now be easier and should be looked at again. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/551#issuecomment-1812148572 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this th

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE OptionalBuildRequires (#577)

As stated above we'd rather not have weak/optional BuildDependencies. Having predictable builds is a value on it's own. Closing. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/577#issuecomment-1812150848 You are receiving this because

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE OptionalBuildRequires (#577)

Closed #577 as completed. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/577#event-10965418970 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mai

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Give better error message when encountering read-only file systems (Issue #2782)

RPM will report `PACKAGE needs XX MB more space on the /XXX filesystem` if the files system is read only no matter how much "free" space there is on the system. This is confusing and RPM should actually give a hint to the user that the issue is that the file system is not writable. Originated a

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Emit full paths for file disposition diagnostics on --fsmdebug (PR #2783)

Merged #2783 into master. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2783#event-11068948077 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mail

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: introduce an rpm-controlled per-build directory to builds (Issue #2078)

See also https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479198 which is a similar issue also including debuginfo not working outside of `%buildsubdir` -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2078#issuecomment-1831710406 You are re

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] pkgconfigdeps: disable dependency resolver where supported (#192)

Merged #192. -- 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/192#event-1038354991___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.o

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] kill off deprecated 'mkinstalldirs' (#205)

Yes, it is ugly and it would be great if we could just remove it. But it looks like that's just not the case (see https://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/autoconf-2.67/html_node/Limitations-of-Usual-Tools.html mkdir section). So it gotta stay until someone comes up with a solution with all

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] kill off deprecated 'mkinstalldirs' (#205)

Closed #205. -- 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/205#event-1060179389___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.o

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Warningsfixes (#191)

The lua patch could use a little explanation why the macro is needed in the commit message. It also begs the question if switching on compat mode is really the (long term) solution for the issue. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly o

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add macros to generate --enable-/disable- arguments (#176)

I think the problem here is that these macros do use the same name for both the bcond variable and the configure switch. I'd rather think that the interesting cases are where you need to have some high level bcond switch may be even resulting in multiple copnfigure switches of different names. U

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

It might be worth thinking about deletion as a special case of editing. There are some files that are read/executed automatically and deleting them may be a valid way of altering the configuration. These new actions should take this into account and preserve the user's decision to remove the fil

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add macros to generate --enable-/disable- arguments (#176)

I wonder if they should be named more similar to bcond_with. -- 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/176#issuecomment-297742840__

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

I also wonder how these interact with --replacefiles (which is also part of --force). -- 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/200#issuecomment-297960426

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Allow armsfp arches on armhfp ones (rhbz#1440974) (#199)

Pushed first patch. The second patch is not really right as under normal circumstances the packages need to be rejected. May be --ignorearch can help with this use case. May be we need some way to overwrite the arch in a chroot by macro. This is a story for another time... -- You are receivin

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Allow armsfp arches on armhfp ones (rhbz#1440974) (#199)

Closed #199. -- 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/199#event-1078065808___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.o

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Change the shebang of pythondistdeps.py to Python 3 (#212)

I think this is a lesson how thinking needs to be different between one particular (or even all) distribution and rpm upstream. There is just no point for rpm upstream to switch from one old thing to the new thing while everyone else is also switching. This just complicates stuff for everyone. T

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Change the shebang of pythondistdeps.py to Python 3 (#212)

Closed #212. -- 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/212#event-1082511411___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.o

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

First and last patch look good. Pushed. Thanks you very much! Wrt putting the --rpmfcdebug output to stdout: Can't you just redirect stderr for you use case? While stderr and stdout output is messed up in rpm the proposed patch really moves into the wrong direction. I am closing this PR for now.

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

Closed #216. -- 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/216#event-1087632114___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.o

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Warningsfixes (#191)

Closed #191. -- 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/191#event-1087640612___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.o

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Warningsfixes (#191)

Pushed first patch. 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/191#issuecomment-302381244___ Rpm-maint mailing list

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

Is this still going anywhere or can we close it? -- 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/173#issuecomment-302387209___ Rp

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Python macro improvements (#221)

Using print() looks fragile from a Python 2 vs Python 3 POV. -- 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/221#issuecomment-302966759__

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] File dependency generation regression (#224)

Closed #224 via dab75e7f26a08cc6798e4df177adb2dd8d40035c. -- 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/224#event-1103771647_

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Make the default DB backend macro configurable (#157)

Closed #157. -- 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/157#event-1104183049___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Make the default DB backend macro configurable (#157)

Pushed as e96fde89c6e0ac59da5cb22fa310235a9918aa7a -- 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/157#issuecomment-305188662__

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

Closed #213. -- 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#event-1128996573___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Spelling fixes (#241)

Thanks 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/241#issuecomment-311346533___ Rpm-maint mailing lis

<    8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   >