This fixes a regression that was present since 4.18 that printed them out as
source/nosource packages as the headers are no proper binary packages. Setting
the default query to "%{NEVRA}\n" forces the right output.
Resolves: #2819
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
Merged #2994 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2994#event-12247138489
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mail
Thanks for the patch!
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2994#issuecomment-2019969771
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint mai
Still issue an warning for everything else. Now that comments are allowed again
may be we should issue an error for those cases.
Resolves: #829
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2996
-- Commit Summary --
* Al
Ok, I'll just use `%{?` for now. Removed the code duplication.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2990#issuecomment-2020412022
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
May be headerIsSource() should be more correct... I'll look into it
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2995#issuecomment-2020414787
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
@ffesti pushed 2 commits.
bdf3646be0b865bc221fdb7c3468a60208fc9c7c Make genSourceRpmName available
internally
9283c6e24ad9cdc017651de857b3b61ebaf211d5 Set SOURCERPM when querying SPEC files
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2995/files/0e124b4e571568aa89
I am open to allow comments elsewhere, too. This will probably require multiple
independent patches. This one is for conditionals. (Although I am fine to do
that in this PR)
I would not allow comments in the section contents per se. But basically allow
them for the native RPM parts and leave ev
Now to something completely different...
What about just setting the SOURCERPM tag for binary packages that are parsed
for querying? One could argue that we should move more of this kind of
initialization to the parse stage so we get a more complete result earlier. But
that is a crusade I am no
@ffesti pushed 1 commit.
51c3ab5c4232fa6798c3c3bb24ce279ce6ad82e1 Set SOURCERPM when querying SPEC files
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2995/files/9283c6e24ad9cdc017651de857b3b61ebaf211d5..51c3ab5c4232fa6798c3c3bb24ce279ce6ad82e1
You are receiving this
Done.
@dmnks: This needs to go into the compatibility notes of the 4.20 release.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2996#issuecomment-2022305618
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: _
@ffesti pushed 1 commit.
fc4c5ef5aaae4a0e360cde24c13647ef4ed8be16 Make junk after conditionals an error
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2996/files/6bbb6a39e662d32fa0876c3cafcb091509200c09..fc4c5ef5aaae4a0e360cde24c13647ef4ed8be16
You are receiving this
@ffesti commented on this pull request.
> @@ -246,8 +246,8 @@ static int expandMacrosInSpecBuf(rpmSpec spec, int strip)
if ((condition) && (!condition->withArgs)) {
const char *s = lbuf + condition->textLen;
SKIPSPACE(s);
- if (s[0])
- rpmlog(RPMLOG_WARNING,
Merged #2999 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2999#event-12264507348
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mail
OK, I looked into this and there are road blocks everywhere. Let's just stick
to the PR as is. I generally agree that this is not the way to do this but the
build code is an entangled mess and moving stuff round at this point is
something we just should not do.
Looking at all the hidden assumpt
Yeah, I already noticed and fixed psm.c and tagexts.c. There is still something
wrong with the test case or the code or both. I update the patch ass soon as
this works.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2990#issuecomment-20
Merged #3012 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3012#event-12338919518
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mail
Closed #2819 as completed via dc47a50c6345a25b861305d8aa8ae464098834ff.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2819#event-12338919876
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
__
Closed #2995.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2995#event-12338936477
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm
Merged #3012 instead
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2995#issuecomment-2034120680
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint mail
@ffesti pushed 2 commits.
1e4e9648b114131b8a872878ef8c5cc5739efaf9 Re-Word User / Group handling a bit
81acc230b3b7c84b519e4bca4aee13bdbf9952b2 Add support for sysusers group
membership lines
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2990/files/e96d496349e191e4
OK, fixed the issue in the code and made sure the test cases actually checks
for group membership. Added a bit to the docs and the commit message.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2990#issuecomment-2034875120
You are receiv
@ffesti pushed 1 commit.
8558a2c2bf06c4b89a4ea59b50cedb80b00c6d87 Add support for sysusers group
membership lines
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2990/files/81acc230b3b7c84b519e4bca4aee13bdbf9952b2..8558a2c2bf06c4b89a4ea59b50cedb80b00c6d87
You are rece
@ffesti pushed 1 commit.
c3ea56e308e81e83a55ffb1a5b4fe5bb4b6b7cad Add support for sysusers group
membership lines
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2990/files/8558a2c2bf06c4b89a4ea59b50cedb80b00c6d87..c3ea56e308e81e83a55ffb1a5b4fe5bb4b6b7cad
You are rece
@ffesti commented on this pull request.
> @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ directories, symlinks etc.
The file triggers are defined in spec files of packages. E.g. file trigger
executing `ldconfig` could be defined in glibc package.
-Similarly to regular triggers, file trigger scripts (except the
`%tran
[Pass arg2 (albeit -1) to transaction triggers
too](https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3018/commits/9a069b03ba6e51790aed5c19163e1b8658c1e71b)
should talk about "file triggers" in the commit message.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-so
While the code looks ok, I wonder if there is a better way to do this? We
should be able to add the debuginfo generation into `%__spec_install_pre`. This
was not possible in the past as you could not expand a package definition into
the `%install` section. But now we can just use the same route
Ok, the longer I look at this from up close the more head ache I get. May be
lets leave this as is
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3036#issuecomment-2056999071
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this
! This removes the %ifnarch noarch check. We need to find a solution for this
before merging (or decise it is just an optimization we don't really need)
All these years, enabling debuginfo has required distros to hijack the spec
%install section with a macro like this:
%install %{?_enable_d
An alternative implementation to #3036
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3040#issuecomment-2058639717
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm allows URLs as cli parameters. The files are then automatically
downloaded with %_urlhelper which defaults to curl(1). For far failures
have been ignored right away and error messages are generated later when
the file was not found on disk.
Issue a meaningful error message at least when the he
As we need to check all file lists we need to have them parsed - even if %build
and %install have not been run due to --short-circuit
Tested manually with #3040. There is fixes test 334.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management
This is a feature of the upcoming 4.20 release. This is not expected to work
with 4.19.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3038#issuecomment-2060808561
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Mes
Feel free to try out the alpha release at
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pmatilai/rpm-snapshot/package/rpm/ or
build it yourself from https://rpm.org/download.html
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3038#issuecomm
Closed #3038 as completed.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3038#event-12505232396
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint m
We welcome an automatic way to add these sort of dependencies automatically
without packagers needing to care. I don't have a deeper insight or strong
opinion whether these ELF entries are the best way of doing that. Having this
as part of the (C) code is probably a good idea if upstreams can be
LGTM but Michal is more familiar with the CI stuff.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3052#issuecomment-2069447923
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: __
@ffesti pushed 3 commits.
06cee54118433741010bc7349d96715da5345929 Keep _target_cpu after parsing
2e9d64a3df05efceee5bb35fd1c056d93c342d49 Enable debuginfo for all
341ac458c72f36aa07168195cacd4d082e51683f Upstream debuginfo enablement
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-mana
OK, the _target_cpu issue is now papered over and debuginfo is enabled through
the whole test suite. This should ow all works as expected (with the exception
of the --build-in_place stuff I dd not look at)
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-man
ooofff
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3059#issuecomment-2074462068
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-m
Merged #3059 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3059#event-12588517661
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mail
Closed #3056 as completed via #3059.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3056#event-12588517986
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
R
If the automatic creation of debuginfo packages is switched off via the
_enable_debug_packages macro don't touch debuginfo packages that are
declared in the spec file. If the packager created those on their own we should
not mess with them.
Resolves: #3057
You can view, comment on, or merge thi
This is currently missing a test case and is just based on reading the code.
@simo5: Can you provide a spec file for testing this?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3061#issuecomment-2075083377
You are receiving this because
Yes, this isn't a great solution. But it at least gives the user a fighting
chance of figuring out what's happening here. I agree we would want a better
solution but there currently just isn't a way to hand over the error code.
Adding a test case is easy if we decide we actually want to go this
Merged #3064 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3064#event-12624669625
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mail
Thanks for the fixes!
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3064#issuecomment-2079511897
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint mai
@ffesti commented on this pull request.
> return 1;
}
// We expect success now.
char *got = rpmhex(fp, fplen);
if (! got) {
fprintf(stderr, "%s: rpmhex failed\n", filename);
+ fclose(f);
This should probably also free(fp);
--
Reply to this email direc
@ffesti commented on this pull request.
> return 1;
}
if (!fpr || strcmp(got, fpr) != 0) {
fprintf(stderr, "%s:\n got '%s'\nexpected '%s'\n",
filename, got, fpr ? fpr : "");
free(got);
+ fclose(f);
This should probably also free(fp);
A far as I know this feature is not enabled in Fedora 40. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RPM-4.19#Scope
rpm-4.18.92-disable-sysusers.patch
```
iff -up rpm-4.18.92/macros.in.orig rpm-4.18.92/macros.in
--- rpm-4.18.92/macros.in.orig 2023-08-02 17:56:49.858065935
Yeah, this probably needs a discussion and Global Change in Fedora and an
additional change in the Packaging Guidelines. Those are not topics for
upstream. So I am closing this here. But fee free to ping me if you need help
on the Fedora side. We will also happily improve the documentation upstr
Closed #3073 as completed.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3073#event-12703577794
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint m
Guess this is how the %specpartsdir should have been created in the first
place.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3084#issuecomment-2106916674
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
Closed #3063 as completed via #3084.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3063#event-12783120658
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
R
Merged #3084 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3084#event-12783120373
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mail
This is even cleaner than my own variant. Great so see we got this to the point
where it can be done this cleanly.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3085#issuecomment-2106923789
You are receiving this because you are subscri
Release notes need to mention this and that distribution need to drop the
```
%install %{?_enable_debug_packages:%{?buildsubdir:%{debug_package}}}\
%%install\
%{nil}
```
hack in *-pm-config. So this probably needs to go into the "Compatibility"
section at least in parts.
--
Reply to this email d
Closed #1878 as completed via 8535694599ee7f35747d44e2ea0a62dc5e8880e5.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1878#event-12783522273
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
__
Merged #3085 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3085#event-12783521877
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mail
Closed #2204 as completed via #3085.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2204#event-12783522105
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
R
Closed #1878 as completed via #3085.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1878#event-12783522217
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
R
This is superseded by #3085 which solves is similarly but even a bit cleaner.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3040#issuecomment-2106981500
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: _
Closed #3040.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3040#event-12783537201
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm
I started a discussion on the Fedora devel list:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/de...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/IKWECWMBWN2IDKLHK3Q2TZKVSVFTXUNA/
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3073#issuecomment-21
This keeps the old behaviour of overriding the cookie. This may not me correct
as the code looks like it reads the cookie from the srpm when doing rpmbuild
--rebuild for the purpose of preserving it. Otoh the current behaviour with
overriding it even in this case has been around for years. This
Good to see someone is actually testing these kind of things!
This is kind of intentional. I guess I need to meditate a bit on how
intentional. The Summary being dynamic (aka determined during build) ofc means
it is not available during `rpmbuild -bs`. May be this is just the price to pay
- may
One way to make the SRPM "valid" is ofc just adding a dummy description (and
summary, ...). This won't make the difference between the `rpmbuild -bs` and
`rpmbuild -ba` SRPMs go away. Looks like all this dynamic stuff is not very
kind to the SRPMs - the dynamic BuildRequires are similar in natur
This looks a lot like the output of `dnf up`. Are you sure you are in the right
repository?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/3129#discussioncomment-9572960
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this th
Closed #3132 as completed.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3132#event-13009097697
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint m
Yeah, `rpm -i` needs file name as an argument. `rubygem-bundler` is a package
name but not a typical rpm package file name. Do you try to use an installer
like `dnf` which would download the newest version of the package for you?
Anyway. This is not a bug but expected behaviour. Closing.
--
R
Right now neither rpmbuild nor rpm verify that all the necessary tags are in a
package and they have the right content/length.
We need the means to define which tags are necessary for binary and source
packages, which tags need to have the same number of entry or need to go
together, if present
Generating mandatory tags dynamically has them missing in SRPMs if build with
rpmbuid -bs or such. To prevent this from happening check the source header
right after the initial parse rn of the spec file. This is more strict than
before relaxing this for dynamic spec feature as now errors can c
@ffesti commented on this pull request.
> @@ -2961,6 +2961,7 @@ RPMTEST_CLEANUP
# Check if dynamic spec generation works for main package, too
AT_SETUP([rpmbuild with dynamic spec generation for main package])
AT_KEYWORDS([build])
+AT_XFAIL_IF([test $RPM_XFAIL -ne 0])
Yes, this is intentiona
@ffesti commented on this pull request.
> @@ -2961,6 +2961,7 @@ RPMTEST_CLEANUP
# Check if dynamic spec generation works for main package, too
AT_SETUP([rpmbuild with dynamic spec generation for main package])
AT_KEYWORDS([build])
+AT_XFAIL_IF([test $RPM_XFAIL -ne 0])
Guess I should add a te
@ffesti pushed 2 commits.
fc27d4e547fba76bef1c14f9f9b9c98c678d4480 Adjust the tests to disallow dynamic
tags in SRPMs
6ff3348da8032b0746b5dcfdf739164a8245ed2a Check Source header for mandarory tags
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3158/files/8b034b1c52
@ffesti commented on this pull request.
> @@ -2961,6 +2961,7 @@ RPMTEST_CLEANUP
# Check if dynamic spec generation works for main package, too
AT_SETUP([rpmbuild with dynamic spec generation for main package])
AT_KEYWORDS([build])
+AT_XFAIL_IF([test $RPM_XFAIL -ne 0])
OK, added proper test c
@ffesti commented on this pull request.
> @@ -2983,6 +2986,24 @@ runroot rpm -ql
> /build/RPMS/noarch/dynamic-docs-1.0-1.noarch.rpm
[])
RPMTEST_CLEANUP
+# --
+# Check if dynamic spec generation works for main package, too
+# Check for failure as feature is disabl
@ffesti pushed 1 commit.
61ec6f5a5ebec61119337636bb8954d0040fcdbb Check Source header for mandarory tags
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3158/files/2537f7cd6cd95f6b6b1582015b9625b54514383c..61ec6f5a5ebec61119337636bb8954d0040fcdbb
You are receiving this
@ffesti commented on this pull request.
> @@ -2983,6 +2986,24 @@ runroot rpm -ql
> /build/RPMS/noarch/dynamic-docs-1.0-1.noarch.rpm
[])
RPMTEST_CLEANUP
+# --
+# Check if dynamic spec generation works for main package, too
+# Check for failure as feature is disabl
In the past handling signatures was done by the rpm / rpmbuild binaries
directly. When this functionality was split into rpmsign the man page was not
adjusted accoringly. This is the long overdue update.
Resolves: # 3125
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://
I left a few instances of "rpm" untouched as I feel they talk abut the whole
project. Please prove read not only the changes but also the unchanged parts.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3162#issuecomment-2163065594
You ar
Resolves: #3125
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3162#issuecomment-2163234407
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint mailing
Closed #3125 as completed.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3125#event-13133213938
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint m
Merged #3160 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3160#event-13133419484
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mail
Closed #3159 as completed via #3160.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3159#event-13133419763
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
R
Nice to see the good old string processing in C...
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3160#issuecomment-2163269725
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
@ffesti pushed 3 commits.
282642c957a9f4ce5133aa7b51127d76ef7dd3ba Add error messages for url helper
calls
0f24c01722041aa03f5391f44509e27f540da103 Add error messages for url helper
calls
d991ccade70d572e4562735ef9dc453c2c75e3bf Add test cases for missing and
failing url helper
--
View it
The second patch actually adds this more generic message. Added test cases for
both outputs.
This should probably be squashed into one commit. I left it separate as it was
not initially clear what cases we want to handle here. But it looks like this
should be it.
--
Reply to this email direct
Don' t think we do have an upstream ticket. At least I did not find one on a
quick search and I assume it would be linked here already if there was one.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3041#issuecomment-2167615058
You are
Here you go!
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3041#issuecomment-2167750916
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Otherwise these create warnings which fail the build if treated as errors.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3168
-- Commit Summary --
* Fix doc strings
-- File Changes --
M include/rpm/rpmkeyring.h (3)
Merged #3169 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3169#event-13184708760
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mail
The ZIP format has no notion of time zone, so timestamps are only meaningful if
it is known what time zone they were created in. Pass UTC to prevent time
stamps to depend on local time zone setting and make builds from sources in zip
files (more) reproducible.
Tested manually with Fedora's xz-j
Well, there only 4 archive types supported:
* zip
* 7zip which saves times in UTC
* Ruby gems which are tar archives
* tar
I'll not look into the tar format without a good reason ever again. So I assume
here it is fine - given that is it used in basically all packages.
Everything else is just
@ffesti pushed 2 commits.
91a5c32960eae4cfe334b773310fda8a4d62f48d Pass TZ=UTC to zip in rpmuncompress
1a0ec31c950b0122eb5d3f506c51652ffa637043 Free cmd for --dry-run too
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3170/files/4a1308ab6d559902d17e9afdb2057e6606885a
Turns out `rpmuncompress` does extract zip files even when not passing
`--extract`. Is this intentional or should this code path reject extract-able
formats?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3170#issuecomment-2173837536
Yo
Flag for the time zone handling is added. It seems like an awful lot of lines
changed for adding 7 characters to a command line. But whatever.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3170#issuecomment-2175466238
You are receiving
I guess this is very much intentional as the owner may send RPM to overwrite
random files otherwise. This is the very case we did re-write the fsm for.
This still needs to give a sane error message, giving the user a fighting
chance to find out what's the issue.
--
Reply to this email directly
@ffesti pushed 2 commits.
6768fb168f0b605990d2c55ed6f1b5b865efe0db Pass TZ=UTC to zip in rpmuncompress
bc669c5899384cf8a0b85a1d2d049dbe99ef95a8 Free cmd for --dry-run too
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3170/files/1a0ec31c950b0122eb5d3f506c51652ffa6370
@ffesti commented on this pull request.
> @@ -223,6 +223,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
if (dryrun) {
ec = EXIT_SUCCESS;
+ free(cmd);
Well, the memory sanitizer barfing all over the console wasn't that hard to
spot. Otherwise this would probably never bee
401 - 500 of 2048 matches
Mail list logo
