Closed #924.
--
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/924#event-3005860957___
Rpm-maint mailing list
As mentioned above this got rejected already and things have not changed since.
We just can't change the way version comparison works as thousands of packages
rely on it and any change will break lots of them. Tilde and caret could only
be added as they were not allowed previously.
See
Ehmm, this is embarrassing...
Sorry, this PR has deserved a far earlier reaction .
While I see the use for a macro like this I doubt that the added cost of
packagers needing to be aware of it (at latest when encountering it in a spec
file) really outweighs the inconvenience of having to write
Closed #614.
--
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/614#event-3005903931___
Rpm-maint mailing list
As the code in the rpmio sub directory was split out of the lib sub dir
it is already under LGPL as code derived from the source code
in the
lib subdirectory according to the license. But not having the sub
directory
mentioned in the license confuses users and contributers.
So this change does
I tried that but didn't get it to work. I'd also like to swallow the other cli
arguments. Looks like the command is executed without a shell so what can be
done easily is limited.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on
This is actually a nice use case to look how to make spec files more
declarative and what road blocks are ahead. The main issue here is that there
are all those moving pieces and rpm is not great in having them all in random
order. Everything needs to go to the right place in the spec and so it
When splitting rpmsign from rpmbuild this command line parameter was kept
as an popt alias. But this limits what other parameter can be passed to
the rpmsign command in a difficult to understand way. In the end everyone
is better off using the rpmsign command directly.
Issue a error message
Although the new cli for rpmbuild is described in the rpmbuild man page the
feature is big enough that it deserves a article of its own.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Another interesting combination would be the new meta qualifier from #1028 to
allow keeping the weak deps out of the dependency mess. This would obviously
also be useful for reverse dependencies. May be even more than for forward ones.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1078
-- Commit Summary --
* Remove capabilities instead of setting empty caps via. --setcaps
* Add + use a bitmask for order-agnostic dependency types
* Add support for
As most of these changes are incorporated into the original PR I am closing
this one.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Closed #1066.
--
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/1066#event-3046235283___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Ok, looking at the history of flush_io and the potential to do more with it in
the future I think just keeping both of those macros is the way to go.
As auto detection for now is Linux only there is no perspective to get rid of
these macros and just always "do the right thing(tm)" as people with
Merged #1076 into master.
--
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/1076#event-3050657925___
Rpm-maint mailing list
This would require to query the rpmdb during build. I wonder what the
implications would be (except being pretty slow). I was worried about
bootstrapping at first but I guess we can just ignore files not found in the
rpmdb - or if there is no rpmdb found at all.
--
You are receiving this
I have been wondering what else we might want to generate automatically (from
the files). But looking through the tags I didn't find anything else (except
may be %changelog). Just noting here in case anyone else wonders.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Merged #1079 into master.
--
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/1079#event-3051739528___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Closed #1077 via #1079.
--
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/1077#event-3051739550___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Closed #582 via #1064.
--
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/582#event-3051477166___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Implementation otoh should be pretty straight forward. A simple if at
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/blob/master/lib/rpmfi.c#L995
that does `equal = 1; goto exit;` should do the trick. Passing in the option
without expanding the macro for every file may be a bit more complicated
Merged #1064 into master.
--
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/1064#event-3051477151___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Merged #949 into master.
--
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/949#event-3051531080___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Not a fan of the %__multiarch_deps macro tbh.
First it does not allow to completely switch to the new multiarch-deps whihc is
something distributions probably want to do at some point. So it does not
remove the need to eventually patch the .attr file.
The other question is whether there should
Otherwise this looks pretty reasonable.
--
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/1038#issuecomment-589081451___
Rpm-maint
Merged #1053 into master.
--
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/1053#event-3025934733___
Rpm-maint mailing list
This is a take on #949 as described in
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/949#issuecomment-580354653
Original Patch is rebased to have access to the new rpmMacroIsDefined()
function.
Patches should probably be squashed before merging. Keeped them separate to
make review easier.
> Do you have a case where the STRIP_TRAILINGSPACE thing actually makes a
> difference?
> As commit
> [b7d4277](https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/commit/b7d427728b8ba8734ba47d51849a5736bdd727cd)
> where readManifest() is added notes:
>
> > STRIP_TRAILINGSPACE is a bit misleading
Well, the question is whether we need minimize_writes and flush_io as separate
parameters. If we think we do there is really no less complicated option.
Adding a third switch really doesn't help. I'd rather set them both to
autodetect pre default and have people that really need something else
ffesti commented on this pull request.
> +spec->lineNum, name, poptStrerror(rc));
+ goto exit;
+}
+
+optCon = poptGetContext(NULL, argc, argv, optionsTable, 0);
+while ((arg = poptGetNextOpt(optCon)) > 0) {
+
+ char * filename = poptGetOptArg(optCon);
+
Yes, that's pretty much it. The finger printing code calculates a unique
identifier for each file's location. This is comprised out of the device id and
inode number of the parent dir and the filename. If the parent dir is not on
disk yet, the closest dir is used + the path down to the parent
Well, if some sub packages are only build conditionally some build requires may
also only be needed for this sub package. So having the BuildRequires right
there makes the spec file easier and avoids separate conditional sections in
the main package.
@socketpair Can you point out where exactly
ffesti commented on this pull request.
> @@ -736,6 +736,16 @@ static rpmRC rpmPlatform(rpmrcCtx ctx, const char *
> platform)
}
+# if defined(__linux__) && defined(__x86_64__)
Hmm, shouldn't the #if match up with the one around is_ryzen or be more general?
--
You are receiving
ffesti commented on this pull request.
> @@ -736,6 +736,16 @@ static rpmRC rpmPlatform(rpmrcCtx ctx, const char *
> platform)
}
+# if defined(__linux__) && defined(__x86_64__)
OK , there's a #if defined(__linux__) && defined(__i386__) branch just
below with its own
May be it is worth pointing out the auto detection in the macros file for both
%_minimize_writes and %_flush_io. May be with a sentence like "When running on
non-rotational disk only and the macro is not set this is done automatically".
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to
Oh, another use case for some new architecture detection and handling library.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Meh. I am still not a big fan of this solution, but we can still change the
defaults later on. It indeed seems unlikely someone won't ship the compat
Provides anytime soon.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
My 2cts: The current behaviour is right. I see not reason to make an exception
- neither for `Source:` and `Patch:` nor for `Name:`. Yes, this may break a few
packages. Those need to be fixed.
Overall the way of how macros are expanded could be made more clear in the
documentation. There are a
@ffesti pushed 1 commit.
1f7f8e413fdabbc1e45d2127b4d56dce27dbaf9c Bump version to 4.14.3 final
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
Merged #1184 into master.
--
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/1184#event-3250832051___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Backport two more patches to the 4.14.3 release for the selinux plugin
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1186
-- Commit Summary --
* Test for lsetxattr() presence, dont try building IMA plugin without it
*
Closed #1186.
--
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/1186#event-3251556100___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Arg, wrong place, please ignore.
--
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/1186#issuecomment-616526209___
Rpm-maint
size_t is unsigned, so returning -1 is not going to have the expected
behavior. Fix it to return ssize_t.
Signed-off-by: Jes Sorensen jsoren...@fb.com
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1188
-- Commit Summary --
Backport two more patches to the 4.14.3 release for the selinux plugin
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1187
-- Commit Summary --
* Use common error logic regardless of setexecfilecon() availability
*
Merged #1148 into master.
--
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/1148#event-3187921348___
Rpm-maint mailing list
@ffesti pushed 3 commits.
a58003116528a555e5bb0e6f58347fb0d0a7ca1e Set rpm-maint list as the CI
Dockerfile maintainer
f8017643152b4586501c61ee65f8b4f699551faa Hardwire the Fedora version used for
CI
d43d788fe610ad437ad55cc4972dd8025a37ab93 Run CI as parallel build to maximum
available CPUs
@ffesti pushed 1 commit.
a30a6b88c3932389785fe8f738cfb6d6225d2b22 Use make check instead of make
distcheck in CI
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
@ffesti pushed 1 commit.
abe76ce9b729cb58a77819050c26e8893a9f8167 Run CI as parallel build to maximum
available CPUs
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
@ffesti pushed 5 commits.
bda2ab8f474bbb1ff6e094e3d6d00bee7f26d025 Add a "ci" make target for easy local
running
e3022bf6efb437124930f972dff24f1b34355d48 Enable all our configure options
during distcheck for maximum coverage
117d4f8a2e5d47eba59d8942b6a8c41fef7b9a8d Don't allow test-suite
Merged #1145 into master.
--
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/1145#event-3177397915___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Thanks for the patches and having a close look at the alpha!
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Merged #1143 into master.
--
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/1143#event-3177469691___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Needs to be looked at when re-doing the architecture handling.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
This is a valid use case. But I dislike the idea of adding a new tag for this.
I'd rather like to see something that is closer to the hack without its
drawbacks
`Source1: https://foo.bar/baz -> ba-1.2.tgz` or
`Source1: https://foo.bar/baz : ba-1.2.tgz`
--
You are receiving this because you
Merged #1136 into master.
--
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/1136#event-3163284116___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Having a separate repo here is actually not a compromise but IMHO the preferred
option. rpm-extras was thought more as an interim solution for scripts that
don't have a large enough contributor base to be projects on their own.
Even better if people from multiple distributions can share the
RPM 4.14.3 final is out.
The release has two more fixes added that silence the error messages on
systems not supporting selinux.
Full details and download info at:
https://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.14.3
On behalf of the rpm-team,
Florian
On 3/26/20 11:34 AM, Panu Matilainen
They should also be in some man page. Some probably with a bit longer
explanation than the popt help text.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Signed 32 bit integers run out of space 2038 for unix time. As RPM uses
unsigned ints for all tags that should not be a problem.We still need to check
that there are no signed 32 bit ints used anywhere near date and time handling
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this
As signed 32 bit unix time is running out 2038 we should move all APIs dealing
with time to 64 bit. At some point we also need to add new 64 bit tags - either
in addition or by breaking compatibility and moving to 64 bit integer tags in
general.
--
You are receiving this because you are
Several scripts have already received attention this way. LEt's make sure we
didn't missed anything worth optimizing.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
--
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/1223___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
To give automatic sub packages more leeway to deal with files there needs to be
a way to "steal" files from other packages, so files can end up in different
packages depending on which sub package actually get created.
For those cases it is not desired to have the files in more than one package.
Right now there is no way to acess previously declared packages and their
attributes from within the spec file. Automatic package generation may need to
know what packages are there already to take them into account.
Note: This does not (yet) include a way to actually alter those packages.
--
File attributes are a powerful way of dealing with files. Unfortunately the
file classification is not available in %files. As they emerged from the
dependency generator code they are only executed after the %file lists are
turned into real files.
While dependency generator probably need to
Also check the cpio payload format for issues.
--
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/1228#issuecomment-630636191___
Well, normally rpm saves the new file to disk first and then moves it over the
old file. So it actually does need this space.
The latest version has some optimization for SSDs where files that are
unchanged are only checksummed. This may be why you don't see an error message
here.
--
You are
Another option would be having special operators. But this is also confusion as
we use the normal `<`, `>`, ... in dependencies. I also don't have a good
suggestion. `%if %{php_version} ver>= "1.2.3"` looks weird, too. But may be
someone has an better idea.
--
You are receiving this because
Looking at this there are a couple of separate issues. I wonder if the reason
this has not been getting anywhere has been that we try to solve all these
different things at once. May be we should split this into separate features
and just start with one - solving only a few - but at least a few
The new tags need to be added in tests/rpmgeneral.at. The change trips up a few
more test cases:
https://semaphoreci.com/rpm-ecosystem/rpm/branches/pull-request-1116/builds/3 >
view more > open "Fedora Latest" at very bottom > open "docker run -t rpm" >
scroll to the very end - or run the test
Looks like `lib/backend/lmdb.c` needs to be removed from `po/POTFILES.in`
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Also +1 on the decision. I wonder if it is worth announcing it a bit more
widely (rpm-list) in case some people(tm) are actually using it.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Looks like this is fixed in #951
Please re-open if there are still issues left.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Closed #612.
--
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/612#event-3149251820___
Rpm-maint mailing list
This may actually go into the depsolving layer. This is how it was/is done in
zypper/libzypp as far as I know. May be libsolv already has parts of this
implemented.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@ffesti pushed 3 commits.
96f75d58e5c8855af4583a69a1fa67b3bdbbacbc Use python2 as the python binary name
0c5940ef1859ea9bbb32781825d8771a2bba2d02 Unbreak testsuite from unversioned
obsoletes warnings
966ac68a35fb1d69a7684904844525b8e49bcae9 Move version to 4.14.3-rc1
--
You are receiving
@ffesti pushed 1 commit.
48ee0c3ad781e2686cbc3cca5341443322cb3e5f Add python2-devel to CI root
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
@ffesti pushed 2 commits.
f5464cd88bbd6ce6315d4081953382fa6dc3c84b CI Dockerfile: Move copy command to a
later time
a2576ab6fe8676cd9b15a3836590069b21d80713 CI: enbale Python bindings
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
Merged #1135 into master.
--
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/1135#event-3159498632___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Closed #418.
--
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/418#event-3159785228___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Well, this may be technically a regression. But these packages can no longer be
created for quite some time. So we are not adding support for them back now.
Sorry.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Closed #581.
--
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/581#event-3159838486___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Looks like successor the the PR above got merged into redhat-rpm-config.
Closing.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Closed #395.
--
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/395#event-3160176246___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Or drop the support for old style debuginfo packages...
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Sorry for not being more helpful but we as rpm upstream does not really know
what is best for Python packaging. So any solution that works for the Python
packaging community is fine with us. Closing.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email
The issue here is that we do not actually want a weak dependency. The build
should not depend on some package availability in the direct sense. We probably
want to bind the dependency to something more robust.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this
Closed #566.
--
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/566#event-3160165222___
Rpm-maint mailing list
We really don't want to get into the business of string formatting and text
layout. Closing.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Merged #1387 into master.
--
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/1387#event-3871056091___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Merged #1356 into master.
--
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/1356#event-3871084254___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Closed #1217 via #1233.
--
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/1217#event-3377935109___
Rpm-maint mailing list
This looks good (only looking at the last three - parser related - patches).
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Closed #561 via #1221.
--
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/561#event-3377826209___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Merged #1221 into master.
--
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/1221#event-3377826189___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Closed #897 via a1d2722c4a88a49008daa58653c9c5ebf9344d63.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Merged #1233 into master.
--
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/1233#event-3377935097___
Rpm-maint mailing list
@ffesti pushed 1 commit.
9b1a24a921f281747eb475276a3693471ee2b0b1 Add suppport for %postbuild spec
section
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
Merged #1243 into master.
--
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/1243#event-3381787330___
Rpm-maint mailing list
601 - 700 of 1575 matches
Mail list logo
