[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Possible to make DNF create damned package-config files for every installed package? (#1371)
Hi guys! Trying to build MPV player. Have to install manually many packages (which according to dnf are already present) just to create required .pc files. How to fix this? Or maybe it's a known problem? -- 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/1371___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] [RFE] Provide install time alternative to `%{?_isa}` (#1344)
> Should this work for different-arch builders as well? This seems to be different problem. Apparently there was soname bump in matio package on Sept 17. It seems that vips woudl deserve rebuilt -- 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/1344#issuecomment-697863463___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] pythondistdeps: Switch to importlib.metadata (#1317)
@hroncok commented on this pull request.
> else:
-dep_normalized_name = dep.key
+dep_normalized_name = dep.key.replace('_', '-')
Be careful with manual replaces for normalized names. There are two regexes
that this code supported before. The PEP 503 regex and the regex imported from
setuptools ([described in
here](https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/issues/1597)).
--
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/1317#discussion_r493384880___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] pythondistdeps: Switch to importlib.metadata (#1317)
@torsava commented on this pull request.
> -print('Conflicts:\t{} {} {}'.format(dep.key,
> '==', spec[1]))
+for dep in dist.requirements_for_extra(extra):
+for spec in dep.specifier:
+if spec.operator == '!=':
+print('Conflicts:\t{} {} {}'.format(dep.name,
'==', spec.version))
else:
-print('Requires:\t{} {} {}'.format(dep.key,
spec[0], spec[1]))
+print('Requires:\t{} {} {}'.format(dep.name,
spec.operator, spec.version))
@s-t-e-v-e-n-k Here you still use `dep.name` as a replacement for `dep.key`, is
there a reason?
--
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/1317#discussion_r493363804___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] pythondistdeps: Switch to importlib.metadata (#1317)
@torsava commented on this pull request.
> else:
-dep_normalized_name = dep.key
+dep_normalized_name = dep.key.replace('_', '-')
In my testing, the previous setuptools version already has underscores replaced
in the `key` property, so I would suggest doing it too.
--
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/1317#discussion_r493362675___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] pythondistdeps: Switch to importlib.metadata (#1317)
@torsava commented on this pull request.
> else:
-dep_normalized_name = dep.key
+dep_normalized_name = dep.key.replace('_', '-')
Why do you still do the `replace` here, but not in the other places where you
use `dep.key`? I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong, but I don't understand 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/1317#pullrequestreview-494464867___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] pythondistdeps: Switch to importlib.metadata (#1317)
@torsava commented on this pull request. > +if isdir(path): +path = dirname(path) +res = re.search(r"/python(?P\d+\.\d+)/", path) This breaks detection of Python version from the name of the egg-info file. And I think you misunderstood me, I wasn't doubting the usefulness of the variable, I was asking why do you do `dirname` at all. ```suggestion res = re.search(r"/python(?P\d+\.\d+)/", path) ``` -- 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/1317#pullrequestreview-494457340___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] [RFE] Provide install time alternative to `%{?_isa}` (#1344)
Well, it's only a binding, not having anything compiled. Should this work for different-arch builders as well? ``` DEBUG util.py:621: Error: DEBUG util.py:621: Problem: package ruby-libs-2.7.1-134.fc33.s390x requires libffi.so.6()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed DEBUG util.py:621:- conflicting requests DEBUG util.py:621:- nothing provides libmatio.so.9()(64bit) needed by vips-8.9.1-3.fc33.s390x ``` https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/7653/52077653/root.log -- 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/1344#issuecomment-697229449___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] file trigger quirks (#1370)
Trying to implement file triggers for mandoc to register and unregister man
pages in the whatis database I ran into some strange behavior. Note I can't use
transfiletrigger as zypp doesn't support that :(
- triggers are executed several times on upgrade and uninstall for the same
package (ie the package with the trigger itself)
- the argument is always zero. So the triggers cannot handle upgrades
differently.
- the triggers do not know the package a file belongs to. In case of mandoc
installation that would be helpful as it could then just rebuild the database
to speed things up instead of calling it on single files. Similar on erase it
would just do nothing and wait for rpm to remove the database later.
```
tw:/root # rpm -q rpm
rpm-4.15.1-7.2.x86_64
tw:/root # cat filetriggers.spec
Name: filetriggers
Version:1.0
Release:%{?rel}%{!?rel:1}
%define nvr %{name}-%{version}-%{release}
Summary:Testing file triggers
Group: testing
License:GPL
BuildArch: noarch
%description
%{summary}
%install
install -D -m 644 /dev/null %buildroot/usr/lib/foo/1
install -D -m 644 /dev/null %buildroot/usr/lib/foo/2
%filetriggerin -- /usr/lib/foo
echo "filetriggerin %{nvr}: $@"
cat > /dev/null
%filetriggerun -- /usr/lib/foo
echo "filetriggerun %{nvr}: $@"
cat > /dev/null
%preun
echo "preun %{nvr}: $@"
%files
/usr/lib/foo
/usr/lib/foo/1
/usr/lib/foo/2
tw:/root # for i in 1 2; do rpmbuild -bb filetriggers.spec --define "%rel $i";
done
[...]
tw:/root # cd /usr/src/packages/RPMS/noarch/
tw:/usr/src/packages/RPMS/noarch # rpm -U filetriggers-1.0-1.noarch.rpm
filetriggerin filetriggers-1.0-1: 0
tw:/usr/src/packages/RPMS/noarch # rpm -U filetriggers-1.0-2.noarch.rpm
filetriggerin filetriggers-1.0-1: 0
filetriggerin filetriggers-1.0-2: 0
filetriggerin filetriggers-1.0-2: 0
filetriggerun filetriggers-1.0-1: 0
preun filetriggers-1.0-1: 1
tw:/usr/src/packages/RPMS/noarch # rpm -e filetriggers
filetriggerun filetriggers-1.0-2: 0
filetriggerun filetriggers-1.0-2: 0
preun filetriggers-1.0-2: 0
```
--
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/1370___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Revert "Improve ARM detection" (#1369)
Shouldve been reverted as a part of reverting commits 0da3c50d1fa37945ba1b01975ecf2f62b51fb3cd and 8ab279ae6b3855fca5946dafd11c38e91adc9904 but got left behind and Fedora has been carrying this reversion as a patch since then (and other distros carrying others). This equally broken for everybody -state of ARM is good for nobody. Lets revert back to pre 4.15 state and back to the drawing board. This reverts commit 8c3a7b8fa92b49a811fe36b60857b12f5d7db8a8. You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1369 -- Commit Summary -- * Revert Improve ARM detection -- File Changes -- M lib/rpmrc.c (37) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1369.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1369.diff -- 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/1369 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add tag with %{NAME} of SRPM (#1364)
Sorry, I don't understand that question. Parsing NEVR is not a whole lot different or better from parsing SOURCERPM, because the latter is literally just NVR.[no]src.rpm (since epoch isn't there, it's actually easier to parse than NEVR). What would (IMO) make an actual difference is having (source) NEVR as separate components available, but it leads back to the point of the data not really belonging to binary packages in the first place. -- 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/1364#issuecomment-697179433___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] pythondistdeps: Switch to importlib.metadata (#1317)
This pull request **fixes 1 alert** when merging 8a5494c5d22b620a071b73d8b3dc31f495a7cdcd into 4cbdd7c94071f52dfe64466df80e859193d89d89 - [view on LGTM.com](https://lgtm.com/projects/g/rpm-software-management/rpm/rev/pr-8556ea7d2c7464263c5c35dacf6ac13c31779659) **fixed alerts:** * 1 for Module is imported more than once -- 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/1317#issuecomment-697163942___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
