Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add support for 'unless' rich dependencies (#314)
-- 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/314#issuecomment-327380034___ 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 support for 'unless' rich dependencies (#314)
Seems harmless enough to me so merged, but don't let that stop from creating testcases :) -- 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/314#issuecomment-327379400___ 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 support for 'unless' rich dependencies (#314)
Merged #314. -- 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/314#event-1236148181___ 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: add way to set macro for --nocheck in rpmbuild (#316)
BuildRequires(check) never did anything special, it was just a flaw in the spec parser that BuildRequires(whatever) was accepted. -- 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/316#issuecomment-327117606___ 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: add way to set macro for --nocheck in rpmbuild (#316)
@voxik actually when I was looking into #104 I had some similar idea for having `BuildRequires(prep)` which are basically needed to unpack archive and run some tool to get new BuildRequires. So it might be not that bad idea. -- 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/316#issuecomment-327106697___ 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: add way to set macro for --nocheck in rpmbuild (#316)
I remember people were using ```BuildRequires(check)``` until this syntax was prohibited (this might be hint for BZ query ) -- 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/316#issuecomment-327104884___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: add way to set macro for --nocheck in rpmbuild (#316)
currently when I pass `--nocheck` to `rpmbuild`, it just skips running check
section, but there is no way to know this from spec file. would be nice if rpm
would add some bcond for this, so packagers can do things like:
```
%if %{with check}
BuildRequires: xxx
%endif
```
or, do something like
```
%global _without_check 1
```
I remember that this was requested in RHBZ, but I can't find link (usual
situation for bugzillas)..
The problem which I hit that MBS can't pass any parameters to koji (and passing
them to mock is complicated in current code), so workaround was to put
`%__spec_check_pre exit 0` in macros file which I don't like.
--
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/316___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpm's doFoo function tends to expand twice (#313)
FWIW, %uncompress (and all the insane overhead in RPM to associate compressors/uncompressors with compressed files) is better dealt with by writing a meta-compressor in C that handles one well known set of options and Does The Right Thing. FYI: ZSTD will handle gzip/zlib, lzma/xz, and lz4 if/when enabled during build. Adding similar for bzip2 is not that much harder. -- 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/313#issuecomment-327081503___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
