Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Missing concise descriptions for rpm header tags (#1319)
Closed #1319. -- 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/1319#event-3653848372___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] RPM 4.16.0 beta3 released!
Le mer. 24 juin 2020 à 10:47, Panu Matilainen a écrit : > > > This fixes multiple dependency generator related regressions introduced > beta2, by reverting the "fail build on dependency generator failure" > change introduced there. > > We don't usually release new tarballs just because an issue was found in > a beta, but since beta2 was released to address just this type of issues > in beta1 already... And is this wasn't enough, I managed to upload a > wrong tarball to the website momentarily, so if you were hasty enough to > download the beta3 tarball before this announcement email, make sure you > have the one whose sha256sum is > e6196fac6adcc13ca39699627a1cfc99c79c0beb9acca8c4d065b6cc9d50471c > > Sigh, this is what you get for breaking tradition. Shouldn't it be time to do a RC release and planning for 4.16.0 GA? See you ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Unexpected behavior when using -q --queryformat in %pre scriplet (#1331)
Thank you, and sorry for wrong bug report. -- 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/1331#issuecomment-673523429___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Unexpected behavior when using -q --queryformat in %pre scriplet (#1331)
Closed #1331. -- 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/1331#event-3652419234___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Unexpected behavior when using -q --queryformat in %pre scriplet (#1331)
`%{VERSION}` is replaced within the spec file itself. You need to use
`%%{VERSION}` to avoid expanding the macro right away.
As you already said this is probably a really bad idea anyway. RPM actually
does backup modified config files on it's own if they are tagged as config
files in the package. Do things like this in a %pre script should not be
necessary for all but very exotic cases.
--
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/1331#issuecomment-673521234___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Unexpected behavior when using -q --queryformat in %pre scriplet (#1331)
I need to backup some conf files of my package during upgrade into directory
called e.g `/mypackage-`.
So I'm trying to get old package version in `%pre` scriplet and doing it in the
following way:
```
%pre
VERS=$(rpm --queryformat='%{VERSION}' -q mypackage)
VERS_ALTERNATIVE=$(rpm -qi mypackage | awk -F': ' '/Version/ {print $2}')
```
And the strange thing is that `VERS` variable got version of the package that
I'm upgrading to (newer), while value of `VERS_ALTERNATIVE` contains version of
the package that I'm upgrading from (older).
I'm do realize that invoking `rpm -q` in RPM scirplets is not the best idea,
but anyway for me seems like this behavior is some kind of bug, as I suppose
that in all cases result of `rpm -qi` and `rpm --queryformat` should output
similar information.
I got this in CentOS 8 with RPM version 4.14.2. Same problem in CentOS 7.
--
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/1331___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Work around buggy signature region preventing resigning (RhBug:1851508) (#1330)
Merged #1330 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/1330#event-3652177653___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Work around buggy signature region preventing resigning (RhBug:1851508) (#1330)
Various proprietary packages in the wild have subtly malformed data in the signature header, in particular wrt the immutable region size, presumably from using some in-house/3rd party signing tools which do not understand the immutable region business at all. This can prevent resigning and signature deletion on such packages due to the more thorough checking that rpmsign does. As the old wisdom goes, be liberal in what you accept... we can easily work around the crud by just taking a fresh copy of the contents that are legit as such (otherwise the package would be uninstallable). You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1330 -- Commit Summary -- * Work around buggy signature region preventing resigning (RhBug:1851508) -- File Changes -- M sign/rpmgensig.c (12) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1330.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1330.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/1330 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpmdb --exportdb needs write access to the lock file (#1266)
I agree --exportdb should work on read-only fs. Unprivileged user is a different matter, we can't really let unprivileged user to block system updates through ro-locking. -- 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/1266#issuecomment-673395349___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Missing concise descriptions for rpm header tags (#1319)
Like said, rpm has some support for packaging policies BUT nothing inside or outside rpm actually uses that data. So for all practical purposes, rpm has no special support for packaging policies, hence the Fedora style packaging. The partial support is a leftover from attempted policy support, which might some day be reimplemented in a different way, but there are no actual plans to do so. -- 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/1319#issuecomment-673392751___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Missing concise descriptions for rpm header tags (#1319)
The only meaningful reference I could find on packaging policies is
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SELinux_Independent_Policy
Looking at memcached, the policy file is simply packaged as a sub-package of
the actual package
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/memcached/blob/6e70f59bdad0ba4cc1a1a7e5abc237d2e2f1c13a/f/memcached.spec#_120
with a bunch of `pre` and `post` actions.
But there is also an additional explicit dependency on the selinux sub-package
declared, `Requires: (%{name}-selinux if selinux-policy-targeted)` which poses
the question, what purpose does the header really have?
Is any of those headers actually being used in practice
I really appreciate getting a few answers to my questions, thanks! :+1:
--
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/1319#issuecomment-673386624___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] debugedit: Implement DWARF-5. (#1329)
podman fails for me but I will try some `make check` in some VM next time; I did not want to spend time fixing local check: `* "localhost/fedora:32": Error initializing source docker://localhost/fedora:32: error pinging docker registry localhost: Get "https://localhost/v2/": x509: certificate has expired or is not yet valid: current time 2020-08-13T07:43:19Z is after 2019-07-02T01:10:14Z ` -- 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/1329#issuecomment-673319499___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] debugedit: Implement DWARF-5. (#1329)
Just FYI, you can run the CI locally (podman required) with: `make ci` Also it's okay to submit a work-in-progress PR that is not for merging yet, just add BLOCKED label to it, that tells others not to bother with 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/1329#issuecomment-673310592___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] debugedit: Implement DWARF-5. (#1329)
Closed #1329. -- 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/1329#event-3650665257___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Missing concise descriptions for rpm header tags (#1319)
In other words, it simply means that rpm doesn't actually *do* anything with it. The only thing rpm does with SELinux is that on install, it queries the system policy for correct file contexts. -- 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/1319#issuecomment-673282790___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
