Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] elfdeps: Add full multiarch deps support (#1038)
@Conan-Kudo pushed 1 commit. fb305121ad7228b56f7b86ede47b021b99a573c9 elfdeps: Add full multiarch deps support -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1038/files/c78b58bd252ba07f1ea3f941e09a750d95103e7d..fb305121ad7228b56f7b86ede47b021b99a573c9 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] platform: Ensure empty buildroot for %install (#1039)
@Conan-Kudo pushed 1 commit. 46369dafd38c2c6240fb466bf8211333f3f66b4f platform: Ensure empty buildroot for %install -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1039/files/2b7dc2eca97364a38c426cf0374591129199bcaa..46369dafd38c2c6240fb466bf8211333f3f66b4f ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] platform: Ensure empty buildroot for %install (#1039)
@ffesti, @pmatilai I'm deeply confused... I don't understand why the rpmbuild runs in tests fail to be able to execute `/usr/bin/dirname`. Can you help? -- 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/1039#issuecomment-581171285___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] platform: Ensure empty buildroot for %install (#1039)
This change ensures that any existing buildroot contents are wiped and a fresh empty one is created for usage in %install. Variations of this exist in virtually every RPM-based Linux distribution for more than a decade. At this point, it is expected behavior everywhere and it is amazing that it has not yet been put in RPM itself until now... Credit goes to Michael Schroeder from openSUSE for the original work and Tom Calloway for the variant adapted for Fedora that is the basis for this change. You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1039 -- Commit Summary -- * platform: Ensure empty buildroot for %install -- File Changes -- M platform.in (10) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1039.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1039.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/1039 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] platform: Ensure empty buildroot for %install (#1039)
I've proposed this so that I can resolve [RhBug:1523826](https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1523826) in a cross-distribution manner. -- 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/1039#issuecomment-581157725___ 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 znver1 arches with 32-bit + 64-bit variants and proper CPU detection (#1035)
@ffesti Mainly because nothing else seemed to follow that convention? They all seemed to use the GCC machine architecture name, and so we went with that. -- 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/1035#issuecomment-581382498___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Small updates to the ARM macros (#1037)
@pmatilai I can fuse all three back into a single commit if you'd prefer (that's how it was done in OMV). I broke them apart in case there was something you'd want me to drop. -- 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/1037#issuecomment-581354393___ 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 architecture macro for all RISC-V processors (#1036)
@rwmjones In OpenMandriva, there was some interest in building the different variants (including 32-bit stuff), so for a bit of future-proofing, we've gone ahead and made the same architecture macro structure as ARM, MIPS, and POWER have to simplify future work. -- 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/1036#issuecomment-581356317___ 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 znver1 arches with 32-bit + 64-bit variants and proper CPU detection (#1035)
@pmatilai The addition of this new architecture name is because we need a way to declare incompatibility at the RPM level for CPUs that don't support it. This is pretty much the only way we can do it. When this was first being worked on, nobody seemed to think there was any better way to do this then, either. As for the assembler code Changing that to C would likely require introducing a library dependency to shift the assembler to something out of our purview. That's not to say that isn't necessarily a bad idea, but I don't have a good idea of what to pick and how it would work in RPM... -- 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/1035#issuecomment-581360784___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Small updates to the ARM macros (#1037)
I've melded the 32-bit ARM macro updates into one commit, as requested. -- 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/1037#issuecomment-581357952___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] elfdeps: Add full multiarch deps support (#1038)
@mlschroe This should be good to look at again. :) -- 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-581442623___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] elfdeps: Add full multiarch deps support (#1038)
@Conan-Kudo pushed 1 commit. f7ce837d5b6ed7663ce5774c6507fde6731436fe elfdeps: Add full multiarch deps support -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1038/files/b79056006456be9a923b2dc17c789f35fce2b3a8..f7ce837d5b6ed7663ce5774c6507fde6731436fe ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] elfdeps: Add full multiarch deps support (#1038)
@mlschroe I've added a default to enable biarch when neither option is set. -- 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-581414160___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] elfdeps: Add full multiarch deps support (#1038)
Conan-Kudo commented on this pull request. > + break; +case EM_MIPS: + elf_machine = "mips"; + break; +case EM_PPC: +case EM_PPC64: + elf_machine = "ppc"; + break; +case EM_S390: + elf_machine = "s390"; + break; +case EM_ARM: + if ((ehdr->e_flags | EF_ARM_ABI_FLOAT_HARD) == EF_ARM_ABI_FLOAT_HARD) + elf_machine = "armhfp"; + if ((ehdr->e_flags | EF_ARM_ABI_FLOAT_SOFT) == EF_ARM_ABI_FLOAT_SOFT) + elf_machine = "armsfp"; Oops, fixed! -- 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#discussion_r374101218___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] elfdeps: Add full multiarch deps support (#1038)
@Conan-Kudo pushed 1 commit. 7532c16153a793d516989f7b0cec622e85c10b33 elfdeps: Add full multiarch deps support -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1038/files/f7ce837d5b6ed7663ce5774c6507fde6731436fe..7532c16153a793d516989f7b0cec622e85c10b33 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] elfdeps: Add full multiarch deps support (#1038)
Conan-Kudo commented on this pull request. > + break; +case EM_MIPS: + elf_machine = "mips"; + break; +case EM_PPC: +case EM_PPC64: + elf_machine = "ppc"; + break; +case EM_S390: + elf_machine = "s390"; + break; +case EM_ARM: + if ((ehdr->e_flags | EF_ARM_ABI_FLOAT_HARD) == EF_ARM_ABI_FLOAT_HARD) + elf_machine = "armhfp"; + if ((ehdr->e_flags | EF_ARM_ABI_FLOAT_SOFT) == EF_ARM_ABI_FLOAT_SOFT) + elf_machine = "armsfp"; Fixed. -- 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#discussion_r374112255___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] platform: Ensure empty buildroot for %install (#1039)
@pmatilai @ffesti This doesn't seem to be working as intended. :( -- 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/1039#issuecomment-581445189___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] platform: Ensure empty buildroot for %install (#1039)
> since rpm >= 4.6, %{buildroot} is guaranteed to be defined to non-empty,
> non-"/" value so the tests are fairly redundant
The fact that SUSE continues to introduce those checks in _new_ stuff in
current versions of RPM makes me nervous about this property, so I kept the
safeguard in anyway.
--
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/1039#issuecomment-581384674___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] elfdeps: Add full multiarch deps support (#1038)
Conan-Kudo commented on this pull request. > + break; +case EM_MIPS: + elf_machine = "mips"; + break; +case EM_PPC: +case EM_PPC64: + elf_machine = "ppc"; + break; +case EM_S390: + elf_machine = "s390"; + break; +case EM_ARM: + if ((ehdr->e_flags | EF_ARM_ABI_FLOAT_HARD) == EF_ARM_ABI_FLOAT_HARD) + elf_machine = "armhfp"; + if ((ehdr->e_flags | EF_ARM_ABI_FLOAT_SOFT) == EF_ARM_ABI_FLOAT_SOFT) + elf_machine = "armsfp"; Erk, nope, that's no bueno: ``` tools/elfdeps.c:130:47: error: bitwise comparison always evaluates to false [-Werror=tautological-compare] 130 | if ((ehdr->e_flags & ~EF_ARM_ABI_FLOAT_HARD) == EF_ARM_ABI_FLOAT_HARD) | ^~ tools/elfdeps.c:132:47: error: bitwise comparison always evaluates to false [-Werror=tautological-compare] 132 | if ((ehdr->e_flags & ~EF_ARM_ABI_FLOAT_SOFT) == EF_ARM_ABI_FLOAT_SOFT) | ^~ ``` -- 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#discussion_r374110704___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] elfdeps: Add full multiarch deps support (#1038)
@Conan-Kudo pushed 1 commit. b79056006456be9a923b2dc17c789f35fce2b3a8 elfdeps: Add full multiarch deps support -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1038/files/5af676e833c61b294e3595bd50286aac07c3cb57..b79056006456be9a923b2dc17c789f35fce2b3a8 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] platform: Ensure empty buildroot for %install (#1039)
@Conan-Kudo pushed 1 commit. c730ef92f1fc746495663517e3ef6d92f348ea0f platform: Ensure empty buildroot for %install -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1039/files/c5f22b6a202285cb1780a509540acd0855e3fe9c..c730ef92f1fc746495663517e3ef6d92f348ea0f ___ 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 znver1 arches with 32-bit + 64-bit variants and proper CPU detection (#1035)
@mikhailnov I'm not going to add architectures nobody has... -- 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/1035#issuecomment-581179551___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] elfdeps: Add full multiarch deps support (#1038)
@mikhailnov what is e2k? -- 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-581179157___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Print all build errors and do not stop after the first error (#1020)
Conan-Kudo commented on this pull request.
> @@ -3107,7 +3107,7 @@ rpmRC processBinaryFiles(rpmSpec spec, rpmBuildPkgFlags
> pkgFlags,
int didInstall, int test)
{
Package pkg;
-rpmRC rc = RPMRC_OK;
+rpmRC res = RPMRC_OK;
I think it'd be better to restore it to `rc` and if that is something to clean
up later, it could be done in a separate commit in another PR.
--
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/1020#discussion_r372127289___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] platform: Ensure empty buildroot for %install (#1039)
I dropped the checking because I don't understand `%{expr:}` well enough to use
it yet, and your points make a lot of sense for dropping the checking anyway.
--
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/1039#issuecomment-582194539___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] platform: Ensure empty buildroot for %install (#1039)
Conan-Kudo commented on this pull request.
> @@ -67,6 +67,20 @@
#==
# Build policy macros.
#
+
+%__buildroot_clean %{__rm} -rf "%{buildroot}"} \
Oops.
--
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/1039#discussion_r375244622___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] platform: Ensure empty buildroot for %install (#1039)
Conan-Kudo commented on this pull request.
> @@ -67,6 +67,20 @@
#==
# Build policy macros.
#
+
+%__buildroot_clean %{__rm} -rf "%{buildroot}"} \
+%{__mkdir_p} "%{dirname:%{buildroot}}"\
+%{__mkdir} "%{buildroot}"\
+%{nil}
+
+#-
+# Expanded at beginning of %install scriptlet.
+#
+
+%__spec_install_pre %{___build_pre}\
+ %{?buildroot:%{?__buildroot_clean}}\
+%{nil}
+
#-
Fixed.
--
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/1039#discussion_r375244540___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] platform: Ensure empty buildroot for %install (#1039)
@Conan-Kudo pushed 1 commit. 147fbaf1fda2a9fd8c6dede8e8dc61406d7a20c9 platform: Ensure empty buildroot for %install -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1039/files/7058727cc87564bca7074a0d3a779f16a31a8e91..147fbaf1fda2a9fd8c6dede8e8dc61406d7a20c9 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Describe how to run single tests (#1051)
Conan-Kudo approved this pull request. -- 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/1051#pullrequestreview-353748707___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] platform: Ensure empty buildroot for %install (#1039)
Oh, I forgot about that... Lemme rework for that... -- 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/1039#issuecomment-581937258___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Process scriplets by dependency generators (#1033)
It is not possible to evaluate scriptlets for dependencies and pushing that back into rpm. Dependency generators work off of evaluating files to generate dependencies leveraging specific content. Scriptlets generally lack this information. Moreover, attempts to identify programs in shell scripts have been problematic. There was an attempt long ago to make `bash` generate RPM dependencies for shell scripts, but it didn't work very well, and the effort has been largely abandoned since. -- 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/1033#issuecomment-581942116___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] platform: Ensure empty buildroot for %install (#1039)
@pmatilai yay, I think I fixed it now. 浪 -- 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/1039#issuecomment-581882272___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] elfdeps: Add full multiarch deps support (#1038)
@Conan-Kudo pushed 1 commit. 17a2747565834832809d2ae53b739c9d94b9bca2 elfdeps: Add full multiarch deps support -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1038/files/7532c16153a793d516989f7b0cec622e85c10b33..17a2747565834832809d2ae53b739c9d94b9bca2 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Implement automatic conversion of the database (#1012)
Hmm, that's fair, and actually pretty much the reverse case of the problem I'm going to have now with openSUSE environments built on Fedora. -- 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/1012#issuecomment-580297616___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Print all build errors and do not stop after the first error (#1020)
Conan-Kudo commented on this pull request.
> @@ -3107,7 +3107,7 @@ rpmRC processBinaryFiles(rpmSpec spec, rpmBuildPkgFlags
> pkgFlags,
int didInstall, int test)
{
Package pkg;
-rpmRC rc = RPMRC_OK;
+rpmRC res = RPMRC_OK;
Maybe we should just filter out `/usr/lib/debug/*` lines from the script?
--
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/1020#discussion_r373016378___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Implement automatic conversion of the database (#1012)
@pmatilai My reading of this is that it only attempts a conversion if it can't _write_ in the target database format. So it seems to be narrowly scoped enough to not cause hell, while avoiding the nastiness of trying to do a database conversion on the fly. -- 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/1012#issuecomment-580282117___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Allow qualifiers like pre, post, preun, ... for weak dependencies, too (#1022)
@pmatilai My thought there is that if scriptlets do progressive enhancement (that is, they check for things and use if they're available), then this would be useful functionality for that. We used to have a number of those in Fedora, but these days I see them more with third party packages (such as the ones I do for `$DAYJOB`). -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1022#issuecomment-580286282___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Allow qualifiers like pre, post, preun, ... for weak dependencies, too (#1022)
I definitely can see use-cases for this with some of the stuff I do for `$DAYJOB`. For example, if an interpreter has multiple valid implementations, being able to use `Suggests(*)` would allow the solver to be told which one to prefer for that. Generally speaking, if we allow strong dependencies with qualifiers, we probably should allow the weak dependencies 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/1022#issuecomment-580280536___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Remove --sign from rpmbuild (#1027)
Conan-Kudo approved this pull request. -- 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/1027#pullrequestreview-350867595___ 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 znver1 arches with 32-bit + 64-bit variants and proper CPU detection (#1035)
At least in this case, all Ryzen generation 1 and newer CPUs will match on znver1, so I don't think that'd be a problem with this patch. But I take your point about the general approach of adding more architectures. I think it's probably something to explore on improving how we do this handling, but I think that's a greater refactor than I want to do for this particular architecture addition. -- 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/1035#issuecomment-588245410___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] update OCaml requires/provides to cover also cmx (#1070)
At this point in time, `rpm-extras` is set up to be a dumping ground. It's _not_ set up with any kind of quality things, any process of rationalization of scripts and such. Without that, we're just going to commit stuff in there that's not even going to work. For example, the ALT Linux brp scripts committed in there don't even work _anywhere_ because they rely on files that haven't existed in RPM for _years_. -- 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/1070#issuecomment-588180741___ 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 znver1 arches with 32-bit + 64-bit variants and proper CPU detection (#1035)
> This is a dangerous argument, as by this logic we're required to accept > anything at all that distros come up with. I am very much aware of this. But considering this is how we were told to implement this when we started this, I'm a little frustrated now that the approach isn't good enough anymore... > Oh, and I'm inclined to agree with @berolinux, provided (and required) > capabilities would probably be the more flexible route of looking at this all. Sure, but that _still_ doesn't help with architecture property for things like `%ifarch`/`%ifnarch` and other similar things. Ideally, we'd have virtual dependencies for all kinds of hardware things, so that we could do fancy things like kernel modules supplement hardware and auto-install, automatic proposals for enhanced packages when CPU has certain instructions, etc. -- 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/1035#issuecomment-588269451___ 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 znver1 arches with 32-bit + 64-bit variants and proper CPU detection (#1035)
> I'm just really, really weary and dubious about these architecture tweaks > because they're so bleeping arbitrary. I know, I don't particularly love it either, but RPM doesn't support defining arbitrary architectures and architecture filter mechanisms. Each architecture that people want to support needs to be added to RPM in a similar manner. > Why do we need znver when we didn't need btver? There was demand for an AMD Ryzen optimized variant because of the potential to provide seriously interesting performance advantages, and so OpenMandriva built one. We did consider doing [the same thing that Fedora proposed to x86_64](https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/x86-64_micro-architecture_update), but it was determined to be absolutely insane. At this point, this patch has existed since early 2018 and we haven't encountered issues with the architecture filtering in over a year. The Ryzen variant allows for a lot of instructions to improve performance on CPUs that we can guarantee all have them and allows us to retain compatibility on baseline x86_64 by retaining the same instruction set base there. > Just FWIW, I've grown particularly averse to architecture patches because in > the last few years, every single one of them has been nothing but a source of > controversy and grief. I know, and most of them recently have been my fault. I've become particularly averse to sending patches upstream related to architecture work in the distros I maintain rpm because of this... But this one is important enough that I _really_ want this in mainline rpm, since without it, it means regular rpm can't handle an entire distro set of packages... -- 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/1035#issuecomment-588230660___ 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 ability to calculate filedigests using Streebog-256 and Streebog-… (#1082)
Conan-Kudo requested changes on this pull request.
It's a good first start, just some initial nits...
> @@ -395,6 +395,7 @@ AC_SUBST(WITH_OPENSSL_LIB)
WITH_LIBGCRYPT_INCLUDE=
WITH_LIBGCRYPT_LIB=
if test "$with_crypto" = libgcrypt ; then
+ AC_DEFINE(WITH_LIBGCRYPT, 1, [Build with libgcrypt instead of nss3 support?])
Why the `instead of nss3 support?`? This could just be `Build with libgcrypt as
the crypto backend`.
> @@ -1229,6 +1229,17 @@ static const struct rpmlibProvides_s rpmlibProvides[]
> = {
{ "rpmlib(FileDigests)", "4.6.0-1",
(RPMSENSE_EQUAL),
N_("file digest algorithm is per package configurable") },
+#ifdef WITH_LIBGCRYPT
+/*
+ * As rpmlib(FileDigestsGOST12) is available only when RPM is built with
libcgrypt,
+ * to avoid other versions of RPM from misunderatanding hashes
+ * (see e.g. https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/959),
+ * require FileDigestsGOST12 separately
+ */
+{ "rpmlib(FileDigestsGOST12)", "4.16.0-1",
+ (RPMSENSE_RPMLIB|RPMSENSE_EQUAL),
+N_("file digest can be GOST R 34.11 2012 (STREEBOG256, STREEBOG512)") },
I'm not sure how to word this yet, but I don't like this wording much...
> @@ -266,6 +266,8 @@ typedef enum pgpHashAlgo_e {
PGPHASHALGO_SHA384 = 9, /*!< SHA384 */
PGPHASHALGO_SHA512 = 10, /*!< SHA512 */
PGPHASHALGO_SHA224 = 11, /*!< SHA224 */
+PGPHASHALGO_GOST12_256 = 100, /*!< GOST R 34.11-2012 256 */
+PGPHASHALGO_GOST12_512 = 101, /*!< GOST R 34.11-2012 512 */
Is there a reason we jump so many values?
--
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/1082#pullrequestreview-362355795___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] update OCaml requires/provides to cover also cmx (#1070)
Conan-Kudo requested changes on this pull request.
> +}
+#
+#
+usage() {
+echo >&2 "Usage: ${0##*/} -prov|-req [-f 'ocamlobjinfo cmd']"
+}
+#
+mode=
+ignore_implementation_a=()
+ignore_interface_a=()
+while test "$#" -gt 0
+do
+ : "${1}" "${2}"
+ case "${1}" in
+-prov) mode='prov' ;;
+-req) mode='req' ;;
Shouldn't this be something like the following?
```bash
-P|--provides) mode='prov' ;;
-R|--requires) mode='req' ;;
```
--
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/1070#pullrequestreview-359260050___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] First iteration of a 4.14.3 update release (#1078)
@mlschroe Are there patches SUSE has been backporting for SLE 15 that should be included in here for 4.14.3? -- 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/1078#issuecomment-590018118___ 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: Generators for license (#1073)
@ffesti there have been a few cases where I'd like to directly generate runtime dependencies from a specific file that doesn't necessarily get installed (like `Gemfile` for Rails apps...). -- 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/1073#issuecomment-590120805___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] update OCaml requires/provides to cover also cmx (#1070)
Conan-Kudo approved this pull request. -- 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/1070#pullrequestreview-359353949___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] PVS-Studio Analysis Results for RPM (#1052)
We used to have coverity scans running on rpm. We might want to see if we can get that restored... -- 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/1052#issuecomment-586618845___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] update OCaml requires/provides to cover also cmx (#1070)
@ignatenkobrain No, there's no reason to move it there. -- 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/1070#issuecomment-586574641___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] update OCaml requires/provides to cover also cmx (#1070)
Conan-Kudo commented on this pull request.
> +}
+#
+#
+usage() {
+echo >&2 "Usage: ${0##*/} -prov|-req [-f 'ocamlobjinfo cmd']"
+}
+#
+mode=
+ignore_implementation_a=()
+ignore_interface_a=()
+while test "$#" -gt 0
+do
+ : "${1}" "${2}"
+ case "${1}" in
+-prov) mode='prov' ;;
+-req) mode='req' ;;
Because people do directly run it when doing things like debugging or testing
them. And it's just _weird_ to ignore conventions for the parameterization of a
dep generator.
--
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/1070#discussion_r379822480___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] update OCaml requires/provides to cover also cmx (#1070)
@ignatenkobrain Three problems with it: 1. It would be regressive to current functionality for no good reason. 2. We don't have a way of distributing this in any kind of reasonable fashion through rpm-extras. 3. IMO, That's not what rpm-extras is for. It's for staging things to eventually integrate into rpm tree. -- 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/1070#issuecomment-586577952___ 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 znver1 arches with 32-bit + 64-bit variants and proper CPU detection (#1035)
Conan-Kudo commented on this pull request. > @@ -736,6 +736,16 @@ static rpmRC rpmPlatform(rpmrcCtx ctx, const char * > platform) } +# if defined(__linux__) && defined(__x86_64__) You're right, this was accidentally broken when I rebased it again... -- 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/1035#discussion_r380709287___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] update OCaml requires/provides to cover also cmx (#1070)
@ignatenkobrain This will be a crap situation to deal with in openSUSE, since it's going to be a pain to make openSUSE keep this stuff in place correctly. -- 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/1070#issuecomment-588178152___ 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 znver1 arches with 32-bit + 64-bit variants and proper CPU detection (#1035)
Conan-Kudo commented on this pull request. > @@ -736,6 +736,16 @@ static rpmRC rpmPlatform(rpmrcCtx ctx, const char * > platform) } +# if defined(__linux__) && defined(__x86_64__) Wait nope, there's a `cpuid()` implementation for i386 right below... -- 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/1035#discussion_r380710615___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpm4 can't sign rpm5 packages (#1002)
@fedya OpenMandriva 3.0 was rpm5, not rpm4. It isn't normally supported to sign rpm5 packages with rpm4. If it was working with OpenMandriva 4.0 with rpm 4.14, then that's a different story... -- 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/1002#issuecomment-572310856___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Python requires generator: Cannot chain different ops: or + with (#995)
The RPM Python API may provide a way to build such a tool that could be incorporated into [`rpmdevtools`](https://pagure.io/rpmdevtools), but there's currently no such tool. -- 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/995#issuecomment-573383820___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Upstream couple of Debian patches (#1006)
Conan-Kudo approved this pull request. -- 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/1006#pullrequestreview-341841785___ 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: %exclude should not permit files to bypass check-files and be omitted from all packages built from spec (#994)
My current guess on how this slips through is that files that are marked as excluded are still being passed to check-files, so it passes the check-files check. But my attempts at trying to make it _not_ do that seem to be in vain... :/ I at least have a test case to see if I fixed it, but so far, no dice. -- 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/994#issuecomment-576579553___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: Print Provides-Extra entries for Python packa… (#1014)
How did you come up with the notation? -- 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/1014#issuecomment-576748339___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: Print Provides-Extra entries for Python packa… (#1014)
Also, we have a chunk of unused logic for Extras in here... Do we want to do something 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/1014#issuecomment-576749555___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Trying to upstream debian patches: Do not use bashism for gettext (#984)
@KOLANICH I'd rather you use the Debian bug reference than the patch URL. We _have_ the patch, after all. -- 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/984#issuecomment-573002466___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] brp-compress: Handle zstd compressed man/info pages (#997)
Conan-Kudo approved this pull request. Code looks good and tests pass! :) -- 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/997#pullrequestreview-340946750___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Don't require signature header to be in single contiguous region part II (#1003)
Conan-Kudo approved this pull request. Confirmed that it fixed the issue after backporting in OMV and ROSA. -- 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/1003#pullrequestreview-340946647___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpm4 can't sign rpm5 packages (#1002)
@fedya Were you using rpm4 to sign six months ago? If so, what version and what distribution? -- 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/1002#issuecomment-572292086___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Python dist deps: Put bounded requirements into parenthesis (#996)
Conan-Kudo approved this pull request. -- 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/996#pullrequestreview-338018708___ 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 reading BDB without the library (#980)
> One possibility to handle the "conflict" might be making it an argument to > --enable-bdb (eg --enable-bdb=readonly), which then skips the other variants. > In that case it could technically be called "bdb" and avoid all the > "configured to blabla, using blabla" warnings from backend detection. I think this makes sense. If @mlschroe does this, then I'm happy to approve this 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/980#issuecomment-570711558___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Incorrect length of unknown filedigest algos (#959)
I just tried this on rpm 4.15.1 on Fedora 31, and it seems to still be broken in this manner? ``` $ rpm --version RPM version 4.15.1 $ rpm -qp --dump ./grep-3.3-3-rosa2019.0.i586.rpm warning: ./grep-3.3-3-rosa2019.0.i586.rpm: Header V4 DSA/SHA1 Signature, key ID c1c18146: NOKEY /bin/egrep 28 1574950717 aa4ae578ca2323caf35beab739f88ea5 0100755 root root 0 0 0 X ``` This is also present in the RPM 4.15.1 being used in ROSA 2019.1-dev: ``` [ngompa@localhost ~]$ podman run --rm -it quay.io/ngompa/rosa2019.1-rpm4 /bin/bash bash-4.4# dnf -y install wget ... bash-4.4# wget --content-disposition https://file-store.rosalinux.ru/download/948bd31596c572664b870a226f252e38707ad137 ... bash-4.4# rpm -qp --dump ./grep-3.3-3-rosa2019.0.i586.rpm /bin/egrep 28 1574950717 aa4ae578ca2323caf35beab739f88ea5 0100755 root root 0 0 0 X ... bash-4.4# rpm --version RPM version 4.15.1 bash-4.4# rpm -qi rpm Name: rpm Epoch : 2 Version : 4.15.1 Release : 0.2 DistTag : rosa2019.1 ... ``` -- 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/959#issuecomment-570790643___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Trying to upstream Debian patches: Use the Debian standard (and safe) mechanism of generating temporary files. (#987)
@pmatilai Original patch header information: ``` - vpkg-provides.sh, vpkg-provides2.sh: Use tempfile(1) for safe creation of all temporary files. Many changes and untested. These scripts do not work on linux anyway. -- Joey Hess Thu, 19 Dec 2002 00:31:10 -0500 ``` For what it's worth, I've seen the script used for getting rpm to be useful on UNIX systems so that rpm functions as a package manager when the core system isn't managed by it (e.g. AIX mainly). I have a variation of this script I use for macOS as well. -- 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/987#issuecomment-570158975___ 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 reading BDB without the library (#980)
> In other words, this is fewer lines than the BDB has source files. This is a wonderful and equally terrifying statistic. -- 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/980#issuecomment-570159789___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Trying to upstream debian patches: Do not use bashism for gettext (#984)
@KOLANICH That's really not the point. And webarchive systems do not necessarily have this indexed. The correct thing to do here would be to change the commit to have relevant information: ``` $ git commit --amend --author="Michal Čihař " --date="Tue, 30 Dec 2014 11:55:15 +0100" ``` With the following commit message: ``` Do not use bashism for gettext (DebBug:772404) There are no translations anyway... ``` -- 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/984#issuecomment-570160992___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Trying to upstream debian patches: Fix compilation on platforms without MAP_POPULATE (#985)
@KOLANICH Here's a suggestion: ``` $ git commit --amend --author="Michal Čihař " --date="Sat, 11 Nov 2017 14:27:10 +0100" ``` With the following commit message: ``` tools/sepdebugcrcfix: Conditionally use MAP_POPULATE with mmap() Not all architectures offer MAP_POPULATE. As MAP_POPULATE is only an optimization to improve performance, it is safe to drop it when it is unavailable. ``` -- 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/985#issuecomment-570163037___ 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 reading BDB without the library (#980)
@pmatilai I'm pretty sure I'm going to want this for transitioning OpenMandriva away from BDB. We're using db6 (even though I didn't want to...), and with the latest versions of DNF okay with non-BDB, I can finally start considering 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/980#issuecomment-570166601___ 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 reading BDB without the library (#980)
@pmatilai The code works surprisingly well for me (which is terrifying and awesome in itself), but I think I'd be more comfortable with this if it conflicted with the regular bdb backend option. -- 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/980#issuecomment-570175276___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Trying to upstream Debian patches: Use the Debian standard (and safe) mechanism of generating temporary files. (#987)
Also... It appears `mktemp(1)` does not exist on AIX, which might be why this script doesn't use it. Cf. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/10224921/how-to-create-a-temporary-file-with-portable-shell-in-a-secure-way -- 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/987#issuecomment-570161555___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Trying to upstream Debian patches: Use the Debian standard (and safe) mechanism of generating temporary files. (#987)
@KOLANICH The patch was created by @joeyh in 2002, per `debian/changelog`. -- 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/987#issuecomment-570185660___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpmconstant API should exist in librpm itself (#992)
Per the packaging description from Mageia: > rpmconstant provides basic functions to map internal RPM constant values > with their name. This is useful for perl/python or other language which has > binding over rpmlib. Based on that description and what the code _looks_ like it does, it allows a relatively trivial automatic mapping of internal values to their names (such as for RPMTAGs and other header properties). That said, the code for rpmconstant is not documented much, it's used as a component to support the perl-RPM4 binding module. -- 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/992#issuecomment-570192627___ 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: %exclude should not permit files to bypass check-files and be omitted from all packages built from spec (#994)
(as for why I'm filing this now... well, I forgot about this in the shuffle two years ago, and I was just reminded of this again today...) -- 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/994#issuecomment-570195212___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: %exclude should not permit files to bypass check-files and be omitted from all packages built from spec (#994)
As part of some of the work I've done in OpenMandriva in transitioning the RPM stack from rpm5.org to rpm.org RPM, I've discovered that there was an _interesting_ behavioral difference with `%exclude`. In rpm5.org RPM, `%exclude` does not give you a "get out of jail free" card to bypass the file list check. A file that is marked by `%exclude` in one subpackage but isn't included in any other subpackage triggers the unpackaged files error. This does not happen in rpm.org. RPM. I would argue that the rpm.org behavior is a bug, as there's not a particularly obvious reason for why it works this way. Moreover, it leads to accidental packaging bugs. Can we change this behavior for the upcoming RPM 4.16? -- 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/994___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpmconstant API should exist in librpm itself (#992)
Perhaps @soig could explain rpmconstant use-cases? He's the maintainer of rpmconstant and perl-RPM4... -- 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/992#issuecomment-570196990___ 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 reading BDB without the library (#980)
@mlschroe This should probably conflict with the option to enable the normal bdb backend. I see no reason for both to be enabled at the same time. -- 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/980#issuecomment-569008611___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Trying to upstream debian patches: Do not use bashism for gettext (#984)
@KOLANICH I'd rather have the link to the Debian patch file removed from the commit message. It's not particularly important... -- 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/984#issuecomment-569015987___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] fix zstd magic (#991)
Conan-Kudo approved this pull request. -- 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/991#pullrequestreview-336458025___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Berkeley DB not disabled with --disable-bdb (#983)
@stefanbidi Can you try with the current git master? This should be fixed now. -- 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/983#issuecomment-569014057___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpmconstant API should exist in librpm itself (#992)
Mageia (and Mandriva before it) has had a librpm extension library called [rpmconstant](https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpmconstant) for a long time now. I am not sure why this functionality does not exist in librpm itself, but it probably should. While I am not proposing the existing rpmconstant code gets merged in (unless we can get it relicensed to LGPLv2+ like the rest of librpm, this is probably a no-go), I think it makes sense that the API it offers is available as part of librpm, effectively obsoleting the rpmconstant project. -- 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/992___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpmconstant API should exist in librpm itself (#992)
The problem with "randomly" defined tags is that the lack of consistency means that RPMs can become incompatible with each other, simply by using the same spots in the rpm header for different purposes. I suppose if the tag names were discoverable from the header (e.g. with rpmconstant API), then this would be less of a problem, since we wouldn't rely on fixed addresses for tags in the enum... -- 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/992#issuecomment-569175195___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Trying to upstream debian patches: Delete some crap after running autogen. (#986)
This seems Debian specific? It also seems wholly unnecessary. This could probably be dropped downstream 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/986#issuecomment-568806313___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Trying to upstream debian patches: Verbose installplatform Just make installplatform to ease debugging problems with creatin platform files. (#988)
This patch doesn't make sense to upstream. It also should just probably be dropped downstream. -- 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/988#issuecomment-568806189___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Trying to upstream Debian patches: warning about non-native package manager (#989)
This has been forwarded before. We did this in a different form upstream with the "dummy" backend. Using that by default in Debian will "break" rpm as Debian wishes. -- 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/989#issuecomment-568806125___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Trying to upstream Debian patches: Use the Debian standard (and safe) mechanism of generating temporary files. (#987)
Why is this safe? And is this a universally available property? -- 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/987#issuecomment-568806276___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Trying to upstream debian patches: Fix compilation on platforms without MAP_POPULATE (#985)
I feel like this patch is just asking for trouble. Given that it touches the debuginfo generation code, I'm not terribly comfortable passing judgment here. -- 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/985#issuecomment-568806357___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Trying to upstream debian patches: Do not use bashism for gettext (#984)
It'd probably be better to use a POSIX sh-compatible way to use gettext instead of straight up dropping internationalization capability. -- 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/984#issuecomment-568806412___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] brp-compress: Handle zstd compressed man/info pages (#997)
@ignatenkobrain @pmatilai It seems like the tests are choking on `python` binary missing? ``` +/opt/rpm/tests/rpmtests.dir/at-groups/398/test-source: line 70: python: command not found ``` We probably need to request `/usr/bin/python` now... -- 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/997#issuecomment-571393168___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] brp-compress: Handle zstd compressed man/info pages (#997)
Conan-Kudo approved this pull request. -- 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/997#pullrequestreview-338989905___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Incorrect length of unknown filedigest algos (#959)
@pmatilai Hey! I thought 74766d30b95f1575df8a42d185f2643caa235a8b might have fixed it, since it sounded vaguely related! -- 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/959#issuecomment-571551273___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] brp-compress: Handle zstd compressed man/info pages (#997)
Welp! -- 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/997#issuecomment-571550507___ 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: Alternatives handled by RPM (#993)
I guess this would mean that it would be a transaction task to identify changes in alternatives and process them, similar to a transaction trigger? -- 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/993#issuecomment-569370610___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Rust bindings for librpm (#429)
> I guess the move isn't happening, and of course at this point it'd just break > all the links to the current repo. I added a link to Rust RPM from > http://rpm.org/software.html for added visibility. > Thanks for your work on the bindings! The bindings now live at https://github.com/rpm-software-management/librpm.rs -- 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/429#issuecomment-569425252___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Explicitly enable all our database backends in CI (#999)
Conan-Kudo approved this pull request. -- 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/999#pullrequestreview-339815518___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] elfdeps: Add full multiarch deps support (#1038)
I think I did okay in this PR avoiding many freak cases, though I definitely see your point about the broader architecture handling. -- 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-597671507___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
