Re: Enabling RPM based sysuser handling

On 5/11/24 12:56, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 01:28:07PM +0200, Florian Festi wrote: >> Anyone interested in picking this up? I remember quite a few people >> being exited about this when it was announced with the rpm-4.19 Change. > >

Re: Mass Package Change: Turn deprecated %patchN syntax into %patch -PN

On 5/11/24 01:04, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > Florian Festi wrote: >> We have an even easier solution for you: You can just run the script at >> [3] with -n on your own spec files to get them changed to the %patch N >> variant. If you do that right now th

Re: Mass Package Change: Turn deprecated %patchN syntax into %patch -PN

after the change. We are using this variant so spec files continue to work on older distributions and the chance of breakage is minimized. This way packagers that don't care don't have to. Florian > Dne 06. 05. 24 v 13:56 Florian Festi napsal(a): >> Hi everyone, >> >> RPM

Enabling RPM based sysuser handling

Hi everyone! RPM 4.19 added automatic sysuser handling [1]. In Fedora 39 this feature was not enabled right away [2] as it requires some care to properly transition to it. Also going back to 4.18 was technically still the fallback option during this change. I just noticed in an issue in the RPM

Re: Mass Package Change: Turn deprecated %patchN syntax into %patch -PN

On 5/8/24 00:49, Omair Majid wrote: > Hi, > > Florian Festi writes: > >> If anyone has any objections or would like to exclude a package, please >> let me know. > > Could you please exclude the .NET packages (dotnet6.0, dotnet7.0, > dotnet8.0)? dotnet8.0 sho

Mass Package Change: Turn deprecated %patchN syntax into %patch -PN

Hi everyone, RPM has deprecated the %patchN syntax in favor of %patch -PN where N is the patch number for a year now. See the RPM documentation for more information [1]. In current RPM versions, this syntax only emits a deprecation warning, but support for this syntax has been removed completely

Re: Towards enabling rpm sysusers integration

On 6/29/23 09:55, Panu Matilainen wrote: > The rpm integration doesn't technically require systemd-sysusers, we can > write a script that calls useradd/groupadd instead. So for us it becomes > a choice between writing that script or adding audit support to > systemd-sysusers. Writing a script

Re: Flock CFP: Language SIGs discussion

This is great to see! The issue of lack of coordination and collaboration between the language SIGs also came up in my workshop on DevConf [1]. Having them share more code/macros and spec file idioms would make packaging as a whole easier. Not re-inventing solutions for the same or at least

Re: F39 proposal: RPM 4.19 (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 4/3/23 08:04, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Florian Festi: > >> On 3/31/23 15:40, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 3:42 PM Ben Cotton wrote: >>>> >>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RPM-4.19 >>> >>

Re: F39 proposal: RPM 4.19 (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 3/31/23 15:40, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 3:42 PM Ben Cotton wrote: >> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RPM-4.19 > >> == Detailed Description == >> RPM 4.19 contains various improvements over previous versions. Many of >> them are internal in nature such as

Re: %patchN deprecated?

On 3/29/23 10:31, Michael J Gruber wrote: > Has `%patchN` been deprecated in favour of `%patch N`? Yes, see %patch section on https://rpm-software-management.github.io/rpm/manual/spec.html > I got a push by a proven packager to one of the packages which I maintain, > commit subject and

Re: valgrind on Fedora

On 1/16/23 07:10, Gordon Messmer wrote: > Does anyone have any hints for improving the information I get from > valgrind? Have you installed the debuginfo packages for the packages involved? See man debuginfo-install Florian ___ devel mailing list --

Re: rpmbuild is very slow with large files

On 7/12/22 11:02, Marius Schwarz wrote: > Am 12.07.22 um 10:55 schrieb Marius Schwarz: >> >> The rpmbuild process for this one rpm was single thread. With a >> lsof-loop,  I could see "bytes" getting attached to the resulting file >> with an awful slow progression rate. Which is very frustrating

Re: F35 Change: Restart User Services after Upgrade (very-very-very late System-Wide Change proposal)

On 7/29/21 11:51 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 09:37:53AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 07:04:03PM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote: >> So... personally I think we should restart many more things than >> we currently do. Even in systemd

Re: Strange rpmbuild begaveour

On 7/5/20 2:21 PM, TI_Eugene wrote: > Two builds for tests: > 1. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=46635276 > 2. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=46635342 > > The deferrence between them - libraries permissions. > > Problems are: > 1. %{make_install} installs

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Let's standardize the way to disable tests during RPM build?

May be https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1256 does the trick. Comments welcome! Florian On 6/5/20 4:39 PM, Igor Raits wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 16:10 +0200, Tomas Orsava wrote: >> Hi, >> I think it would be useful to

Re: Automating R package dependencies

It would be really great to have a proper upstream repository for these scripts so they don't just live inside of distgit. They could have their own repository in https://github.com/rpm-software-management or could be placed in https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm-extras. What ever you

Re: F24 System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat

On 01/14/2016 01:08 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > Yup - I'm curious about this as well. Using sqlite [for example] > would solve the libguestfs issues I outlined in this thread, as well > as using a format which is robust and proven rather than some > half-baked homebrew thing. Well, we

Re: F24 System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat

On 01/13/2016 04:04 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 01:30:59PM +, Richard Hughes wrote: >> On 13 January 2016 at 13:13, Reindl Harald wrote: >>> so there is no justification to declare one need to install from scratch >>> just because rpm which

Re: F24 System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat

On 01/16/2016 02:33 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Daniel P. Berrange wrote: >> Well the feature writeup is rather fuzzy on this. It says that in Fedora >> 24 rpm will be able to read both old and new format, but it also says >> that future RPM versions will drop support for the old format. So unless

Re: F24 System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat

On 01/29/2016 05:02 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 04:53:08PM +0100, Florian Festi wrote: >> On 01/13/2016 03:07 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >>> >>> Say, for example, that Fedora 24 moves to the new format. Will Fedora 34 >>> be

Re: F24 System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat

On 01/29/2016 05:15 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > On Monday, January 11, 2016 03:46:27 PM Jan Kurik wrote: >> = Proposed System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat = >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NewRpmDBFormat >> >> Change owner(s): >> * Flo

Re: F24 System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat

On 01/13/2016 03:07 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > Say, for example, that Fedora 24 moves to the new format. Will Fedora 34 > be able to read Fedora 24 RPM databases? Fedora 25 will. Fedora 34 will probably not. If it turns out that reading 10 releases old database is really, really

Re: F24 System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat

On 01/11/2016 05:26 PM, Kalev Lember wrote: > On 01/11/2016 03:46 PM, Jan Kurik wrote: >> = Proposed System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat = >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NewRpmDBFormat >> >> Change owner(s): >> * Florian

Re: F24 System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat

On 01/13/2016 02:36 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 13.01.2016 um 14:30 schrieb Richard Hughes: >> On 13 January 2016 at 13:13, Reindl Harald >> wrote: >>> so there is no justification to declare one need to install from scratch >>> just because rpm which works for

Re: F24 System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat

On 01/11/2016 03:57 PM, Dan Horák wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 15:46:27 +0100 > Jan Kurik <jku...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> = Proposed System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat = >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NewRpmDBFormat >> >&

Re: F24 System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat

On 01/11/2016 09:06 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 03:46:27PM +0100, Jan Kurik wrote: >> = Proposed System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat = >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NewRpmDBFormat > > Details of the format? > > What forward and backward

Re: F24 System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat

On 01/11/2016 05:08 PM, Colin Walters wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 09:46 AM, Jan Kurik wrote: >> = Proposed System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat = >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NewRpmDBFormat > > It'd be interesting to know the technical details, worth

Re: building conflicting packages from a single spec

On 11/18/2015 04:26 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote: > Is $subject possible? > > For example generating subpackages like: > %{name}-small-but-slow-binaries > %{name}-fast-but-big-binaries > > I can %prep and %install into separate areas, > though was then wondering how to adjust > the buildroot for

Re: Ownership of /usr/lib/rpm/fileattrs

On 10/16/2015 11:06 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote: > Various packages now install files into /usr/lib/rpm/fileattrs for use when > building rpms. Currently that directory is owned by: > > rpm-build-4.13.0-0.rc1.4.fc23.x86_64 > javapackages-tools-4.6.0-6.fc23.noarch > > Of the various packages on my

Re: Update to rpm-4.13.0 in F23

It is in testing now as https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-15193. Sorry for being that late but there have been several issues holding it back. Special thanks to Kalev and everyone who took take of Bodhi to get this out. Florian -- Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com/

Update to rpm-4.13.0 in F23

Hi! I plan to update rpm in F23. The alpha has been in rawhide for some weeks [1] with the latest release candidate being there since 2nd of September[2]. Main reason is to help adopting new features (e.g. [3]) in the F24 and F25 time frame as this gets the new version to be builders one release

rpm-4.13.0-rc1 in rawhide

I just pushed the first release candidate for RPM rpm-4.13.0 into rawhide. It now comes with the final syntax for rich dependencies. Also we merged support for file signatures in the security.ima xattr and some smaller fixes. See

Re: F23 System Wide Change: Glibc locale subpackaging

On 06/22/2015 12:16 PM, Jan Kurik wrote: = Proposed System Wide Change: Glibc locale subpackaging = We have to revisit this topic as soon as rich dependencies are in place. Rich dependencies offer a way to handle locales on a system wide level. One possible implementation would be having

Re: F23 System Wide Change: Glibc locale subpackaging

On 08/27/2015 05:33 PM, Mathieu Bridon wrote: On Thu, 2015-08-27 at 16:10 +0200, Florian Festi wrote: On 06/22/2015 12:16 PM, Jan Kurik wrote: = Proposed System Wide Change: Glibc locale subpackaging = We have to revisit this topic as soon as rich dependencies are in place. Rich

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

On 07/28/2015 09:43 AM, Lubos Kardos wrote: Support in rpm is not enough but libsolv supports rich deps since the version 0.6.9 too thus rich deps work also in hawkey and dnf if the version 0.6.9 or a newer version of libsolv is installed. Right now only AND and OR is supported by libsolv.

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

On 07/28/2015 02:49 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Just out of curiosity, do you have already any candidates for File Triggers? I suppose /sbin/ldconfig is one of them. Do you plan to have some F24 feature to get rid of these? Well, we do not yet have concrete plans with which scriptlets to start.

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

On 07/26/2015 08:18 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:31:45 +0200 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com wrote: Le 25/07/2015 13:20, Florian Festi a écrit : On 07/25/2015 11:18 AM, Remi Collet wrote: Thanks for catching that! Do you want me to file a bug ? Yes, please! FYI

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

On 07/25/2015 11:18 AM, Remi Collet wrote: %doc imagick-3.1.2/{CREDITS,TODO,INSTALL} To give a bit more context: Globs with braces have not been supported in rpm's %files section ever. But https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728959 caused all kind of docs file being added to the

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

On 07/27/2015 04:55 PM, Lubos Kardos wrote: The current behavior is right. Your install script insert files into buildroot and these files are not listed in %files section. Correctly you should replace this: %files %doc AUTHORS COPYING NEWS README ... with this: %files

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

On 07/25/2015 11:18 AM, Remi Collet wrote: Le 24/07/2015 15:49, Florian Festi a écrit : The freshly released rpm-4.12.90 aka rpm-4.13.0-alpha is going to hit rawhide soon. The two major new features are: * Boolean (aka rich) dependencies to support more complicated relation between packages

[HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

The freshly released rpm-4.12.90 aka rpm-4.13.0-alpha is going to hit rawhide soon. The two major new features are: * Boolean (aka rich) dependencies to support more complicated relation between packages * File Triggers - run scripts if files get installed in given paths - possibly to replace

New Rpm-ecosystem Mailing List

Hi! tl;td: Join at http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-ecosystem if your interested in any part of the rpm ecosystem. While there are quite some mailing lists already that deal with the different tools around and including rpm we realized that there is no good place to discuss issues that

Re: minimal requirements for subpackage named common

On 04/28/2015 03:15 PM, Jan Chaloupka wrote: Hi, I have a package (kubernetes) which I would like to decompose into 2 subpackages A and B. Problem is A and B share some files and directories so installing both of them on the same machine results in file conflicts. Another way of avoiding

Re: rpm 4.12 and weak dependencies

On 10/09/2014 05:29 PM, Jerry James wrote: Added most of your improvements to the page. Thanks! Florian PS: The rpm.org wiki is locked down because of spam. But people inerested in improving the contents and documentation can just create an account and ask for edit privileges on the

Re: No more deltarpms by default

On 10/06/2014 05:16 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: The fact that some users have more bandwidth means exactly what? Most people also have faster processors and disks now. It is more efficient from a networking perspective to minimize unnecessary traffic and use local processing. That was behind

Re: No more deltarpms by default

On 10/06/2014 06:53 PM, Jonathan Dieter wrote: Get to coding. ;) As mentioned elsewhere, the problem *is* signatures. yum (quite rightly) refuses to install an rpm whose signature doesn't match the one in the primary repodata. And I believe that the signature in the RPM is also over the

Re: Heads-up on rpm 4.12 coming to rawhide soon

On 07/02/2014 03:05 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: Where I can read more about weak dependencies? Have a look at my announcement I made in February: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-February/195743.html Be aware that rpm-4.12 only implements the weak dependencies. Having support

Re: trimming down Fedora installed size

On 04/10/2014 09:53 PM, James Antill wrote: 20 | 38,561 | 38 G | 19M So there are 20MB of meta data that need to be downloaded once. This can hardly be a problem - even if the size tripled. same thing for updates gives: 18 | 18,606 | 20 G | 12M Ok, let this be another

Re: trimming down Fedora installed size

On 04/09/2014 01:50 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On 04/09/2014 07:23 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: On 04/09/2014 07:33 AM, Marius A wrote: Are there any other disk space saving tips? Users should not have to result doing disk saving tips. I would say in the long run we should be

Re: trimming down Fedora installed size

On 04/09/2014 04:53 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote: From the desktop/workstation perspective, here are a few things I would like to see if we decide to work on this: Support for a new locale is more or less like a 'system extension' for the OS. It would be good to define clear rules for what it

Re: trimming down Fedora installed size

On 04/09/2014 05:23 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: This construct would be extremely valuable to the SSSD as well: %package -n client Recommends: sssd-client.i686 if glibc.i686 That's not exactly by accident... It's pretty easy to install a language at package-install time, but in order to

Re: trimming down Fedora installed size

On 04/09/2014 08:42 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: Given the number of packages that ship localization, this seems like it would have a pretty dramatic effect on metadata size. Is this a concern? Meta data is a concern. But the major part of the meta data is file data and change logs. Everything

Re: python packages versus pydoc -k

On 03/14/2014 08:05 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: - Original Message - Sorry, I should have tried pdb first, because this one has nothing to do with rpm-python. I can see modname='PyQt4.uic.pyuic', and prior to the exception site is a line 'loader = importer.find_module(modname)', which

Re: python packages versus pydoc -k

On 03/12/2014 08:18 PM, Josh Stone wrote: For instance, right now I get: $ pydoc -k xyzzy lib2to3.fixes.fix_repr - Fixer that transforms `xyzzy` into repr(xyzzy). Traceback (most recent call last): File /usr/bin/pydoc, line 5, in module pydoc.cli() File

Re: Fwd: [Rpm-maint] Heads up: Weak and rich dependencies in RPM

On 02/20/2014 11:50 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 14:44 +, Colin Walters wrote: On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Florian Festi ffe...@redhat.com wrote: We are currently working on adding weak and rich dependencies to upstream RPM. There are basically two parts

Fwd: [Rpm-maint] Heads up: Weak and rich dependencies in RPM

Original Message Subject: [Rpm-maint] Heads up: Weak and rich dependencies in RPM Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 13:12:43 +0100 From: Florian Festi ffe...@redhat.com To: rpm-ma...@lists.rpm.org, rpm-l...@lists.rpm.org Hi! We are currently working on adding weak and rich dependencies

Re: Fwd: [Rpm-maint] Heads up: Weak and rich dependencies in RPM

On 02/20/2014 03:44 PM, Colin Walters wrote: On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Florian Festi ffe...@redhat.com wrote: We are currently working on adding weak and rich dependencies to upstream RPM. There are basically two parts: Is someone signed up to do the necessary frontend work

Re: Trimming (or obsoleting) %changelog?

On 04/17/2013 07:03 PM, drago01 wrote: Why does it have to be date based? Why not having a count based cutoff? Like last N entries. There used to be a count based trimming in rpm 4.0. I guess the rational behind a date based approach is that this way entries do not disappear unexpectedly. As

Re: Trimming (or obsoleting) %changelog?

On 04/17/2013 10:25 AM, Dan Fruehauf wrote: That's around 50K, and compressed (RPMs are compressed): $ rpm -q --changelog binutils | gzip | wc -c 15552 15K is nothing. Really. I like to see the whole history of a package, it's nice and fun. That's not correct. The change log is stored

Re: Trimming (or obsoleting) %changelog?

On 04/17/2013 12:18 PM, Mathieu Bridon wrote: On Wed, 2013-04-17 at 12:10 +0900, Florian Festi wrote: For limiting the change log entries in the binary packages %_changelog_trimtime can be used that take a unix time stamp as an integer value. This way the whole history is still available

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On 04/04/2013 01:55 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: I am not asking RPM developers to change policy, I am asking RPM developers to lay out foundation. It does not make sense to change policy, if there are no tools to fulfill it. Well, Fedora demanding a set of tools will much more likely result in some

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On 04/04/2013 03:42 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Although they might support, and Kernel would be first user, even for Kernel, there is used hack instead of systematic solution as far as I know. As long as Kernel will be treated specially in this regard, there is not much to do on my side. As long

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On 03/29/2013 10:33 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: To me, these are very different aspects - should RPM/YUM be able to support multiple parallel versions without the naming hacks? Yes. Should Fedora as a distro support numbers of multiple versions of packages? In my opinion, we should try to

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On 03/28/2013 05:45 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Sorry to say that, but neither my sarcasm nor your comment brings anything new. If this problem was put first time on the table in 2002, then there already passed 10 years of excuses. Well, this does not even roughly reflect the history of rpm. You

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On 04/03/2013 12:58 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: The only thing you get wrong is that you take a look at Fedora packages and do some statistics. You don't see the packages which could be in Fedora if RPM/YUM would do better job. Just as an example, I guess everybody would welcome Redmine [1] in

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On 04/03/2013 05:02 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 3.4.2013 15:59, Miloslav Trmač napsal(a): On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com That looks quite simple, but you doesn't count that what is called Ruby on Rails is collection of 40 packages (the number vary from

Re: [renrot] Comment out Requires(hint)

On 06/20/2011 04:41 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: Does it mean we are still don't have suggestions? No, we don't. Anyway, it seems more proper to get it fixed is to put normal Request tag instead of Request(smth). Isn't it? Depends on what you want. You can convert it into a regular requires to

Re: PackageKit in Fedora 15 (beta)

On 04/26/2011 05:21 PM, Matej Cepl wrote: Dne 26.4.2011 15:31, Kevin Kofler napsal(a): AIUI, Suggests/Recommends was almost accepted in rpm.org (BTW, rpm5.org has had it for ages), but the yum developers blocked it. :-/ Well, having Suggests/Recommends in RPM only does buy you anything as RPM