From: Geoffroy Carrier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Here comes the repo-add work. Pretty simple, as you see.
It is pretty straight-forward. The main idea is to use base64, as it can't
interfere with
the 'desc' fileformat and won't produce too big lines (as signatures are less
than 100 bytes,
it
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 9:52 PM, Sebastian Nowicki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't really like this solution, but it's the only portable solution I
could think of. Instead of using md5sum, sha1sum, etc from GNU
coreutils, openssl is used. Openssl has the limitation that it does not
support
Hi
As far as I know md5sum program in BSD is /sbin/md5, so maybe there's
something like that in MacOS.
I'll provide a makepkg during this week that would fix this md5 checksum
thingy among other things, so you can take a look to it and let me know if
it works.
I got some other ideas for handling
From f5c5a277e2df14650ae441f32950aa6d4deee50f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Xavier Chantry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 21:57:28 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] makepkg : switch from getopt to getopts builtin
getopt is an external script for parsing and is less portable than getopts
which is
From 4cc1e73f8fcc5920fd2880b8d6fcb8ce6f9841cb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Xavier Chantry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 22:55:03 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] src/pacman/sync.c : cleanup of pacman_sync
By putting the search / group / info / list operations just after the -Sy
op, we can
I agree, openssl is a must-have in every system :-)
2008/6/2 Xavier [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Antonio Huete Jimeenz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For the checksum verification it might be ok to use openssl since it's in
base for almost all BSD system. But what about
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Antonio Huete Jimeenz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For the checksum verification it might be ok to use openssl since it's in
base for almost all BSD system. But what about linux? You'll have to install
it before using makepkg, and this means a dependency.
In the
For the checksum verification it might be ok to use openssl since it's in
base for almost all BSD system. But what about linux? You'll have to install
it before using makepkg, and this means a dependency.
In the case of CHOST usage, I haven't explained it fine. It's not related to
this checksum
2008/6/2 Sebastian Nowicki [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 02/06/2008, at 6:58 PM, Xavier wrote:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Antonio Huete Jimeenz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For the checksum verification it might be ok to use openssl since
it's in
base for almost all BSD system. But what
2008/6/2 Nagy Gabor [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
@@ -861,7 +823,43 @@ int pacman_sync(alpm_list_t *targets)
return(sync_list(sync_dbs, targets));
}
- return(0);
+ if(targets == NULL) {
+ if(config-op_s_sync) {
+ return(0);
I may overlook
On 02/06/2008, at 6:58 PM, Xavier wrote:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Antonio Huete Jimeenz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For the checksum verification it might be ok to use openssl since
it's in
base for almost all BSD system. But what about linux? You'll have
to install
it before
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Xavier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let me ask the same question than on the bug tracker, just in case :
Why doesn't openssl support the other sha* algo, and are there any
plans for a future support?
Grr, I should finish reading all threads before answering.
I
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 10:47 PM, Miklos Vajna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i don't want to flame or anything, but what's the purpose of this? is
there any program that would make use of such an archive? except that if
you put it out to http then broken out files are browsable, while if you
tar
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 3:03 PM, Dan McGee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 3:36 AM, Sebastian Nowicki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 31/05/2008, at 8:27 AM, Carlo Bersani wrote:
pkg_size=$(du -sb | awk '{print $1}')
I suggest using $(du -sk | awk '{print $1 * 1024}') so that
From d8d35bb85e5f3eb89a1f68e528e25cafe2719790 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Xavier Chantry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 15:06:30 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Cleanup of _alpm_pkg_compare_versions.
* Change the return values to be more informative.
It was previously boolean, only indicating
Antonio Huete Jimenez wrote:
And there comes the idea I was talking about. I think that scripts
should behave according to the operating from where they are running
on. I'm doing some changes to scripts for doing so, but it will take
me few days to have something useable.
I also think
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 4:26 AM, Xavier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 10:47 PM, Miklos Vajna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i don't want to flame or anything, but what's the purpose of this? is
there any program that would make use of such an archive? except that if
you put it out
On 02/06/2008, at 5:14 PM, Xavier wrote:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Xavier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let me ask the same question than on the bug tracker, just in case :
Why doesn't openssl support the other sha* algo, and are there any
plans for a future support?
Grr, I should
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:45 AM, Antonio Huete Jimeenz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As far as I know md5sum program in BSD is /sbin/md5, so maybe there's
something like that in MacOS.
I'll provide a makepkg during this week that would fix this md5 checksum
thingy among other things, so you can
@@ -861,7 +823,43 @@ int pacman_sync(alpm_list_t *targets)
return(sync_list(sync_dbs, targets));
}
- return(0);
+ if(targets == NULL) {
+ if(config-op_s_sync) {
+ return(0);
I may overlook something, but won't this break -Syu?
2008/6/2 Allan McRae [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Antonio Huete Jimenez wrote:
And there comes the idea I was talking about. I think that scripts
should behave according to the operating from where they are running
on. I'm doing some changes to scripts for doing so, but it will take
me few days
From cafa4977a0639ebb30ed20974ad86bf404ca5044 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Xavier Chantry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 23:25:40 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Don't display filename on -Qip operation.
Some previous commits apparently broke the get_filename function for
package loaded
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Antonio Huete Jimenez
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/6/2 Allan McRae [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Using openssl for this is optimal because it works the same on all
systems. Having code which detects operating system and uses specific
software in each case is ugly and
*PLEASE* edit the subject when you drift to another topic. Yes,
portability is NOT the original topic of this thread; checksum
verification on BSD systems is the original topic which is quite a bit
narrower in scope.
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 6:54 AM, Antonio Huete Jimenez
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 6:12 AM, Sebastian Nowicki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 02/06/2008, at 6:58 PM, Xavier wrote:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Antonio Huete Jimeenz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For the checksum verification it might be ok to use openssl since
it's in
base for almost all
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 4:56 AM, Xavier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From cafa4977a0639ebb30ed20974ad86bf404ca5044 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Xavier Chantry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 23:25:40 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Don't display filename on -Qip operation.
Some previous commits
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 3:27 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Geoffroy Carrier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
This should be the last version I submit here.
Usually you jinx yourself when you say something like this, and you
forgot any sort of commit message above. I've fixed this locally so we
don't
2008/6/2 Nagy Gabor [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
@@ -861,7 +823,43 @@ int pacman_sync(alpm_list_t *targets)
return(sync_list(sync_dbs, targets));
}
- return(0);
+ if(targets == NULL) {
+ if(config-op_s_sync) {
+ return(0);
I
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Dan McGee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 4:56 AM, Xavier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From cafa4977a0639ebb30ed20974ad86bf404ca5044 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Xavier Chantry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 23:25:40 +0200
Subject:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 7:23 AM, Xavier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Dan McGee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 4:56 AM, Xavier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From cafa4977a0639ebb30ed20974ad86bf404ca5044 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Xavier Chantry [EMAIL
Mon, 2 Jun 2008 14:23:49 +0200 -n
Xavier [EMAIL PROTECTED] írta:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Dan McGee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 4:56 AM, Xavier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From cafa4977a0639ebb30ed20974ad86bf404ca5044 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
2001
From: Xavier Chantry
On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 06:47:36AM -0500, Dan McGee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what are you saying, did anyone actually look at the patch? I
didn't change the existing --source option one bit, that *still* only
includes local source files.
yes, i read that patch :)
All I did was add a
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 11:32 PM, Dan McGee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes there is use for this- to help people using makepkg comply with
the GPL and providing source and the necessary tools to build it when
they provide binary packages. I didn't remove the --source option on
purpose; you can
Miklos Vajna wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 06:47:36AM -0500, Dan McGee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what are you saying, did anyone actually look at the patch? I
didn't change the existing --source option one bit, that *still* only
includes local source files.
yes, i read that
Dan McGee wrote:
snip
+ local netfile
+ for netfile in [EMAIL PROTECTED]; do
+ local file=$(strip_url $netfile)
+ if [ -f $netfile ]; then
+ msg2 $(gettext Adding %s...) $netfile
+ comp_files=$comp_files $netfile
+
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Allan McRae [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dan McGee wrote:
snip
+ local netfile
+ for netfile in [EMAIL PROTECTED]; do
+ local file=$(strip_url $netfile)
+ if [ -f $netfile ]; then
+ msg2 $(gettext Adding %s...)
Alessio Bolognino wrote:
On Mon 2008-06-02 11:54, Xavier wrote:
From f5c5a277e2df14650ae441f32950aa6d4deee50f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Xavier Chantry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 21:57:28 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] makepkg : switch from getopt to getopts builtin
getopt is
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Allan McRae [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alessio Bolognino wrote:
On Mon 2008-06-02 11:54, Xavier wrote:
From f5c5a277e2df14650ae441f32950aa6d4deee50f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Xavier Chantry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 21:57:28 +0200
Subject:
From: Geoffroy Carrier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Keyring in pacman.conf, --keyring in pacman,
support for this option in libalpm and pacman.
Documentation in:
. pacman.conf(5)
. pacman(8)
. README
---
It is very similar to LogFile...
README |1 +
doc/pacman.8.txt |3 +++
Excerpts from Geoffroy Carrier's message of Tue Jun 03 01:46:11 +0200 2008:
Now that I have a keyring, I'd like to start using it :)
Some more throught about the whole system-based keyring and how it could
be used:
in [core], archlinux-keyring which provides /etc/pacman.d/archlinux.gpg
Used by
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 6:46 PM, Geoffroy Carrier
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Excerpts from Geoffroy Carrier's message of Tue Jun 03 01:25:31 +0200 2008:
Keyring in pacman.conf, --keyring in pacman,
support for this option in libalpm and pacman.
Now that I have a keyring, I'd like to start using
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 6:25 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Geoffroy Carrier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Keyring in pacman.conf, --keyring in pacman,
support for this option in libalpm and pacman.
Documentation in:
. pacman.conf(5)
. pacman(8)
. README
Wow, README hasn't been touched by the
42 matches
Mail list logo
