Hi,
I'm still at rpm 4.5 and I'm looking for a way to replace all i686 packages
with x86_64 ones on a existing system. My rpm is already x86_64 one.
How can I trick rpm to treat i686 and x86_64 packages equally, possibly
without any colors? (so newer x86_64 versions would replace i686
%define puts variables on stack, undefine pops them from stack. Now i need a
way to undefine variable permamently.
Suppose
%define crap 1
%define crap 2
%define crap 3
%undefine crap
(now crap is == 2)
and what I need is some
%undefineall crap
which will make crap undefined regardless of how
On Saturday 08 of August 2009, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
%define puts variables on stack, undefine pops them from stack. Now i need
a way to undefine variable permamently.
Suppose
%define crap 1
%define crap 2
%define crap 3
%undefine crap
(now crap is == 2)
and what I need is some
On Tuesday 23 of December 2008, Bernhard Rosenkränzer wrote:
I've just run into the old avoiding dependency problems
again, and (unless I'm overlooking something and there
already is a fix for this) I guess we need to add a new tag for
it...
In this particular case, a package containing a
On Saturday 20 of December 2008, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote:
I've modified DISTTAG tag to be specified in macros file just like
DISTRIBUTION, VENDOR etc.
and commited it to CVS already.
Here's my next step, a DISTEPOCH tag where distribution version can be
added.
This will change EVR to EVRD
On Friday 07 of November 2008, Jeff Johnson wrote:
On Nov 7, 2008, at 10:58 AM, Jason Corley wrote:
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Jeff Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But there are rpmbuild behavior changes, now reported as issues
#40 and #41, and show-stoppers for PLD using rpm-5.x.
On Saturday 25 of October 2008, Robert Scheck wrote:
Good evening,
today I bootstrapped latest HEAD and I got the following error when trying
to install the RPM packages:
error: Failed dependencies:
perl(\s+) is needed by rpm-build-5.2-0.1.20081025cvs.i386
Try HEAD now.
On Sunday 03 August 2008, devzero2000 wrote:
it is really necessary ?
What is the difference from
%pre
id root /dev/null || exit 1
You meant %pretrans I guess.
This requires working shell and id anyway (think about installations
with --root).
Thanks in advance
--
Arkadiusz
On Wednesday 30 July 2008, Jeff Johnson wrote:
Is it __REALLY_ that hard to get application developers to add
#include stdint.h
where needed?
argv.h is broken and fix is needed in this file.
Why do you insist of external application developer to workaround someone else
bugs if you can
On Wednesday 30 July 2008, Jeff Johnson wrote:
On Jul 30, 2008, at 6:21 AM, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
On Wednesday 30 July 2008, Jeff Johnson wrote:
On Jul 30, 2008, at 5:50 AM, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008, Jeff Johnson wrote:
This band-aid prevents installing argv.h
On Wednesday 30 July 2008, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
On Wednesday 30 July 2008, Jeff Johnson wrote:
On Jul 30, 2008, at 5:50 AM, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
Instead of arguing abt stdint.h (which I will start ripping after
my 2nd cup of coffee
today, sigh), let's try the forward
On Tuesday 29 July 2008, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
type of solution. Does that work for you?
In general I'm ok with an approach which punishes only
old/obsolete/deprecated/whatever platforms. But in this case I'm more
thinking about
On Friday 02 of November 2007, Jeff Johnson wrote:
On Friday, November 02, 2007, at 03:59PM, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 02 of November 2007, Jeff Johnson wrote:
Doesn't work :-(
What does not work?
It doesn't issue error but creates some additional
On Monday 12 of November 2007, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
The librpmmisc.vers file was missing from the EXTRA_DIST
variable in misc/Makefile.am and this way was not picked up by
make dist for inclusion into the release tarball. Now fixed:
http://rpm5.org/cvs/chngview?cn=8738. Thanks for your
On Friday 02 of November 2007, Jeff Johnson wrote:
On Nov 2, 2007, at 6:10 AM, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
On Friday 02 of November 2007, Jeff Johnson wrote:
=
==
= $ cvs diff -u -r1.195 -r1.196 rpmdb.c
--- rpm
On Thursday 01 of November 2007, Jeff Johnson wrote:
There's a segfault reported last week by arekm when rpm is compiled
to use PCRE because of a missing linkage from rpmmire in librpmio
to -lpcre.
No idea whether miscompiled or actually missing.
Could someone take a look please?
Hello,
I have some problems with rpm 5.0 and bdb 4.6.X:
http://rpm5.org/cvs/tktview?tn=20
http://rpm5.org/cvs/tktview?tn=21
Does --root work reliably for anyone in 5.0 with bdb 4.6.x [1]?
1. something has changed in bdb 4.6 that makes these problems visible
--
Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz
On Thursday 01 of November 2007, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
On Thursday 01 of November 2007, Jeff Johnson wrote:
There's a segfault reported last week by arekm when rpm is compiled
to use PCRE because of a missing linkage from rpmmire in librpmio
to -lpcre.
No idea whether miscompiled
On Thursday 01 of November 2007, Jeff Johnson wrote:
On Nov 1, 2007, at 9:20 AM, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
[...]
http://rpm5.org/cvs/tktview?tn=20
[...]
Let's try to flesh out the problem with some details.
rpm uses a dbenv for concurrent access, which adds
persistent state to all
On Thursday 01 of November 2007, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
On Thursday 01 of November 2007, Jeff Johnson wrote:
There's a segfault reported last week by arekm when rpm is compiled
to use PCRE because of a missing linkage from rpmmire in librpmio
to -lpcre.
Commited patch separating pcre
On Thursday 01 of November 2007, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
I understand what you are trying to do, but instead of separating
libpcre from libpcreposix, the better solution IMHO is to add the
missing AC_CHECK_LIB(pcreposix) check to the old RPM_CHECK_LIB()
of PCRE! Because RPM currently
On Friday 05 of October 2007, Jeff Johnson wrote:
On Oct 4, 2007, at 12:52 PM, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
Note that -x binary is not a option since it has some other
autogenerated deps
that we want to have.
Not true. chmod -x is _ALWAYS_ an option, re-add the execute bits
with %attr
On Friday 05 of October 2007, Jeff Johnson wrote:
On Oct 5, 2007, at 2:25 AM, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
Sucks is a different mtter.
How many packages need this functionality? Acroread, which isn't
built correctly. How many other packages __NEED__ a grep -v
filtering mechanism in rpm
On Friday 05 of October 2007, Jeff Johnson wrote:
On Oct 5, 2007, at 7:56 AM, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
On Friday 05 of October 2007, Jeff Johnson wrote:
On Oct 5, 2007, at 2:25 AM, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
Sucks is a different mtter.
How many packages need this functionality
On Thursday 04 of October 2007, Jeff Johnson wrote:
Right next to the mechanism for filtering internally generated soname
dependencies in the PLD patch, is a means to map all dependencies back
to package NEVRA.
Not only. also NEVR. The goal was to get name of required packages
directly at
On Friday 28 of September 2007, Jeff Johnson wrote:
On Sep 28, 2007, at 9:15 AM, Jason Corley wrote:
+Report-Msgid-Bugs-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]\n
Shouldn't we be changing these to rpm5.org?
They are being changed.
The problem is how merges are done, fresh hot PO files end up
dragging in
On Tuesday 24 of July 2007, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007, Jeff Johnson wrote:
On Jul 24, 2007, at 3:47 PM, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
Yes. And if you spin this thought one step further one ends up with
something like devtool standalone or even the OpenPKG bootstrap
On Friday 13 of July 2007, Mark Hatle wrote:
===
= $ cvs diff -u -r0 -r1.1 mono-find-provides
--- /dev/null 2007-07-13 04:56:02 +0200
+++ mono-find-provides 2007-07-13 04:57:03 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
On Wednesday 11 of July 2007, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2007, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
Try this:
./configure LDFLAGS=-Wl,--as-needed
It will fail miserably because things are not linked properly.
It's like in the patient/doctor joke: Patient: 'Doctor, it hurts when I
Try this:
./configure LDFLAGS=-Wl,--as-needed
It will fail miserably because things are not linked properly.
Do we actually need separate librpmXYZ for anything?
Doing single librpm.so would solve the problem.
--
Arkadiusz MiśkiewiczPLD/Linux Team
arekm / maven.pl
On Thursday 28 of June 2007, Jeff Johnson wrote:
On Jun 28, 2007, at 2:06 AM, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
Fair enough! It certainly is a difficult balance between avoiding the
trouble with lusers and still allowing packagers to build RPM with an
external Berkeley-DB _without_ having to patch
On Thursday 28 of June 2007, Jeff Johnson wrote:
# rpm -qa
rpmdb: unable to initialize mutex: Operation not supported
rpmdb: PANIC: Operation not supported
You have misbuilt rpm. There is autoconfiggery necessary and
the build system must be setup +NPTL.
The setup always has been nptl
On Thursday 28 of June 2007, Jeff Johnson wrote:
On Jun 28, 2007, at 3:13 PM, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
On Thursday 28 of June 2007, Jeff Johnson wrote:
The setup always has been nptl ready (glibc 2.6; = 2.6.16 kernels)
NPTL ready is not sufficient, there are explicit autoconf tests
On Monday 25 of June 2007, Andy Green wrote:
Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
Log:
allow one to control/override the /usr/lib64 use via Autoconf option
--enable-build-lib64
Usually this is done by ./configure --libdir=/usr/lib64.
Possibly I misunderstand, but is that true? I
On Friday 22 of June 2007, Jeff Johnson wrote:
Hmm, apologies for empty message. I swear I wrote something.
What I said is that there is a possibility that 2 -lz linkages might
be needed for -lneon external and zlib internal.
Huh, that would only mean that your libneon.so is broken (not
On Thursday 21 of June 2007, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
On Wednesday 20 of June 2007, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
Right now from config.log:
configure:27985: error: unable to find available BeeCrypt library
but why it told so, you
On Thursday 21 of June 2007, Jeff Johnson wrote:
On Jun 21, 2007, at 4:59 AM, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
RPM Package Manager, CVS Repository
http://rpm5.org/cvs/
__
__
Server: rpm5.org
On Wednesday 20 of June 2007, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007, Jay Soffian wrote:
On Jun 20, 2007, at 3:06 PM, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
+ [external:internal:none], [beecrypt],
+ [], [ AC_ERROR([mandatory BeeCrypt library not found]) ])
...
+
On Wednesday 20 of June 2007, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
Right now from config.log:
configure:27985: error: unable to find available BeeCrypt library
but why it told so, you have to guess and digg.
We have beecrypt includes in /usr/include/beecrypt/ so the only option is
--with-beecrypt
39 matches
Mail list logo
