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 Oct 5, 2007, at 2:25 AM, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
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
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 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? Acroread, which isn't
built correctly. How many other
On Oct 5, 2007, at 7:41 AM, Jeff Johnson wrote:
There is package A that Requires: libcrap.so.1 and there is
package B that
Requires: libcrap.so.1. Tell me now how to filter out libcrap.so.1
ONLY for
package A but NOT B with per-distro filtering rule.
But I missed with per-distro
On Oct 5, 2007, at 8:27 AM, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
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
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 Oct 5, 2007, at 8:28 AM, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
It doesn't. It's pure regexp so needs proper regexp rule.
regexp rules easily accomodate white space last I checked.
The choice to use macros to represent a tuple separated
by white space is what is deficient with
%define
On Oct 5, 2007, at 8:43 AM, Jeff Johnson wrote:
http://pastebin.com/m1bc94410
Oooh, nice stuff there, particularly in the false positives.
I can start seeing a generaliztion of disablers, like _noautocomnpress,
into a hierarchy of distro:package:file:pattern inheiritance.
My main issue
PLD has a patch adding a macro to specify patterns to filter internally
generated soname dependencies.
Basically
%define _noautorequires libA.so libB.so
with some regex gunk in lib/rpmfc.c to do essentially grep -v.
Should it be added?
My personal opinion is that per-pkg filtering of
I know there have been an awful lot of people who want to do this kind
of filtering. perl, dlopen have been the primary ones I know about.
Does the filtering affect the internal per-file dependencies or just the
overall package dependencies once they are rolled together?
personally I'd like a
Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
Does the filtering affect the internal per-file dependencies or just the
overall package dependencies once they are rolled together?
PLD patch applies to overall deps for entire spec. So it's not per-pkg. It's
per-spec. Both per-{pkg,spec} are actually useful but
On Oct 4, 2007, at 12:56 PM, Mark Hatle wrote:
Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
Does the filtering affect the internal per-file dependencies or
just the
overall package dependencies once they are rolled together?
PLD patch applies to overall deps for entire spec. So it's not per-
pkg. It's
13 matches
Mail list logo
