Re: [CVS] RPM: rpm/build/ files.c

2007-07-10 Thread Ralf S. Engelschall
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007, Jeff Johnson wrote: correct typos. apologis for not pointing out. Ah, thanks. You were faster in fixing than I in determining it. I was under time-pressure before (had to go to meal ;-) and have not test-compiled it immediately. Thanks for catching and fixing.

Re: Adding module support to rpm via dlopen()

2007-07-10 Thread Ralf S. Engelschall
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007, Jeff Johnson wrote: On Jul 10, 2007, at 12:36 PM, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote: On Tue, Jul 10, 2007, Jeff Johnson wrote: [...] For a native approach see what I've done with mod_so in Apache. For Apache 2.2 you actually have to look at APR. For an abstracted approach see

Re: Adding module support to rpm via dlopen()

2007-07-10 Thread Jeff Johnson
On Jul 10, 2007, at 1:44 PM, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote: On Tue, Jul 10, 2007, Jeff Johnson wrote: On Jul 10, 2007, at 12:36 PM, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote: On Tue, Jul 10, 2007, Jeff Johnson wrote: [...] For a native approach see what I've done with mod_so in Apache. For Apache 2.2 you

Re: [CVS] RPM: rpm/lib/ rpmsx.c

2007-07-10 Thread Jeff Johnson
rpmsx is on death row, libselinux now has methods to achieve the same parsing. Updating SELinux is likely the most important patch that needs merging from rpm.org, the issue is that the patch is not sensitive to -- disable-selinux compilation because of hardwired #include selinux.h But

Should rpm call umask(2)?

2007-07-10 Thread Jeff Johnson
This ancient bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83006 keeps resurfacing. It's trivial to add to main() mode_t mask = 002; (void) umask(mask) and ignore the umask issue forevermore. The trickier problem is that once rpm starts to manage its own environment,

Re: help to eliminate remaining compile-time warnings

2007-07-10 Thread Ralf S. Engelschall
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007, Jeff Johnson wrote: On Jul 10, 2007, at 3:24 PM, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote: - ld: Warning: alignment 16 of symbol `Getpass' in ../rpmio/.libs/librpmio.so is smaller than 32 in rpmdeps.o This might be FreeBSD related. I've to still investigate deeper. At least I

Re: [CVS] RPM: rpm/rpmio/ rpmio.h

2007-07-10 Thread Jeff Johnson
Nice. Thanks for the help. 73 de Jeff On Jul 10, 2007, at 3:46 PM, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote: RPM Package Manager, CVS Repository http://rpm5.org/cvs/ __ __ Server: rpm5.org Name:

Re: Should rpm call umask(2)?

2007-07-10 Thread Ralf S. Engelschall
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote: On Tuesday 10 of July 2007, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote: On Tue, Jul 10, 2007, Mark Hatle wrote: For something to software installs, I think it's reasonable to set the default umask instead of using the environment's. Yes, also my

Re: Should rpm call umask(2)?

2007-07-10 Thread Jeff Johnson
On Jul 10, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote: On Tue, Jul 10, 2007, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote: On Tuesday 10 of July 2007, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote: On Tue, Jul 10, 2007, Mark Hatle wrote: For something to software installs, I think it's reasonable to set the default umask

librpmmisc approach for handling shared external libraries doesn't look sane

2007-07-10 Thread Arkadiusz Miskiewicz
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 MiƛkiewiczPLD/Linux Team arekm / maven.pl

Re: librpmmisc approach for handling shared external libraries doesn't look sane

2007-07-10 Thread Mark Hatle
Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote: 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. quick summary of the discussion we had on #rpm

Re: Should rpm call umask(2)?

2007-07-10 Thread Russell Coker
On Wednesday 11 July 2007 05:26, Jeff Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But +1 for the 2 line hack noted. Another +1. The sys-admin should be able to run rpm and have the packages either correctly installed or the installation should abort. There should be no other possible result. --

Re: Should rpm call umask(2)?

2007-07-10 Thread Jeff Johnson
On Jul 10, 2007, at 6:55 PM, Russell Coker wrote: On Wednesday 11 July 2007 05:26, Jeff Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But +1 for the 2 line hack noted. Another +1. The sys-admin should be able to run rpm and have the packages either correctly installed or the installation should

config files are replaced when was not in db

2007-07-10 Thread Olivier Thauvin
Here a classic scenario observed with rpm 4.4.8: vi /etc/foo.config rpm -Uvh foo...rpm = /etc/foo.config which is %config(noreplace) in foo...rpm were replace. This does not happend when /etc/foo.config was own by a package. This is a regression according previous rpm behavior, and is annoying

Re: config files are replaced when was not in db

2007-07-10 Thread Jeff Johnson
On Jul 10, 2007, at 8:04 PM, Olivier Thauvin wrote: Here a classic scenario observed with rpm 4.4.8: vi /etc/foo.config rpm -Uvh foo...rpm = /etc/foo.config which is %config(noreplace) in foo...rpm were replace. This does not happend when /etc/foo.config was own by a package. This is a