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

2007-07-11 Thread Alex Myltsev
On 7/11/07, Mark Hatle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: if librpm* has a requirement on librpmmisc, and librpmmisc requires the libraries (static or shared) it works w/o --as-needed. No, not really. It may break in the presence of symbol versioning. Consider this case: * the developer links librpmmisc

Re: [CVS] RPM: rpm/ CHANGES

2007-07-11 Thread Ralf S. Engelschall
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007, Jeff Johnson wrote: [...] - set a sane 0002 umask always (#83006). Summary: RevisionChanges Path 1.1452 +1 -0 rpm/CHANGES [...] This is just the CHANGES file. Have you forgotten to commit the change to rpmqv.c or did I overlooked it?

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

2007-07-11 Thread Ralf S. Engelschall
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 do this'. Doctor: 'Well, then just don't do it'...

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

2007-07-11 Thread Arkadiusz Miskiewicz
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

Re: config files are replaced when was not in db

2007-07-11 Thread Olivier Thauvin
Le mercredi 11 juillet 2007, Jeff Johnson a écrit : 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

Re: Should rpm call umask(2)?

2007-07-11 Thread Michael Schroeder
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 03:14:11PM -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote: 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; Uh, not 002 please, 022 is the standard. Make it configurable if you really

Re: Should rpm call umask(2)?

2007-07-11 Thread Jeff Johnson
On Jul 11, 2007, at 5:40 AM, Michael Schroeder wrote: On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 03:14:11PM -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote: 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; Uh, not 002 please,

Re: Should rpm call umask(2)?

2007-07-11 Thread Jeff Johnson
On Jul 11, 2007, at 7:00 AM, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote: On Wed, Jul 11, 2007, Michael Schroeder wrote: On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 03:14:11PM -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote: It's trivial to add to main() mode_t mask = 002; Uh, not 002 please, 022 is the standard. Make it configurable if you

Re: Should rpm call umask(2)?

2007-07-11 Thread Russell Coker
On Wednesday 11 July 2007 09:07, Jeff Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. Even if the disk isn't spinning or is going click