This looks a lot like the output of `dnf up`. Are you sure you are in the right
repository?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/3129#discussioncomment-9572960
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this
One way to make the SRPM "valid" is ofc just adding a dummy description (and
summary, ...). This won't make the difference between the `rpmbuild -bs` and
`rpmbuild -ba` SRPMs go away. Looks like all this dynamic stuff is not very
kind to the SRPMs - the dynamic BuildRequires are similar in
Good to see someone is actually testing these kind of things!
This is kind of intentional. I guess I need to meditate a bit on how
intentional. The Summary being dynamic (aka determined during build) ofc means
it is not available during `rpmbuild -bs`. May be this is just the price to pay
-
This keeps the old behaviour of overriding the cookie. This may not me correct
as the code looks like it reads the cookie from the srpm when doing rpmbuild
--rebuild for the purpose of preserving it. Otoh the current behaviour with
overriding it even in this case has been around for years. This
I started a discussion on the Fedora devel list:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/de...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/IKWECWMBWN2IDKLHK3Q2TZKVSVFTXUNA/
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Closed #3040.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3040#event-12783537201
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
This is superseded by #3085 which solves is similarly but even a bit cleaner.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3040#issuecomment-2106981500
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
Closed #1878 as completed via #3085.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1878#event-12783522217
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Closed #2204 as completed via #3085.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2204#event-12783522105
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Merged #3085 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3085#event-12783521877
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
Closed #1878 as completed via 8535694599ee7f35747d44e2ea0a62dc5e8880e5.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1878#event-12783522273
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
Release notes need to mention this and that distribution need to drop the
```
%install %{?_enable_debug_packages:%{?buildsubdir:%{debug_package}}}\
%%install\
%{nil}
```
hack in *-pm-config. So this probably needs to go into the "Compatibility"
section at least in parts.
--
Reply to this email
This is even cleaner than my own variant. Great so see we got this to the point
where it can be done this cleanly.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3085#issuecomment-2106923789
You are receiving this because you are
Merged #3084 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3084#event-12783120373
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
Closed #3063 as completed via #3084.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3063#event-12783120658
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Guess this is how the %specpartsdir should have been created in the first
place.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3084#issuecomment-2106916674
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
Yeah, this probably needs a discussion and Global Change in Fedora and an
additional change in the Packaging Guidelines. Those are not topics for
upstream. So I am closing this here. But fee free to ping me if you need help
on the Fedora side. We will also happily improve the documentation
Closed #3073 as completed.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3073#event-12703577794
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
A far as I know this feature is not enabled in Fedora 40. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RPM-4.19#Scope
rpm-4.18.92-disable-sysusers.patch
```
iff -up rpm-4.18.92/macros.in.orig rpm-4.18.92/macros.in
--- rpm-4.18.92/macros.in.orig 2023-08-02 17:56:49.858065935
@ffesti commented on this pull request.
> return 1;
}
if (!fpr || strcmp(got, fpr) != 0) {
fprintf(stderr, "%s:\n got '%s'\nexpected '%s'\n",
filename, got, fpr ? fpr : "");
free(got);
+ fclose(f);
This should probably also free(fp);
@ffesti commented on this pull request.
> return 1;
}
// We expect success now.
char *got = rpmhex(fp, fplen);
if (! got) {
fprintf(stderr, "%s: rpmhex failed\n", filename);
+ fclose(f);
This should probably also free(fp);
--
Reply to this email
Thanks for the fixes!
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3064#issuecomment-2079511897
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint
Merged #3064 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3064#event-12624669625
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
Yes, this isn't a great solution. But it at least gives the user a fighting
chance of figuring out what's happening here. I agree we would want a better
solution but there currently just isn't a way to hand over the error code.
Adding a test case is easy if we decide we actually want to go this
This is currently missing a test case and is just based on reading the code.
@simo5: Can you provide a spec file for testing this?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3061#issuecomment-2075083377
You are receiving this
If the automatic creation of debuginfo packages is switched off via the
_enable_debug_packages macro dont touch debuginfo packages that are
declared in the spec file. If the packager created those on their own we should
not mess with them.
Resolves: #3057
You can view, comment on, or merge
Closed #3056 as completed via #3059.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3056#event-12588517986
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Merged #3059 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3059#event-12588517661
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
ooofff
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3059#issuecomment-2074462068
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint mailing list
OK, the _target_cpu issue is now papered over and debuginfo is enabled through
the whole test suite. This should ow all works as expected (with the exception
of the --build-in_place stuff I dd not look at)
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@ffesti pushed 3 commits.
06cee54118433741010bc7349d96715da5345929 Keep _target_cpu after parsing
2e9d64a3df05efceee5bb35fd1c056d93c342d49 Enable debuginfo for all
341ac458c72f36aa07168195cacd4d082e51683f Upstream debuginfo enablement
--
View it on GitHub:
LGTM but Michal is more familiar with the CI stuff.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3052#issuecomment-2069447923
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
We welcome an automatic way to add these sort of dependencies automatically
without packagers needing to care. I don't have a deeper insight or strong
opinion whether these ELF entries are the best way of doing that. Having this
as part of the (C) code is probably a good idea if upstreams can
Closed #3038 as completed.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3038#event-12505232396
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
Feel free to try out the alpha release at
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pmatilai/rpm-snapshot/package/rpm/ or
build it yourself from https://rpm.org/download.html
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
This is a feature of the upcoming 4.20 release. This is not expected to work
with 4.19.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3038#issuecomment-2060808561
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
As we need to check all file lists we need to have them parsed - even if %build
and %install have not been run due to --short-circuit
Tested manually with #3040. There is fixes test 334.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
Rpm allows URLs as cli parameters. The files are then automatically
downloaded with %_urlhelper which defaults to curl(1). For far failures
have been ignored right away and error messages are generated later when
the file was not found on disk.
Issue a meaningful error message at least when the
An alternative implementation to #3036
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3040#issuecomment-2058639717
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
! This removes the %ifnarch noarch check. We need to find a solution for this
before merging (or decise it is just an optimization we dont really need)
All these years, enabling debuginfo has required distros to hijack the spec
%install section with a macro like this:
%install
Ok, the longer I look at this from up close the more head ache I get. May be
lets leave this as is
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3036#issuecomment-2056999071
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this
While the code looks ok, I wonder if there is a better way to do this? We
should be able to add the debuginfo generation into `%__spec_install_pre`. This
was not possible in the past as you could not expand a package definition into
the `%install` section. But now we can just use the same route
[Pass arg2 (albeit -1) to transaction triggers
too](https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3018/commits/9a069b03ba6e51790aed5c19163e1b8658c1e71b)
should talk about "file triggers" in the commit message.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@ffesti commented on this pull request.
> @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ directories, symlinks etc.
The file triggers are defined in spec files of packages. E.g. file trigger
executing `ldconfig` could be defined in glibc package.
-Similarly to regular triggers, file trigger scripts (except the
@ffesti pushed 1 commit.
c3ea56e308e81e83a55ffb1a5b4fe5bb4b6b7cad Add support for sysusers group
membership lines
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2990/files/8558a2c2bf06c4b89a4ea59b50cedb80b00c6d87..c3ea56e308e81e83a55ffb1a5b4fe5bb4b6b7cad
You are
@ffesti pushed 1 commit.
8558a2c2bf06c4b89a4ea59b50cedb80b00c6d87 Add support for sysusers group
membership lines
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2990/files/81acc230b3b7c84b519e4bca4aee13bdbf9952b2..8558a2c2bf06c4b89a4ea59b50cedb80b00c6d87
You are
OK, fixed the issue in the code and made sure the test cases actually checks
for group membership. Added a bit to the docs and the commit message.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2990#issuecomment-2034875120
You are
@ffesti pushed 2 commits.
1e4e9648b114131b8a872878ef8c5cc5739efaf9 Re-Word User / Group handling a bit
81acc230b3b7c84b519e4bca4aee13bdbf9952b2 Add support for sysusers group
membership lines
--
View it on GitHub:
Merged #3012 instead
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2995#issuecomment-2034120680
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint
Closed #2995.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2995#event-12338936477
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Closed #2819 as completed via dc47a50c6345a25b861305d8aa8ae464098834ff.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2819#event-12338919876
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
Merged #3012 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3012#event-12338919518
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
Yeah, I already noticed and fixed psm.c and tagexts.c. There is still something
wrong with the test case or the code or both. I update the patch ass soon as
this works.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
OK, I looked into this and there are road blocks everywhere. Let's just stick
to the PR as is. I generally agree that this is not the way to do this but the
build code is an entangled mess and moving stuff round at this point is
something we just should not do.
Looking at all the hidden
Merged #2999 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2999#event-12264507348
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
@ffesti commented on this pull request.
> @@ -246,8 +246,8 @@ static int expandMacrosInSpecBuf(rpmSpec spec, int strip)
if ((condition) && (!condition->withArgs)) {
const char *s = lbuf + condition->textLen;
SKIPSPACE(s);
- if (s[0])
- rpmlog(RPMLOG_WARNING,
@ffesti pushed 1 commit.
fc4c5ef5aaae4a0e360cde24c13647ef4ed8be16 Make junk after conditionals an error
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2996/files/6bbb6a39e662d32fa0876c3cafcb091509200c09..fc4c5ef5aaae4a0e360cde24c13647ef4ed8be16
You are receiving this
Done.
@dmnks: This needs to go into the compatibility notes of the 4.20 release.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2996#issuecomment-2022305618
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
@ffesti pushed 1 commit.
51c3ab5c4232fa6798c3c3bb24ce279ce6ad82e1 Set SOURCERPM when querying SPEC files
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2995/files/9283c6e24ad9cdc017651de857b3b61ebaf211d5..51c3ab5c4232fa6798c3c3bb24ce279ce6ad82e1
You are receiving
Now to something completely different...
What about just setting the SOURCERPM tag for binary packages that are parsed
for querying? One could argue that we should move more of this kind of
initialization to the parse stage so we get a more complete result earlier. But
that is a crusade I am
I am open to allow comments elsewhere, too. This will probably require multiple
independent patches. This one is for conditionals. (Although I am fine to do
that in this PR)
I would not allow comments in the section contents per se. But basically allow
them for the native RPM parts and leave
@ffesti pushed 2 commits.
bdf3646be0b865bc221fdb7c3468a60208fc9c7c Make genSourceRpmName available
internally
9283c6e24ad9cdc017651de857b3b61ebaf211d5 Set SOURCERPM when querying SPEC files
--
View it on GitHub:
May be headerIsSource() should be more correct... I'll look into it
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2995#issuecomment-2020414787
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
Ok, I'll just use `%{?` for now. Removed the code duplication.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2990#issuecomment-2020412022
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
Still issue an warning for everything else. Now that comments are allowed again
may be we should issue an error for those cases.
Resolves: #829
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2996
-- Commit Summary --
*
Thanks for the patch!
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2994#issuecomment-2019969771
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint
Merged #2994 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2994#event-12247138489
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
This fixes a regression that was present since 4.18 that printed them out as
source/nosource packages as the headers are no proper binary packages. Setting
the default query to %{NEVRA}\n forces the right output.
Resolves: #2819
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
@ffesti commented on this pull request.
> @@ -20,3 +20,41 @@
::continue::
end
}
+
+%__sysusers_recommends() %{lua:
+if rpm.expand('%[0%{?_use_weak_usergroup_deps}]') == '0' then
Funny enough `tonumber` returns `nil` on `nil` so that won't work unless
augmented with some
Add support for sysusers group membership lines
m user group
Create Requires/Recommends for both the user and the group.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2990
-- Commit Summary --
* Re-Word User / Group
Closed #2420 as completed via #2948.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2420#event-12119110443
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Merged #2948 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2948#event-12119110094
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
Added some docs so you can find out things like that.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2927#issuecomment-1997521895
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
Added a sentence about the white space and a paragraph about Spec sections in
general
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2957#issuecomment-1997469329
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message
Merged #2956 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2956#event-12117552701
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
Merged #2973 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2973#event-12117439747
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
Closed #2078 as completed via #2885.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2078#event-12117426864
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Merged #2885 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2885#event-12117426581
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
Merged #2940 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2940#event-12115204610
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
Closed #2926 as completed via 78fd1fc05f50dec9c5f2b8618591568bc910.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2926#event-12114810356
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
Merged #2966 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2966#event-12114809657
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
I wonder if the error message should mention the missing section. The error
message is fine for packagers if the build systems are all there already but it
is not that helpful if one tries to write one.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Closed #2949 as completed via #2958.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2949#event-12114555311
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Merged #2958 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2958#event-12114555004
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
Closed #624 as completed via 0644ba5755360cd6a33caa41ea09d3e25096bc72.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/624#event-12099057036
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
Closed #624 as completed via #2964.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/624#event-12099056999
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Merged #2964 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2964#event-12099056777
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
The situation wrt other sections is a bit more complicated. RPM itself does not
really support indentation in most. Instead for most sections (scripts and
scriptlets) it just does macro expansion and `#if` magic and then hands the
result to some interpreter - or sticks it into a tag to be
Looks good to me now. Feel free to merge or wait for input from @mlschroe
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2958#issuecomment-1988359449
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
Thanks for the patch!
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2953#issuecomment-1988351150
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint
Merged #2953 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2953#event-12073028860
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
Merged #2954 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2954#event-12072989637
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
If the `fork()` fails the function returns without resetting the signal handler.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2958#issuecomment-1988314630
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
Not sure why your personal taste would have any weight in this discussion.
Neither does this change require proper nesting from anyone nor is white space
disallowed in these macro expressions (as one can easily check with `rpm -E`).
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@ffesti pushed 1 commit.
835788b2a604e7ca7a8f32e8089b65a31bf8444a Allow whitespace before directives in
the Preamble
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2957/files/85c32073156470ccc568e3c4e9a3f897794d1c1f..835788b2a604e7ca7a8f32e8089b65a31bf8444a
You are
Update to the documentation is still needed
Resolves: #2927
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2957
-- Commit Summary --
* Allow whitespace before directives in the Preamble
-- File Changes --
M
The changes look good. But we need to add the warning right away before this PR
closes #2420
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2948#issuecomment-1985577133
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Closed #2928 as completed via 9571e3d9a24ddda076be81f457e672036cd3db8b.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2928#event-12040968234
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
Merged #2945 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2945#event-12040967941
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
@ffesti pushed 2 commits.
77d02b7e2300f40079f893514b3cd15b8a605e0c Use dirname (3) for %dirname
eb2d628e4005a777ff02f693f483691d6d0b00aa Use basename (3) for the %basename
macro
--
View it on GitHub:
1 - 100 of 1534 matches
Mail list logo
