Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] License of find-lang.sh is ambiguous around modification (#595)

I'm fine with whatever -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/595#issuecomment-457952856___ Rpm-maint mailing list

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] generic rpminterp plugin interface for interpreters (#190)

@n3npq , you being the original author of where this originates from, would you mind review the implementation, while also share some insights and thoughts on the matter? :) -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Offer LMDB as an alternative engine to BDB for rpmdb (#128)

2017-01-26 23:43 GMT+01:00 Per Øyvind Karlsen <proyv...@moondrake.org>: > 2017-01-16 8:04 GMT+01:00 Panu Matilainen <pmati...@laiskiainen.org>: > >> On 01/16/2017 02:51 AM, Neal Gompa wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Ralf Corsepius <rc040..

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Offer LMDB as an alternative engine to BDB for rpmdb (#128)

2017-01-16 8:04 GMT+01:00 Panu Matilainen : > On 01/16/2017 02:51 AM, Neal Gompa wrote: > >> On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Ralf Corsepius >> wrote: >> >>> On 01/15/2017 04:03 PM, Neal Gompa (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote: >>> >>> I'm not sure how true it is,

Re: [Rpm-maint] [PATCH] (lzopen_internal) actually use default LZMA level

2012/6/28 Thierry Vignaud thierry.vign...@gmail.com: Hi This patch makes lzopen_internal() to actually use default LZMA level. Original source of origin: peroyv...@mandriva.org - rpm5.org Stop all this stealing of yours from ours, otherwise we'll have to be pushing and shoving you up and down

Re: [Rpm-maint] RPM 4.7.0 beta1 available

2009/3/18 Panu Matilainen pmati...@laiskiainen.org On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, Per Ųyvind Karlsen wrote: 2009/3/10 Jindrich Novy jn...@redhat.com On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 12:24:17PM +0100, Mark Rosenstand wrote: RPM won't build against the xz 4.999.8beta running here. But

Re: [Rpm-maint] RPM 4.7.0 beta1 available

2009/3/18 Per Øyvind Karlsen pkarl...@rpm5.org 2009/3/18 Panu Matilainen pmati...@laiskiainen.org On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, Per Ųyvind Karlsen wrote: 2009/3/10 Jindrich Novy jn...@redhat.com On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 12:24:17PM +0100, Mark Rosenstand wrote: RPM won't build

Re: [Rpm-maint] RPM 4.7.0 beta1 available

2009/3/10 Jindrich Novy jn...@redhat.com On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 12:24:17PM +0100, Mark Rosenstand wrote: RPM won't build against the xz 4.999.8beta running here. But this was also the case for 4.6.0. Fixed. The HEAD rpm should build (and work) fine with xz-4.999.8beta. Jindrich Yet

[Rpm-maint] [PATCH] liblzma api fixes, xz payload support, payload compatibility

This patch ported (mainly;) from rpm5.org HEAD fixes some api breakages due to change done for the xz beta release (which the api of should be stable now), add support for new xz payload in parallel with lzma payload and also sets the feature provides and requires for lzma payload to versions so

[Rpm-maint] Fwd: new DISTEPOCH tag and cleaning of RELEASE tag polution

Consensus between rpm implementations is always nice, so I'll forward it to you guys as well for feedback. rpm.org patch can be done on request. :) -- Forwarded message -- From: Per Øyvind Karlsen pkarl...@rpm5.org Date: 2008/12/20 Subject: new DISTEPOCH tag and cleaning

Re: [Rpm-maint] Automatic BuildRoot by default?

On Thursday 12 June 2008 15:46:24 Tom spot Callaway wrote: On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 14:48 +0200, Jindrich Novy wrote: Opinions? One of the reasons why the mktemp option is appealing is because it is not predictable, and helps lessen the security risks of knowing where the buildroot is going

Re: [Rpm-maint] Automatic BuildRoot by default?

On Thursday 12 June 2008 17:14:12 you wrote: On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 16:31 +0200, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote: Better wear your helmet on both the inside and outside of the house, just in case.. Careful, crazy is contagious. *cough* In all seriousness, I'm not convinced that the benefits

Re: [Rpm-maint] Automatic BuildRoot by default?

On Thursday 12 June 2008 19:48:37 Tom spot Callaway wrote: On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 19:38 +0200, Pixel wrote: Tom \spot\ Callaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The only reason we use mktemp in there is because we couldn't make rpm code changes to use the native glibc functions. As to rpm

Re: [Rpm-maint] OR'ed dependency check

rpm.org doesn't have support for the way you want it, but on a sidenote rpm5.org has had support for such since rpm-4.4.9.. ;) Really? How are those dependencies stored in the header? I bet Jeff can give you a better answer on that. :) -- Regards, Per Øyvind Karlsen Mandriva Norway