Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] check for rpmlib version (Issue #2840)

2024-01-12 Thread Panu Matilainen
@pmatilai converted this issue into discussion #2841. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2840#event-11466189810 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Strange behavior for multilib (Issue #2837)

2024-01-12 Thread Panu Matilainen
Rpm erasing the older versions is more or less expected (see below), but that the equal version too seems bizarre and buggy alright. Can you provide the reproducer for B, as simple as it may be? For the erasure of older versions, the behavior depends on the package colors, not architecture, alt

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Strange behavior for multilib (Issue #2837)

2024-01-12 Thread Jaroslav Mracek
I used two packages from our CI - https://github.com/rpm-software-management/ci-dnf-stack/tree/main/dnf-behave-tests/fixtures/specs/security-upgrade-multilib ``` Name: B Epoch: 0 Version:1 Release:1 License:Public Domain URL:None Summary:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Strange behavior for multilib (Issue #2837)

2024-01-12 Thread Panu Matilainen
Easily reproduced with that. This is not just a bug but a regression too, 4.14 doesn't behave this way. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2837#issuecomment-1888743606 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to th

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Strange behavior for multilib (Issue #2837)

2024-01-12 Thread Panu Matilainen
Bisecting points the regression to commit 21836bc7524f8fc07972e0e56eed1c3b68775368 -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2837#issuecomment-110637 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message I

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Strange behavior for multilib (Issue #2837)

2024-01-12 Thread Michael Schroeder
AFAIR if the packages contain no files, they wont get any color. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2837#issuecomment-1889371001 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID:

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] [Feature Req] Add "IR code" itself as a rpm architecture target (Discussion #2842)

2024-01-12 Thread hgkamath
Recently, rpm got the ability to make binary install packages for micro-architectures levels -v2, -v3, -v4 Issue https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2463 PR https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2315 So, now its possible for a package developer/distributor has t

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Strange behavior for multilib (Issue #2837)

2024-01-12 Thread Michael Schroeder
Do we really want to do something special for "same NEVR"? I find that a bit weird. (But all that color handling is also super weird to me, and dnf/zypper also does not know the package colors when calculating the transaction and has to hope that the architecture matches the color.) (BTW, is t

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] check for rpmlib version (Discussion #2841)

2024-01-12 Thread Oliver Kurth
Thanks for replying. I have this code: ``` ... } else if (strcmp(token, "nodb") == 0){ pConf->rpmTransFlags |= RPMTRANS_FLAG_NODB; } else if (strcmp(token, "noconfigs") == 0){ pConf->rpmTransFlags |= RPMTRANS_F