Take the following macro definitions:
``` spec
%error_1 %{error:Sorry, this is an error}
%error_2 %{lua:
rpm.expand("%{error:Sorry, this is an error}")
}
%error_3 %{lua:
macros.error({"Sorry, this is an error"})
}
```
``` console
$ rpm -E %error_1
error: Sorry, this is an error
$ echo $?
Some packages in Fedora provide shared RPM lua code thats used by other
packages.
It would be nice to have automatic Provides for this code like we have for rpm
macros themselves.
Usecase:
Recently, forge.lua thats used by go-srpm-macros and fonts-srpm-macros
moved out of redhat-rpm-config.
I
It would be nice if we could also use this system to generate a
`%generate_buildrequires` section in addition to generating static
BuildRequires.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2620#issuecomment-1783160849
You are
It's definitely possible to have a Github Action to create releases and upload
artifacts to them, but authenticating with the rpm.org webservers and signing
the tarballs (if RPM still does that) may prove more difficult.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
What does `%end` do?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1870#issuecomment-1258534865
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint
> And @gotmax23 - that Golang (and others) do not _have_ debuginfo is yet
> another, separate matter. Like said, for now the right thing to do is to
> explicitly disable the debuginfo package in the spec for such cases
Go binaries *do* have debuginfo. Go (and Rust) libraries are just source
Golang library packages often don't ship any go binaries and thus no arched
(sub)packages, but they're built on all arches to ensure that the tests pass
everywhere and that the noarch `-devel` subpackage does not contain different
contents when built on different architectures. Rust libraries
It would be nice if rpm's argument parser could have a way to parse/accept
repeated flags
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2495#issuecomment-1523567839
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
The current rpm version doesn't build on MacOS to begin with according to
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/, so I don't think
that should be a consideration here.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
The rpmunpack script apparently does not work with hardlinks. For example, the
pyc files below are hardlinks thanks to brp-python-hardlink.
``` diff
diff --git a/python/examples/rpmunpack.py b/python/examples/rpmunpack.py
index 11ea02717..462026fe8 100755
--- a/python/examples/rpmunpack.py
+++
10 matches
Mail list logo
