Since this was introduced into glibc just less then two years ago \[[1]\], I'd
expect the commit message to be more elaborate about reasoning, backward
compatibility etc.
[1]: https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Proposals/C.UTF-8
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/227
-- Commit Summary --
* Use LANG=C.UTF-8 instead of LANG=C during package build by default
-- File Changes --
M macros.in (2)
M scripts/check-buildroot (2)
M
ignatenkobrain commented on this pull request.
While I generally agree to this change (not sure if it really should be done in
RPM), commit message could explain more.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
ignatenkobrain commented on this pull request.
> @@ -778,7 +778,7 @@ package or when debugging this package.\
RPM_PACKAGE_VERSION=\"%{VERSION}\"\
RPM_PACKAGE_RELEASE=\"%{RELEASE}\"\
export RPM_PACKAGE_NAME RPM_PACKAGE_VERSION RPM_PACKAGE_RELEASE\
- LANG=C\
+ LANG=\"C.UTF-8\"\
not
ignatenkobrain commented on this pull request.
> @@ -237,6 +237,89 @@ const char * rpmlogLevelPrefix(rpmlogLvl pri)
return prefix;
}
+static const char * rpmlogLevelColor(rpmlogLvl pri)
+{
+return rpmlogMsgPrefixColor[pri&0x7];
+}
+
+static int rpmlogDefault(FILE *stdlog, rpmlogRec
for directories and ghost files we do not want to
record their size in binary rpms
to make builds more reproducible.
See https://reproducible-builds.org/ for why this matters.
Note: I'm not sure if this is the best/correct way to do this, but at least it
made the packages build bit-identical
I removed the quotes in last rebased commit.
What do you mean about the commit message should explain more?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
I am wondering if we should remove all this python stuff from RPM because no
one should use %python_sitelib due to py2/py3 things and such.. RPM doesn't
depend on python..
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Do not store digests of ghost files
when the files exist during build time.
The hash will never be used for verification anyway.
This helps making packages build more reproducibly.
To test use
```
echo $RANDOM > %{buildroot}/var/cache/ghostfile
%files
%ghost /var/cache/ghostfile
```
and check
@Conan-Kudo pushed 1 commit.
7248529 Rename brp-fix-eol to brp-fix-line-endings
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
This PR includes #122 and attempts to address the remaining feedback.
So far, the following changes have been made:
* pkgconfig manipulation was dropped. The script wasn't even included in #122,
and it's not clear it was a desirable change, anyway.
* 'dont' was changed to 'disable', to be more
n3npq commented on this pull request.
> @@ -237,6 +237,89 @@ const char * rpmlogLevelPrefix(rpmlogLvl pri)
return prefix;
}
+static const char * rpmlogLevelColor(rpmlogLvl pri)
+{
+return rpmlogMsgPrefixColor[pri&0x7];
+}
+
+static int rpmlogDefault(FILE *stdlog, rpmlogRec rec)
+{
+
My archive of unpacked .spec file disputes @ignatenkobrain comment above --
backward compatibility matters
[herrold@centos-7 SPECS]$ grep "\%py" *spec | grep -v ":#" | wc
39 1461953
[herrold@centos-7 SPECS]$ grep "\%py" *spec | grep -v ":#"
BitTorrent.spec:%pyrequires_eq
proyvind commented on this pull request.
> @@ -237,6 +237,89 @@ const char * rpmlogLevelPrefix(rpmlogLvl pri)
return prefix;
}
+static const char * rpmlogLevelColor(rpmlogLvl pri)
+{
+return rpmlogMsgPrefixColor[pri&0x7];
+}
+
+static int rpmlogDefault(FILE *stdlog, rpmlogRec rec)
ah, you were right about the missing brp-fix-pkgconfig script though, I'll
rather fix it in the original PR
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
disable_fix_foo are poor grammar, and not only 'disable' found to be consitent
with was %_disable_source_fetch..
why changing "wuzz out" to "quit" in comment? in order to not offend some
unlikely person, or just plain political correctness (not really mutually
exclusive)?
For pkgconfig, I
splitting the brp-check-elf-files script however, thx, I was planning on it ;)
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@proyvind If you want to fix things, feel free to do so in your original PR.
Also feel free to pull my changes in.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
> The idea of that trimming away extra slashes in pkgconfig files having a high
> risk of causing breakage (despite of it's triviality), not even if it's clear
> that it's desirable is irrational.
This should be properly fixed in upstream pkgconfig files, though. Otherwise
we're just masking
> why changing "wuzz out" to "quit" in comment? in order to not offend some
> unlikely person, or just plain political correctness (not really mutually
> exclusive)?
Not really for offensiveness. I didn't know what you meant by that. I edited
for clarity.
--
You are receiving this because
I never really entirely understood what you meant by key:value, could you
provide an example? :)
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
I'm fairly certain `C.UTF-8` only exists in glibc, which is a problem for users
of rpm running on other OSes (macOS, OS/2, AIX, etc.) or libc libraries on
Linux (musl, dietlibc, etc.).
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it
which I discovered that was me who had done.. :p
my local branch on current workstation wasn't updated.. ;)
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
proyvind commented on this pull request.
> @@ -237,6 +237,89 @@ const char * rpmlogLevelPrefix(rpmlogLvl pri)
return prefix;
}
+static const char * rpmlogLevelColor(rpmlogLvl pri)
+{
+return rpmlogMsgPrefixColor[pri&0x7];
+}
+
+static int rpmlogDefault(FILE *stdlog, rpmlogRec rec)
I'd say "wuzz out" is clear enough, while also more suggestive ;)
for pkgconfig files, this isn't really just a pure upstream problem, the foo.pc
file is usually generated from ie. flags passed to configure..
And wrt. masking problems, a lot of the brp scripts simply fixes stuff easy to
detect
25 matches
Mail list logo
