Without the patch, --rebuilddb --root root fails with a somewhat
entertaining error message temporary database root already exists.
Already applied...
- Panu -
---
Make rebuilddb work with the --root option. [#65993]
--- ./rpmdb/rpmdb.c.orig2005-02-16 03:18:19.0
The idea here is obvious enough, I just somewhat disagree with the
implementation. See below the patch for further comments...
---
Check if the payloadformat really is cpio, fail with an error
message if it is not. Use a different message for the drpm
delta-rpm format. rh#140052
Upstream
Personally I never ever liked the obsoletes on provides behavior, but this
has been in rpm since 2001 according to hg changelogs... I don't think
such a dramatic behavior change is acceptable for a dot-dot-dot-dot
maintenance release.
I would like this changed in future major version
On Tue, 22 May 2007, Florian La Roche wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 12:38:21PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2007, Florian La Roche wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 12:06:45PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
Personally I never ever liked the obsoletes on provides behavior
A large, very non-trivial patch - not really 4.4.2.1 material. And like
the patch commentary already says, delta rpm's are a much nicer way to
deal with the issue. My understanding is that Suse is abandoning patch
rpms in favor of delta rpms, so patch rpm support is really only needed
for
On Tue, 29 May 2007, Michael Schroeder wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 10:29:45AM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
What JBJ does here is checks HDRID for identifying identical packages if
present, version comparison if not. But I don't think it's actually
identicality of headers (or not) we're
I guess the big question here is if we want to try to stay compatible with
jbj rpm tags. Or more to the point, avoid overlapping, which does make
sense. But that only works if it happens both ways...
- Panu -
-
Backported some new tags and sense values.
Index: lib/rpmlib.h
I'd rather avoid patching bdb within rpm unless it absolutely can't be
avoided, and this is really just a performance hack. Not that I have
anything against speedy installs but people can survive without it - so
no, until the required stuff is in bdb upstream (dunno if it is
already?) and
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi All,
?? I was trying implement the rpm into my embedded linux box,I downloaded
?? the rpm source form hg clone http://hg.rpm.org/rpm ,
?? in the rpm dir ,i tried install the rpm it gives me the following error
??? step 1:
? ? ? ? ??
On Wed, 6 Jun 2007, 趙惟倫 wrote:
Hello,
In attachment there is the zh_TW locale file for rpm
Maybe you should also delete the empty zh.po and zh_CN.GB2312.po
Hi,
Thanks for the translation! Committed, and those empty zh and zh_CN.GB2312
removed (they weren't getting built anyway but...)
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, Michael Schroeder wrote:
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 04:45:59PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
Whether this is 100% correct fix or not, but it seems to fix real
problems. Eg:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=173285
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, Michael Schroeder wrote:
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 11:00:16AM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
Please do. I'm not claiming you're not right, seeing the problem would
help *me* understand it properly :)
Say you have Jeff's rpmHeadersIdentical() in depend.cs. If you
have two
Michael, any idea what the case behind this patch was? It's not that I
object to it or anything, I just have no clue what this is supposed to be
doing :)
- Panu -
---
Include compilation directory in source file list if used.
---
tools/debugedit.c | 28
Dunno, a bit too hacky for inclusion I think :)
- Panu -
---
Provide rpmqpack, a fast way to list all installed packages are
check if some package is installed. This is a hack.
--- Makefile.am
+++ Makefile.am
@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@
bin_SCRIPTS = gendiff
pkglibdir =
This falls to the post 4.4.2.1 i18n + localisation major rework category
really, but as it's such a trivial and small patch I can apply to 4.4.2.1
if it makes people happy - your call. Michael?
- Panu -
---
Allow characters 127 that don't fit the current locale in the
specfile
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Panu Matilainen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
1) Remove the temporary skipDir() hack dating back to 2002 completely.
+ Is really the responsible and right thing to do.
+ Fixes the shared files problems.
- Memory consumption goes sky-high and performance
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Michael Schroeder wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 12:39:54AM +0200, Michael Schroeder wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 01:58:47PM +0200, Florian Festi wrote:
Why updates should not be treated as obsoletes of the pkg name can be
easily seen at the example already mentioned
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Florian La Roche wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 01:48:24PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Michael Schroeder wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 12:39:54AM +0200, Michael Schroeder wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 01:58:47PM +0200, Florian Festi wrote:
Why
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Baho Utot wrote:
On Wednesday 20 June 2007 7:32 am, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 18:17 -0400, Baho Utot wrote:
I can not download the rpm source code from rpm.org. The links are
circular from Get source to downloads and back again.
Where else may I get a
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
(please CC on replies, not on rpm-maint@)
Hi,
Attached is a diff against rpm 4.4.2 that updates the arm arch
support in rpm somewhat. In particular, it adds more ARM sub-archs,
and adds some bits to deal properly with the new ARM ABI (EABI).
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Paul Nasrat wrote:
On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 15:41 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
If I'm reading right, %posttrans/%pretrans is only run if it's part of
a package being added/updated, not a package being removed.
Yup
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Panu Matilainen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
2) If so, does it imply the need for a (ugh) %postuntrans?
Makes no sense, unless in the context of a rollback (an untrans, by
some definition...)
Well, a package might want to know whether it's being
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Giulio Eulisse wrote:
Ciao,
I've compiled my own version of RPM 4.4.2.1 and apt lorg3.2 with a few
additional paches to make sure I can fully relocate the macros and the
rpmrc files so that I'm completely directory indipendent and I can
install packages as a user in any
Most notably this fixes hangings due to leftover rpmdb iterator, for rest
of the rather minor changes see below. I certainly hope this is the last
release candidate for 4.4.2.1, and the intention for rc2 - final is just
a rename, no code changes at all. But if new/more showstoppers like the
Getting bored twiddling my thumbs while waiting for fallout from 4.4.2.1
rc testing, (suspiciously) few complaints so far. So, rpm 4.4.x is now
branched out of the main repo for graveyard^H^H^H maintenance mode, the
4.4.x repo is at http://hg.rpm.org/rpm-4.4.x from now on.
Let the good
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, Ville Skyttä wrote:
Hello,
Is there a good reason why packages export dependencies on things that they
Provide/satisfy themselves? For example, if a package ships/provides
perl(Foo) and has some other things that also cause a dependency on
perl(Foo), wouldn't it be a good
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, Ville Skyttä wrote:
As for how many dependencies this would eliminate, running some quick queries
[0] against the Fedora primary sqlite metadata database told me it'd be about
7.3% of all dependencies (9246/126066). This is inaccurate (no versions in
dependencies taken into
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Florian Festi wrote:
Panu Matilainen wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, Ville Skyttä wrote:
As for how many dependencies this would eliminate, running some quick
queries
[0] against the Fedora primary sqlite metadata database told me it'd be
about
7.3% of all dependencies (9246
Sigh... (hopefully just) one more rc.
The payload format checking caused packages generated with rpm-3.x to be
uninstallable because those old packages don't *have* a payload format tag
in the header. Pretty much a showstopper, and since rc3 was needed
anyway I put in a couple of other fixes
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Mark Hatle wrote:
You are forgetting that you can query per file dependencies in modern
RPM produced packages. If you prune self-provided dependencies you lose
this information.
--filerequires and --fileprovides. Invaluable in my experience.
Heh, I'd never noticed rpm
Attached patch turns the signal handling within rpmdb upside down: we no
longer run the whole damn thing with termination signals blocked with
occasional checking possibly resulting in exit() from deep within rpmlib,
but instead have an active signal handler that will mop up any open
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, Michael Schroeder wrote:
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 12:58:29PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
Attached patch turns the signal handling within rpmdb upside down: we no
longer run the whole damn thing with termination signals blocked with
occasional checking possibly resulting
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, Michael Schroeder wrote:
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 12:58:29PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
Attached patch turns the signal handling within rpmdb upside down: we no
longer run the whole damn thing with termination signals
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Mark Hatle wrote:
Jeremy Sanders wrote:
Are there any plans to be able to host an RPM database over NFS? See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=141614
In my experience (due to NFS locking), it's not possible to do an RPM
database over NFS. However you
May I represent to you the first rpm release from the renewed rpm.org, a
4.4.2.1 maintenance release for the long-lived and widely adopted 4.4.2
version.
The time since 4.4.2 has been quite lenghty, and so is the number of fixes
included in this release. Also various cleanups have been
Hey all,
With RPM 4.4.2.1 fresh out and 4.4.x branched off to maintenance mode, time to
start looking forward to next major release.
The TODO in hg.rpm.org repository outlines some targets already. Some of
the items are specific enough, others need to be made somewhat more
concrete. Also
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, seth vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 09:47 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
There are a number of other places as well where bitfield is used:
tsflags, vsflags, verifyflags (once the verification api gets done) etc,
if something is to be done about them I think it should
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Fernando Valente Kakimoto wrote:
Hello,
I'm a brazilian graduating student and I started developing a C program that
makes use of RPM Package Manager.
At really, I have to know what packages are up-to-date in the computer that my
application is running. Using rpmlib, I can
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Igor Pires Soares wrote:
Hello,
I am a Fedora Project translator and I have a fully translated .PO file
for the Brazilian Portuguese language.
Excellent :)
Do I need to open a bug report for it first? Or someone here can upload
the file for me?
URL to the translation
On Sun, 5 Aug 2007, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Him
rpm.org's rpm's configure fails to build python/ if python-devel isn't
installed.
Fixing this issue is not too difficult, but to be able to do so, I'd
need to know what the nominal desired behavior is supposed to be.
Question: Are rpm's python
On Sun, 5 Aug 2007, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Hi,
Panu asked me to assist rpm.org on rpm's autotool-usage/configuration.
To be able to getting deeper into cleaning up rpm's auto*-configuration,
I'd propose to get rid of several auto*-anachronisms rpm currently uses.
Yeah, rpm's auto*stuff is
On Mon, 6 Aug 2007, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Hi,
The patch below contains a couple of minor bug fixes, which are supposed
to render currently non-buildable test programs buildable again.
This + MKDIR_P and python patches all applied, thanks.
Regarding the test-stuff: much (almost all?) of them
On Sun, 5 Aug 2007, Axel Thimm wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 07:24:36AM +, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Mark Hatle wrote:
Jeremy Sanders wrote:
Are there any plans to be able to host an RPM database over NFS? See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
On Thu, 2 Aug 2007, Yu Zhiguo wrote:
Hello everybody,
I find a bug in the latest rpm release(rpm-4.4.2.1 from
http://www.rpm.org):
The description about option '--dump' in manpage is wrong.
The manpage says, This option must be used with at least one of -l, -c,
-d.,
but in fact,
On Mon, 6 Aug 2007, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 12:17 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On Mon, 6 Aug 2007, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Hi,
The patch below contains a couple of minor bug fixes, which are supposed
to render currently non-buildable test programs buildable again
On Mon, 6 Aug 2007, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
.. and yet another one:
Use PACKAGE_BUGREPORT in rpmrc.c's error messages.
Background: autoconf supplies a define (PACKAGE_BUGREPORT) which can be
used to provide an email-address for bug reporting. So far, rpmrc.c
sources used a hard-coded addresses
Hot on the heels of 4.4.2.1... but there's been a truckload of fixes (some
trivial, some more important) that didn't quite make it there. In order to
get those bugfixes out in a decent timeframe, we'll have another 4.4.2
series maintenance release.
The rc tarball can be found here:
The rc2 tarball can be found here:
http://rpm.org/releases/testing/rpm-4.4.2.2-rc2.tar.gz
and sha1 sum is 7490ea61641216c2a3454f7770999148cd40be0f.
Changes since rc1 (all sorts of misc issues really...):
- debugedit -l file matching fixes
- don't read *.rpmnew etc backup macro files
- fix error
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, R P Herrold wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Panu Matilainen wrote:
Anybody out there who would to miss the --aid option if it were gone?
Suse doesn't seem to ship with a solve database and neither does
RHEL/Fedora these days (we're not interested in distros released years
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Jason Corley wrote:
If --aid were the only depsolving mechanism available, the users wouldn't
be surviving these days. Seriously.
Dunno, we did just fine with it way back when, perhaps users aren't
what they used to be.
Well, people did fine with T-Ford's back then...
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007, Giulio Eulisse wrote:
Ciao,
I've a problem with rpm 4.4.2.1 ( but the same occurs with all the
other versions I've tried) and in particular rpmbuild. It seems that
there is something in RPM which increases its memory usage incredibly
to the point of getting it killed.
This
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 12:10 +0100, Tomas Mraz wrote:
The patch https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=245451
which I have attached to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=348131
provides migration of RPM from using Beecrypt to NSS.
The
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, Tomas Mraz wrote:
On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 15:08 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 12:10 +0100, Tomas Mraz wrote:
The patch https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=245451
which I have attached to
https
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, Paul Elliott wrote:
How do I find the documentation on rpm internals; specificly how
an rpm file is laid out, how digital signing is implemented?
What does the guts of an rpm file look like and where is this
documented?
rpm.org carries some documentation regarding the
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, Tomas Mraz wrote:
On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 14:18 +0100, Tomas Mraz wrote:
I'm already porting it and I'm almost finished as there were no
substantial changes in the code touched by the patch. I'll attach the
trunk patch to the bug report.
I've attached the trunk patch to the
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, Peter Jones wrote:
This patch fixes a segfault, and also makes it possible to emit output from
lua macros without forcing a trailing newline. If it's ok with everbody, I
can just commit it to hg.
Go ahead and commit...
- Panu -
On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Maxim Udushlivy wrote:
Greetings,
Hi, and sorry for the late reply...
During the development of the Rally (an RPM front end for advanced desktop
users, http://crow-designer.sf.net) I have found several moments where RPM
may be improved. This message is about two API
On Fri, 2 Nov 2007, Peter Jones wrote:
This patch exposes a copy of the current set of defined macros to python and
lua as a dictionary and a table, respectively. The next patch will add
fairly simple macros %patches and %sources to macros.in .
Sorry I haven't commented on this earlier...
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, Pixel wrote:
Hi, Mandriva is currently using rpm 4.4.8. We are investigating the
cost to switch to 4.4.2.2
Cool :) Mind you, 4.4.2.x is largely in bug + security fixes only
maintenance mode, any bigger changes need to go to the
next-version-under-development, release is
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007, Joachim Worringen wrote:
Greetings,
we are building RPMs from an autotools-based source tree being installed via
plain make install. This works fine with rpmbuild up to 4.4.2 (RHEL5), but
fails with Fedora Core 8, which has rpmbuild version 4.4.2.2(-3.fc8 and
-7.fc8)
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Panu,
I've tried redirecting output using rpmtsSetScriptFd()but it is not
working.
I've done something like this:
FILE *fdLogFile;
fdLogFile = fopen(LogFile.txt, w);
if (fdLogFile == NULL)
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007, Giulio Eulisse wrote:
Ciao,
I mean the lenght of the string. We have a (automatically generated)
Requires line that looks like this:
Requires: external+zlib+1.2.3-cms external+expat+2.0.0-cms
external+openssl+0.9.7d-cms external+bz2lib+1.0.2-cms
external+db4+4.4.20-cms
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, Pixel wrote:
(it adds a space)
http://svn.mandriva.com/svn/packages/cooker/rpm/current/SOURCES/rpm-4.4.2.2-fix-russian-translation.patch
Applied, thanks :)
- Panu -
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 12:05 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
Something I've been occasionally thinking of, and was again reminded by
looking at the gcc __attribute__() compatibility macros of glib.
There are vast amounts of things in glib that would
Before anybody asks: I actually do think that ultimately rpm should be
able to support reliably rolling back transactions. It's just that the
current repackage+rollback combo fails to deliver it, as there's no way to
undo script actions.
So... I'm considering axing the rollback and related
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, James Olin Oden wrote:
On Feb 19, 2008 3:45 AM, Panu Matilainen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Before anybody asks: I actually do think that ultimately rpm should be
able to support reliably rolling back transactions. It's just that the
current repackage+rollback combo fails
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Paul Tedaldi wrote:
The %patch macro as implemented in librpmbuild.so calls the patch command
directly instead of using %__patch. This makes it impossible to select a
different patch program by setting %__patch in i.e ~/.rpmmacros.
Ah yes, thanks for reminding me :)
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Pixel wrote:
Panu Matilainen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Before anybody asks: I actually do think that ultimately rpm should be able to
support reliably rolling back transactions. It's just that the current
repackage+rollback combo fails to deliver it, as there's no way
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008, Pixel wrote:
this must have been reported already:
# rpm -qR b
a
# rpm -q --whatrequires a
no package requires a
# rpm -e a
# rpm -V b
Unsatisfied dependencies for b-1-1.noarch:
Requires: a
Yup, known thing: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=223642
rpm
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Ville Skyttä wrote:
On Tuesday 26 February 2008, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008, Pixel wrote:
as for me i'm not convinced that Requires(pre) not implying Requires
is a feature. I would be in favor of Requires(xxx) implies Requires.
Agreed, permitting
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, James Olin Oden wrote:
Based on the above I'd say there's clearly a demand for urpmi.recover ,
and a non-zero quantity of people using it right now.
I don't disagree at all. I just think that the vast majority of the users
actually just want rollback/recover as in
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008, seth vidal wrote:
On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 16:40 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
Indeed. The thing here is that if you limit the rollback scope to just
config files, things suddenly become far more manageable. It wouldn't cost
an arm and a leg to (optionally) store the entire
On Sat, 8 Mar 2008, Pixel wrote:
Neo Jia [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
hi,
sorry, I don't find any other mailing list to submit my questions.
I am trying to setup a build root so I need to install rpm package to
a different root directory.
rpm --root=/home/cjia/workareas/rpm_root/fc8_root/
On Fri, 7 Mar 2008, Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
[ please CC on replies, not on the list ]
autodeps/linux.req expects the 'Version References' section to be
the very last section in objdump -p output and nothing else to follow
it, but at least on Linux/ARM, you can get output a la:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, Jim Tittsler wrote:
Is there a way to specify alternatives for a Requires: ?
I build a package the requires either python-zope-interface or
python-zopeinterface (depending upon Fedora or OpenSuSE).
If they have a common provide or a file name, you can require that
This is a fairly big pile of fixes to all sorts of bugs old and new, from
variety of sources: accumulated work from rpm.org HEAD, many fixes from
Mandriva, patches from various individuals and fixes ported from rpm5.org.
For full credits and details, see the ChangeLog file in the tarball.
/Roadmap
Build process cleanup
* Clean up, modernize and correct RPM's auto*tool usage
* Make compilation free of warnings
Let's look elsewhere:
from: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=441808
by: Panu Matilainen
Sure there's an API of sorts for this in librpmbuild (even
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Jim Galarowicz wrote:
Hi!
I was removing a couple of packages on my fc8 laptop and
the rpm command:
rpm --erase libdwarf-020801-1 libdwarf-072705-1
seemed to hang.
I went into another window and saw that /usr/include was
gone and most of /usr/bin was also removed.
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008, Jim Galarowicz wrote:
Hi Panu, all,
Thanks much for this information!!
I can only get access to my system via booting in fc8 rescue
install.
That bad... ouch again :-/
The rescue mounts my system as /mnt/sysimage.
Then I do a chroot /mnt/sysimage. After that I can
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008, Jim Galarowicz wrote:
Hi Panu,
Your comment about yum on the rescue disk is valid.
It's not there. Bummer!
Right, in that case just grab the latest F8 yum package from a Fedora
mirror and install with --force, that ought to give a working yum inside
the chroot
On Tue, 20 May 2008, Joerg Mayer wrote:
Hello,
I'm running opensuse-factory and have opened a bug there but was redirected
to the upstream rpm for a fix
(https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=390260).
The problem: The postinstall scripts of some rpms create/replace files
and while
On Tue, 27 May 2008, aneeskA wrote:
hi all,
i created a pair of RSA keys using 'gpg' and signed the rpms using
this key. when i try to install the rpm on another or even in my machine
using yum localinstall it says no key installed. i dont want to bypass
the key check. how can i solve this
On Thu, 22 May 2008, Linda Walsh wrote:
Florian Festi wrote:
holmes86 wrote:
Appear error message Failed dependencies When I install rpm package with
--aid option under FC8.
why?
--- Hey holmes, I'd sorta like to know that too...:-)
Don't do that. --aid is no longer supported (the
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Manfred Hollstein wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008, 16:36:39 +0200, Pixel wrote:
without this patch, #%define foo bar is surprisingly equivalent to %define foo
bar
with this patch, #%define foo bar is a fatal error.
Hmm, to me this appears like papering over a real problem...
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, Stanislav Brabec wrote:
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
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Johnson, Richard wrote:
Folks--
I've been having a bear of a time installing a suite of rpms where all
dependencies are satisfied, only to fail in tsOrder. I've tracked the
error down to this snippet from lib/depends.c (nrescans is initially 10)
1388 /* If a
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008, Sharuzzaman Ahmat Raslan wrote:
Hi RPM developers,
I have partially updated RPM into Malay language.
As the mailing list did not accept big file attachment, I have uploaded
it to my website.
Please download it from http://sharuzzaman.tripod.com/rpm/rpm.ms.po.zip
and
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, Jeff Sheltren wrote:
Hi, is the table linked below describing config file handling still valid for
current versions of RPM? Is this documented somewhere else?
http://www-uxsup.csx.cam.ac.uk/~jw35/docs/rpm_config.html
Looks about right based on a quick glance. Current
On Mon, 1 Sep 2008, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
Hello all,
I am trying to get the minimal bits and pieces into place for allowing us to
start using file capabilties.
Cool.
Currently, rpm neither supports acls nor file capabilities [1], and so when
they are needed, the usual way is to set
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
I'm trying todo some automated processing analysis of RPM specfiles
and have found the python binding is lacking a number of key features
Yup, the bindings for build/spec parsing have been almost non-existent.
- The 'spec' object allows access
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, Pixel wrote:
(inspired by 90ca5e5989ec289a51d2e1c7c8caa59063a6fb70)
check chroot() result
- bail out early if it fails instead of blindly continuing and potentially
messing in real root (chroot can fail for priviledged user too)
Sorry this almost got lost in the
Anybody visiting rpm.org recently will have noticed that things have
changed quite a bit, an announcement has just been missing. The short
story is that rpm.org moved from Duke University to OSU OSL hosting, and
the web content changed from mixture of static html and wiki to having
everything
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Rakesh Pandit wrote:
$subject
/bin/sh ./libtool --mode=link cc -g -O2 -fPIC -DPIC -D_REENTRANT -Wall
-Wpointer-arith -Wmissing-prototypes -Wno-char-subscripts
-fno-strict-aliasing -fstack-protector -o berkeley_db_svc \
db_server_proc.lo db_server_svc.lo
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008, Andrew G. Morgan wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Panu Matilainen wrote:
I'm ok with adding the functionality they provide, but I think we should
use libcap and libacl instead of looking at the extended attributes
directly. libacl and libcap provide
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Andrew G. Morgan wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Panu,
The following change looks a little problematic:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Andrew G. Morgan wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andrew G. Morgan wrote:
So assuming I can't rely on cap_compare() always being there (it being
Linux-specific extension and even then only in very recent libcap),
would the following be a reasonable
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Saturday 2008-11-29 08:27, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Thu, 2008-11-27 at 00:20 +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote:
On Wednesday 26 November 2008, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
rpm's configure script cannot find nss/nspr even though these are
installed. As it
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Wed, 2008-11-26 at 22:55 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
LZIP is the new stable lzma compression utility
Pardon, but what is your legitimation to claim lzip to be
the new stable lzma compression utility?
No doubt, it is yet one another lzma
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Kedar Sovani wrote:
Please consider for inclusion.
Ah yes, arm had gone forgotten in the isaname thing. Applied, thanks for
the patch.
- Panu -
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009, Adam Jackson wrote:
From: Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com
Doing it as %(echo $HOME) means you'll fork a subshell every time you
need the value of %_topdir, which is just wasteful.
True... thanks for the patch, but instead of hardwiring special logic
about HOME I added a
1 - 100 of 7640 matches
Mail list logo
