On Monday 02 July 2007, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 2007-07-02 at 21:50 +0300, 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
On Thursday 30 August 2007, seth vidal wrote:
Hi,
Would it be possible to add an option to the specfile parser or to
rpmbuild that would tell it to truncate the changelogs included in the
package last N entries? It would default to including them all but give
us the option of clipping off
Hello,
Attached is a patch for find-lang.sh containing the following improvements:
- spelling fixes
- POSIX compliance fix for find(1) usage
- Qt translation support
- localized man page support
- match *.omf, not *omf
Split patches available at http://scop.fedorapeople.org/patches/rpm/ if you
On Tuesday 11 December 2007, Scott Bambrough wrote:
Pixel wrote:
afaik rpm does not order package removal :-(
Interesting. The section on context marked dependencies in the
snapshot version of Maximum RPM suggests it should.
[...]
Is their a disconnect between the documentation and the
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 remove of (pre|post|...)-only dependencies
On Monday 07 July 2008, Stanislav Brabec wrote:
Nesreen wrote:
1- I wander that upon making a package using RPM software, can I
assign version/build numbers for each file included in my package ,
No, you cannot. Version/release are assigned only for packages. But you
can have one file per
On Tuesday 02 September 2008, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
I don't know if this is the new version of RPM in Fedora Rawhide, or
just coincidence, but recently I've noticed that RPM has become even
more aggressive about stripping binaries.
Just out of interest, how? Is strip invoked bu rpmbuild
On Wednesday 26 November 2008, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
rpm's configure script cannot find nss/nspr even though these are
installed. As it turns out, configure.ac does not use nss/nspr's
pkg-config files
Unless I'm mistaken, upstream nss and nspr do not ship pkgconfig files,
they're distro
Hello,
The attached patch improves Qt translation support in find-lang.sh, especially
the --all-name part of it. I suppose this could be implemented in a prettier
way by someone with better sed-fu than mine, but this works for me. One test
case is Qt 4 (/usr/share/qt4/translations in Fedora
On Thursday 16 April 2009, Panu Matilainen wrote:
More detailed compatibility information about the new features is
available in http://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.7.0#Compatibilitynotes
I would add a compatibility note about *.py in s?bin dirs no longer being
byte-compiled: if one used %exclude
On Thursday 15 October 2009, David Malcolm wrote:
+WITH_PYTHON_INCLUDE=`${PYTHON} -c 'from distutils.sysconfig import *;
import sys; sys.stdout.write(%s\n % get_python_inc())'`
I think the last statement could be just sys.stdout.write(get_python_inc()),
no need for the newline.
On Friday 09 April 2010, Michael Schroeder wrote:
Maybe NOSOURCE/NOPATCH should not be internal
at all, though. They are useful to check if a rpm is src or
nosrc, there is no other way to detect this.
I don't know if it's correct, but in rpmlint we decide that based on whether
the source rpm
On Thursday 25 November 2010, FlorianFesti wrote:
Hi!
There have been various issues with packages that demand a special order
of installation but do not want to Require the package to be installed
first. So a tag that is like Requires: during ordering but ignored
otherwise is needed.
On 03/03/2011 05:36 PM, seth vidal wrote:
rpm[$pid:[$processname|$depsolvername]] pkgname pkgstate/action
I wouldn't make it easy to add anything but $appname[$pid] to that part
of the log entry; I suspect it could cause problems with existing
software that parses the logs and expects to
Hello,
I'm considering using lua in some scriptlets, and noticed that while
posix.symlink() currently exists in the posix extension included with
rpm, it no longer exists in the current upstream version, there's a 3rd
argument to posix.link() instead for that purpose:
---
CHANGES| 20
INSTALL| 12 +-
autodeps/freebsdelf.req| 2 +-
autodeps/hpux.prov | 2 +-
autodeps/osf.req | 2 +-
lib/fsm.c | 4 ++--
lib/header.c
---
configure.ac | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac
index ec85ede..7351291 100644
--- a/configure.ac
+++ b/configure.ac
@@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ fi
dnl
dnl Find some common programs
dnl
-AC_PATH_PROG(__7ZIP, 7zip, /usr/bin/7za, $MYPATH)
---
python/rpm/__init__.py| 18 --
python/rpm/transaction.py | 15 ++-
2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/python/rpm/__init__.py b/python/rpm/__init__.py
index 196be3c..3b750db 100644
--- a/python/rpm/__init__.py
+++
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Jerome Quelin jque...@gmail.com wrote:
This patch only acknowledges this fact, and allows _ in versions.
This results in the underscores also ending up in the Provides. I
don't think that's a good thing as IIRC rpm's version comparison does
not treat it the same
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Michael Schroeder m...@suse.de wrote:
Well, 0.95_01 is actually more correct than 0.9501. Perl's versions
are actually more or less floating point numbers, thus 0.9501 is
supposed to be less than 0.96.
From rpm's side, '_' is exactly equivalent to '.', so
diffutils is a rpm-build dependency anyway nowadays, e.g. find-debuginfo.sh
uses cmp too. See PR #16 for discussion.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/30
-- Commit Summary --
* brp-python-hardlink: Use cmp
...except long lines warnings.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/31
-- Commit Summary --
* pythoneggs.py: flake8 fixes
-- File Changes --
M scripts/pythoneggs.py (40)
-- Patch Links --
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/70
-- Commit Summary --
* Spelling fixes
-- File Changes --
M doc/rpmspec.8 (2)
M lib/rpmfi.c (2)
M lib/rpmtriggers.c (2)
M misc/rpmxprogname.c (2)
M
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/71
-- Commit Summary --
* python: Fix signalsCaught() docstring
* python: Trivial code cleanups
* python: Remove unnecessary shebang
* python: Close file in _f2hdr also
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/112
-- Commit Summary --
* find-lang.sh: Add --with-kde KF5 support
-- File Changes --
M scripts/find-lang.sh (13)
-- Patch Links --
I don't see how this change would affect that use case at all. Before this
change, the macros were expanded using `%{__python}`, and they still are (the
shebang in the scriptlet is not used).
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/241
-- Commit Summary --
* Spelling fixes
-- File Changes --
M CHANGES (18)
M build/files.c (4)
M doc/hacking.doxy.in (2)
M doc/librpm.doxy.in (2)
M
Ping?
--
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/pull/221#issuecomment-310887287___
Rpm-maint mailing list
`.py` suffixes removed.
I don't think there's anything fragile about this particular use of `print`,
nor does it require the `print_function` import. It is also nothing new, the
previous `%python_sitelib` and `%python_sitearch` definitions used it too.
--
You are receiving this because you
Oh well, anyway, since it was not my purpose to actually make the sys.stdout ->
print changes, they're back to sys.stdout.write in this latest revision.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Oops, the print stuff is like I said in the macros shipped by Fedora's
python-rpm-macros, not here (here they were using sys.stdout.write). But the
rest of what I said still stands.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/221
-- Commit Summary --
* Use scripts instead of python -c to retrieve %python_* values
* Get %python_version from platform.python_version_tuple
-- File Changes --
M
It'll take me about a week and a half until I'll get back to this. If anyone
wants to ahead with this in the meantime, please feel free.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
`python_sitedirs` is otherwise fine, but it will also in its current form be
used to retrieve the python version, which seems a bit odd to me. Also, perhaps
it will be extended to generate some new other macros in the future. I'm
currently thinking along the lines of `python-macrotool` or
Combining done, script renamed to python-macro-helper. I think the installation
point in rpm's dir structure serves as a prefix/namespace already.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
scop commented on this pull request.
> @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+#!/usr/bin/python -tt
Shouldn't really matter all that much, because the script is invoked with an
explicit "outside" interpreter without the shebang affecting anything, but
meh... dropped.
--
You are receiving this because you are
@scop pushed 1 commit.
9e192ce python-macro-helper: Drop -tt from shebang
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
Rebased. @pmatilai ping?
--
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/pull/221#issuecomment-325380081___
Rpm-maint mailing list
@pmatilai @Conan-Kudo ping?
--
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/pull/221#issuecomment-338811478___
Rpm-maint mailing list
> I don't think that passing -E is good
Could you elaborate on that a bit, especially when you think -s /is/
good? Without -s, code from user site packages is loaded, potentially
interfering with the commands. Without -E, PYTHONPATH from environment
can be used to do exactly the same.
(If
To limit environment and user home dir influence.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/341
-- Commit Summary --
* Invoke python-macro-helper with -Es python args
-- File Changes --
M macros.in (6)
M
- [x] @scop ok with relicensing under MIT
--
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-437430364___
LGPLv2.1(+) or GPLv2(+) is fine with me.
--
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/471#issuecomment-485118161___
43 matches
Mail list logo
