Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] debugedit.c patches (#171)
MJW also says not needed, closing. -- You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/171#issuecomment-285035471___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] debugedit.c patches (#171)
Closed #171. -- You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/171#event-991302904___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] debugedit.c patches (#171)
I have tested the current rpm4 debugedit within the Yocto Project environment -without- the patch, with the known binary doing cross-compiled work (little to big endian) and have not been able to reproduce the issue. Either debugedit has had a tweak over the years or elfutils has had a bug fixed. (The original defect being resolved by this patch set was related to the "shdr.sh_type" being in the binary endian, not the running system endian.) So it appears there is no need for the specific patch related: https://patchwork.openembedded.org/patch/46887 -- You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/171#issuecomment-284739345___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] debugedit.c patches (#171)
Another issue that might make debugedit.c more portable is similar to inlining DW_FORM* instead of `#include ` Instead of using EU version dependent #defines for strtab_init() etc (which needs -lebl), it may be more "portable" to just inline the routines and maintain a copy in debugedit.c. That would permit non-elfutils -lelf to be used "portably" even if there is code duplication. I dunno (yet) how much code would need to be duplicated, but will take a look soonishly. -- You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/171#issuecomment-284468205___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] debugedit.c patches (#171)
Re: https://patchwork.openembedded.org/patch/46887 The bug and related information are available at: https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4089 I am currently working through this to see if the current rpm (4) version suffers from the same failure. I will update this if it does or does not. -- You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/171#issuecomment-284464186___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] debugedit.c patches (#171)
Yes all the patches were reversed. Meanwhile I just sorted the first patch with Mark Hatle (aka "fray"). The segfault is not reproducible with EU-0.168. The hex printing was an attempt to avoid pgpHexStr() which differs between rpm.org and rpm5.org. You explained away the valid_file() check The other changes to debugedit --help are largely cosmetic. I maintain POPT and so am slightly OCD ;-) -- You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/171#issuecomment-284463573___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] debugedit.c patches (#171)
@n3npq For what it's worth, to make it all unformatted text, use ` ``` ` at the top of the block, and ` ``` ` at the bottom of the block. That way, it looks like patches or code. :) In addition, you can tell it to be diff style by doing ` ```diff ` for the top of the block. -- 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/171#issuecomment-284303806___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
