Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide
On Wed, 2015-07-29 at 09:49 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 28.7.2015 v 18:15 Matthias Clasen napsal(a): On Tue, 2015-07-28 at 14:49 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: Just out of curiosity, do you have already any candidates for File Triggers? I suppose /sbin/ldconfig is one of them. Do you plan to have some F24 feature to get rid of these? Here is a list of candidates: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Tasklist#filetrigger Workstation WG is keeping an eye on this. Very nice. Thank you. As a test balloon, I've now added file triggers to gdk-pixbuf2-2.31.5 -2.fc24, and librsvg2-2.40.9-3.fc24 now relies on them to get its pixbuf loader registered. Let me know if you see any problems with those updates that might be caused by the file triggers. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide
On 08/05/2015 10:02 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote: As a test balloon, I've now added file triggers to gdk-pixbuf2-2.31.5 -2.fc24, and librsvg2-2.40.9-3.fc24 now relies on them to get its pixbuf loader registered. Let me know if you see any problems with those updates that might be caused by the file triggers. I fixed up a small typo that made the gdk-pixbuf2 triggers spew errors, but besides the typo they seem to be working fine here in quick testing. Very much looking forward to using them in other packages as well! Awesome that the support is finally there in rpm. -- Kalev -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide
On Saturday, 25 July 2015 at 13:31, Remi Collet wrote:
Le 25/07/2015 13:20, Florian Festi a écrit :
On 07/25/2015 11:18 AM, Remi Collet wrote:
Thanks for catching that!
Do you want me to file a bug ?
Yes, please!
FYI https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246743
It looks like the fix for this broke all packages which have
files/directories with actual { and } characters in %files.
Shall I file a new bug?
Currently, mozilla-noscript doesn't build because of this:
[...]
Processing files: mozilla-noscript-2.6.9.33-1.fc24.noarch
error: File not found by glob:
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/mozilla-noscript-2.6.9.33-1.fc24.x86_64/usr/share/mozilla/extensions/{92650c4d-4b8e-4d2a-b7eb-24ecf4f6b63a}/{73a6fe31-595d-460b-a920-fcc0f8843232}
error: File not found by glob:
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/mozilla-noscript-2.6.9.33-1.fc24.x86_64/usr/share/mozilla/extensions/{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}/{73a6fe31-595d-460b-a920-fcc0f8843232}
Regards,
Dominik
--
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org
Faith manages.
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:Confessions and Lamentations
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 02:16:57PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Saturday, 25 July 2015 at 13:31, Remi Collet wrote:
Le 25/07/2015 13:20, Florian Festi a écrit :
On 07/25/2015 11:18 AM, Remi Collet wrote:
Thanks for catching that!
Do you want me to file a bug ?
Yes, please!
FYI https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246743
It looks like the fix for this broke all packages which have
files/directories with actual { and } characters in %files.
Shall I file a new bug?
Currently, mozilla-noscript doesn't build because of this:
[...]
Processing files: mozilla-noscript-2.6.9.33-1.fc24.noarch
error: File not found by glob:
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/mozilla-noscript-2.6.9.33-1.fc24.x86_64/usr/share/mozilla/extensions/{92650c4d-4b8e-4d2a-b7eb-24ecf4f6b63a}/{73a6fe31-595d-460b-a920-fcc0f8843232}
error: File not found by glob:
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/mozilla-noscript-2.6.9.33-1.fc24.x86_64/usr/share/mozilla/extensions/{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}/{73a6fe31-595d-460b-a920-fcc0f8843232}
At least the shell does not expand {} without any commas:
$ echo {a,b} {c}
a b {c}
So rpm probably shouldn't either.
Zbyszek
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide
Neal Gompa wrote: On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 5:37 AM, Florian Festi ffe...@redhat.com wrote: Also we still need to settle to a final syntax for the operators [1]. Unfortunately there is no consensus among the other packaging formats what to use. Right now rpm accepts 3 different styles: * AND OR IF ELSE * | ? : * || ? : But the final release will only support on of them. As soon as the alpha stops eating babies that's a discussion we need to have. Is there a reason why we can't maintain all three kinds? Languages that support many alternative syntax variants tend to get difficult to read. Different programmers will use different syntaxes and then have trouble reading each other's code. It's a lot of pain for very little gain. Björn Persson pgp8DZi7hJ5JF.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signatur -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide
Florian Festi wrote: Also we still need to settle to a final syntax for the operators [1]. Unfortunately there is no consensus among the other packaging formats what to use. Right now rpm accepts 3 different styles: * AND OR IF ELSE * | ? : * || ? : But the final release will only support on of them. As soon as the alpha stops eating babies that's a discussion we need to have. I'm sure the C-like operators will be popular among people who are accustomed to C and its descendants, but please keep in mind that packagers aren't necessarily C programmers. Especially the conditional operator from C – the question mark and colon – is quite unintuitive. People who don't already know the C syntax are unlikely to understand it without some teaching. Björn Persson pgpm7vZDrYKkT.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signatur -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide
Michael Schroeder wrote: And there's IF and THEN/ELSE. IF is a postfix op, like in perl and ruby: Requires: a IF b There's no ELSE part in this variant? THEN/ELSE is the infix one: Requires: b THEN a Requires: b ? a Requires: b THEN a ELSE c Requires: b ? a : c THEN without IF is confusing. b THEN a doesn't look like a condition at all; it looks like first b and then a. Algol 60 had conditional expressions of the form if C then P else Q. Algol 68 added elif and required that if expressions be terminated with fi so that it's always clear where the expression ends: if C then P elif D then Q else R fi. A similar syntax was chosen when conditional expressions were added to Ada in Ada 2012. Although if statements are terminated with end if; in Ada, if expressions are not. Instead conditional expressions must always be enclosed in parentheses to avoid ambiguities. Ada also uses elsif instead of elif: (if C then P elsif D then Q else R) I would recommend that the Ada 2012 syntax be adopted in RPM. It's easy to read, unambiguous and expressive. The formal specification can be found at http://www.adaic.org/resources/add_content/standards/12rm/html/RM-4-5-7.html (Ada 2012 also has another kind of conditional expressions: case expressions analogous to case statements. RPM won't need those if the condition is always boolean.) Björn Persson pgp0qRhzCwstM.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signatur -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide
On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 09:08:07 + (UTC) Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com wrote: On 2015-07-24, Florian Festi ffe...@redhat.com wrote: The freshly released rpm-4.12.90 aka rpm-4.13.0-alpha is going to hit rawhide soon. The two major new features are: Will you rebuild all librpm.so.3's reverse dependencies? I've already rebuild Perl packages, but there some remaining: # dnf -q --enablerepo=f24-build repoquery --repoid=f24-build --whatrequires 'librpm.so.3()(64bit)' --source | sort -u abrt-java-connector-1.1.0-4.fc23.src.rpm apt-0.5.15lorg3.95-20.git522.fc23.src.rpm cyrus-imapd-2.4.17-11.fc23.src.rpm foghorn-0.1.6-9.fc23.src.rpm keepalived-1.2.19-1.fc24.src.rpm libappstream-glib-0.4.1-1.fc24.src.rpm libextractor-1.3-6.fc23.src.rpm libvirt-snmp-0.0.3-5.fc23.src.rpm openhpi-subagent-2.3.4-24.fc22.src.rpm openlmi-providers-0.6.0-2.fc23.src.rpm openscap-1.2.5-1.fc23.src.rpm opensips-1.10.5-4.fc23.src.rpm ovaldi-5.9.1-13.fc23.src.rpm ptpd-2.3.1-2.fc23.src.rpm sectool-0.9.5-15.fc23.src.rpm From what I could see all of these were now rebuilt except for cyrus-imapd. Why does cyrus-imapd link against librpm? I'm not sure I want to know... but in any case I rebuilt it. kevin pgpeyYa7ECQrX.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide
On 2015-07-28, Michael Schroeder m...@suse.de wrote: And there's IF and THEN/ELSE. IF is a postfix op, like in perl and ruby: Requires: a IF b THEN/ELSE is the infix one: Requires: b THEN a Requires: b ? a Requires: b THEN a ELSE c Requires: b ? a : c When I read the documentation I wondered why different notations are used. It puzzles me. -- Petr -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide
On 2015-07-24, Florian Festi ffe...@redhat.com wrote: The freshly released rpm-4.12.90 aka rpm-4.13.0-alpha is going to hit rawhide soon. The two major new features are: Will you rebuild all librpm.so.3's reverse dependencies? I've already rebuild Perl packages, but there some remaining: # dnf -q --enablerepo=f24-build repoquery --repoid=f24-build --whatrequires 'librpm.so.3()(64bit)' --source | sort -u abrt-java-connector-1.1.0-4.fc23.src.rpm apt-0.5.15lorg3.95-20.git522.fc23.src.rpm cyrus-imapd-2.4.17-11.fc23.src.rpm foghorn-0.1.6-9.fc23.src.rpm keepalived-1.2.19-1.fc24.src.rpm libappstream-glib-0.4.1-1.fc24.src.rpm libextractor-1.3-6.fc23.src.rpm libvirt-snmp-0.0.3-5.fc23.src.rpm openhpi-subagent-2.3.4-24.fc22.src.rpm openlmi-providers-0.6.0-2.fc23.src.rpm openscap-1.2.5-1.fc23.src.rpm opensips-1.10.5-4.fc23.src.rpm ovaldi-5.9.1-13.fc23.src.rpm ptpd-2.3.1-2.fc23.src.rpm sectool-0.9.5-15.fc23.src.rpm -- Petr -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide
On 07/28/2015 11:37 AM, Florian Festi wrote: On 07/28/2015 09:43 AM, Lubos Kardos wrote: Support in rpm is not enough but libsolv supports rich deps since the version 0.6.9 too thus rich deps work also in hawkey and dnf if the version 0.6.9 or a newer version of libsolv is installed. Right now only AND and OR is supported by libsolv. Implementation of IF ELSE is still pending. Also we still need to settle to a final syntax for the operators [1]. Unfortunately there is no consensus among the other packaging formats what to use. Right now rpm accepts 3 different styles: * AND OR IF ELSE * | ? : * || ? : But the final release will only support on of them. As soon as the alpha stops eating babies that's a discussion we need to have. I think that C-style operators (, ) are better than verbose COBOL-style ones because they are consistent with relation operators (, = and so on) already used by rpm. Secondly, they don't introduce conflict with existing meaning - Requires: foo AND bar is valid syntax in rpm = 4.12, equivalent to requiring three packages separately. From C-style operators I would prefer single-character ones for two reasons: 1) Two-character operators may suggest short-circuit evaluation - Requires: foo || bar can be misunderstood as require foo, or bar if and only if foo is not available, which is not how that works. There is no such problem with single-character operators. In other words, | and operators are commutative, but || and are not. 2) Debian uses single-character operators. Cross-distro consistency and less confusion for people working on both Fedora and Debian is a plus. -- Mikolaj Izdebski Software Engineer, Red Hat IRC: mizdebsk -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide
Dne 28.7.2015 v 18:15 Matthias Clasen napsal(a): On Tue, 2015-07-28 at 14:49 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: Just out of curiosity, do you have already any candidates for File Triggers? I suppose /sbin/ldconfig is one of them. Do you plan to have some F24 feature to get rid of these? Here is a list of candidates: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Tasklist#filetrigger Workstation WG is keeping an eye on this. Very nice. Thank you. Vít -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com wrote: From C-style operators I would prefer single-character ones for two reasons: 1) Two-character operators may suggest short-circuit evaluation - Requires: foo || bar can be misunderstood as require foo, or bar if and only if foo is not available, which is not how that works. There is no such problem with single-character operators. In other words, | and operators are commutative, but || and are not. Good catch, I intially think of this. -- Yours sincerely, Christopher Meng http://cicku.me -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com wrote: On 07/28/2015 11:37 AM, Florian Festi wrote: Also we still need to settle to a final syntax for the operators [1]. Unfortunately there is no consensus among the other packaging formats what to use. Right now rpm accepts 3 different styles: * AND OR IF ELSE * | ? : * || ? : But the final release will only support on of them. As soon as the alpha stops eating babies that's a discussion we need to have. I think that C-style operators (, ) are better than verbose COBOL-style ones because they are consistent with relation operators (, = and so on) already used by rpm. Secondly, they don't introduce conflict with existing meaning - Requires: foo AND bar is valid syntax in rpm = 4.12, equivalent to requiring three packages separately. From C-style operators I would prefer single-character ones for two reasons: 1) Two-character operators may suggest short-circuit evaluation - Requires: foo || bar can be misunderstood as require foo, or bar if and only if foo is not available, which is not how that works. There is no such problem with single-character operators. In other words, | and operators are commutative, but || and are not. 2) Debian uses single-character operators. Cross-distro consistency and less confusion for people working on both Fedora and Debian is a plus. Well put, seconded. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 11:08:52AM +0200, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
I think that C-style operators (, ) are better than verbose
COBOL-style ones because they are consistent with relation operators (,
= and so on) already used by rpm. Secondly, they don't introduce
conflict with existing meaning - Requires: foo AND bar is valid syntax
in rpm = 4.12, equivalent to requiring three packages separately.
Actually it's Requires: (foo AND bar). We currently insist on the
parens to be 100% backwards compatible. It also has the advantage
that the parser knows when the dependency ends and the next one
starts.
Cheers,
Michael.
--
Michael Schroeder m...@suse.de
SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF Jeff Hawn, HRB 16746 AG Nuernberg
main(_){while(_=~getchar())putchar(~_-1/(~(_|32)/13*2-11)*13);}
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide
On 07/29/2015 11:08 AM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote: From C-style operators I would prefer single-character ones for two reasons: 1) Two-character operators may suggest short-circuit evaluation - Requires: foo || bar can be misunderstood as require foo, or bar if and only if foo is not available, which is not how that works. There is no such problem with single-character operators. In other words, | and operators are commutative, but || and are not. 2) Debian uses single-character operators. Cross-distro consistency and less confusion for people working on both Fedora and Debian is a plus. 1) and 2) contradict each other. In practice, “|“ in dependencies is not commutative due to virtual packages and buildd installation choices. -- Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide
Support in rpm is not enough but libsolv supports rich deps since the version 0.6.9 too thus rich deps work also in hawkey and dnf if the version 0.6.9 or a newer version of libsolv is installed. Lubos - Original Message - From: Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 5:36:45 PM Subject: Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide Dne 24.7.2015 v 15:49 Florian Festi napsal(a): * Boolean (aka rich) dependencies to support more complicated relation between packages Is this supported by dnf/hawkey/libsolv already or just RPM support is enough? Vít -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide
On 07/28/2015 09:43 AM, Lubos Kardos wrote: Support in rpm is not enough but libsolv supports rich deps since the version 0.6.9 too thus rich deps work also in hawkey and dnf if the version 0.6.9 or a newer version of libsolv is installed. Right now only AND and OR is supported by libsolv. Implementation of IF ELSE is still pending. Also we still need to settle to a final syntax for the operators [1]. Unfortunately there is no consensus among the other packaging formats what to use. Right now rpm accepts 3 different styles: * AND OR IF ELSE * | ? : * || ? : But the final release will only support on of them. As soon as the alpha stops eating babies that's a discussion we need to have. So for now they are more a tech preview in Fedora but we want to get them operational til the release. This still means that they are not supposed to be used in F23 as they may only completely work very late. Also there is still a lot of paper work to do for the packaging policy. I expect that both Boolean Deps and File Triggers won't be introduced in one go but there will be multiple Fedora Features introducing them one use case at a time. E.g. one feature per file trigger replacing one kind of scriptlets. Boolean dependencies being used for language packs being one Feature/Package Policy section and other use cases being others. This may start in the F24 time frame - especially for some urgent corner cases - but my guess is that this will rather take multiple releases. Florian [1] http://rpm.org/wiki/PackagerDocs/BooleanDependencies -- Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com/ Registered seat: Grasbrunn, Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243, Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham, Michael O'Neill, Charles Peters -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide
On 07/28/2015 02:49 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Just out of curiosity, do you have already any candidates for File Triggers? I suppose /sbin/ldconfig is one of them. Do you plan to have some F24 feature to get rid of these? Well, we do not yet have concrete plans with which scriptlets to start. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Snippets is full of possible candidates. I still have to figure out how much I want to push this as the rpm upstream developer or how far I can leave this to the Fedora community and just provide technical support. I guess I will at least start with one and then see if people pick that up. Florian -- Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com/ Registered seat: Grasbrunn, Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243, Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham, Michael O'Neill, Charles Peters -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 07:37:05AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 5:37 AM, Florian Festi ffe...@redhat.com wrote:
Unfortunately there is no consensus among the other packaging formats
what to use. Right now rpm accepts 3 different styles:
* AND OR IF ELSE
* | ? :
* || ? :
???Is there a reason why we can't maintain all three kinds? Also, why in the
world are bitwise operation operators supported for logical operations? I'd
be okay with maintaining options 1 and 3, to be honest. ???
I allowed '|' and '' to be somewhat compatible to Debian, which
already uses '|' in the dependencies.
And there's IF and THEN/ELSE. IF is a postfix op, like in perl
and ruby:
Requires: a IF b
THEN/ELSE is the infix one:
Requires: b THEN a
Requires: b ? a
Requires: b THEN a ELSE c
Requires: b ? a : c
Cheers,
Michael.
--
Michael Schroeder m...@suse.de
SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF Jeff Hawn, HRB 16746 AG Nuernberg
main(_){while(_=~getchar())putchar(~_-1/(~(_|32)/13*2-11)*13);}
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 5:37 AM, Florian Festi ffe...@redhat.com wrote: On 07/28/2015 09:43 AM, Lubos Kardos wrote: Support in rpm is not enough but libsolv supports rich deps since the version 0.6.9 too thus rich deps work also in hawkey and dnf if the version 0.6.9 or a newer version of libsolv is installed. Right now only AND and OR is supported by libsolv. Implementation of IF ELSE is still pending. Also we still need to settle to a final syntax for the operators [1]. Unfortunately there is no consensus among the other packaging formats what to use. Right now rpm accepts 3 different styles: * AND OR IF ELSE * | ? : * || ? : But the final release will only support on of them. As soon as the alpha stops eating babies that's a discussion we need to have. So for now they are more a tech preview in Fedora but we want to get them operational til the release. This still means that they are not supposed to be used in F23 as they may only completely work very late. Also there is still a lot of paper work to do for the packaging policy. I expect that both Boolean Deps and File Triggers won't be introduced in one go but there will be multiple Fedora Features introducing them one use case at a time. E.g. one feature per file trigger replacing one kind of scriptlets. Boolean dependencies being used for language packs being one Feature/Package Policy section and other use cases being others. This may start in the F24 time frame - especially for some urgent corner cases - but my guess is that this will rather take multiple releases. Florian [1] http://rpm.org/wiki/PackagerDocs/BooleanDependencies -- Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com/ Registered seat: Grasbrunn, Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243, Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham, Michael O'Neill, Charles Peters -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Is there a reason why we can't maintain all three kinds? Also, why in the world are bitwise operation operators supported for logical operations? I'd be okay with maintaining options 1 and 3, to be honest. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide
Dne 28.7.2015 v 13:37 Neal Gompa napsal(a): On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 5:37 AM, Florian Festi ffe...@redhat.com mailto:ffe...@redhat.comwrote: On 07/28/2015 09:43 AM, Lubos Kardos wrote: Support in rpm is not enough but libsolv supports rich deps since the version 0.6.9 too thus rich deps work also in hawkey and dnf if the version 0.6.9 or a newer version of libsolv is installed. $ rpm -q libsolv libsolv-0.6.11-1.fc22.x86_64 Sounds great ... Right now only AND and OR is supported by libsolv. Implementation of IF ELSE is still pending. Also we still need to settle to a final syntax for the operators [1]. Unfortunately there is no consensus among the other packaging formats what to use. Right now rpm accepts 3 different styles: * AND OR IF ELSE * | ? : * || ? : But the final release will only support on of them. As soon as the alpha stops eating babies that's a discussion we need to have. So for now they are more a tech preview in Fedora but we want to get them operational til the release. Never thought about anything else than Rawhide ... This still means that they are not supposed to be used in F23 as they may only completely work very late. Also there is still a lot of paper work to do for the packaging policy. I expect that both Boolean Deps and File Triggers won't be introduced in one go but there will be multiple Fedora Features introducing them one use case at a time. E.g. one feature per file trigger replacing one kind of scriptlets. Boolean dependencies being used for language packs being one Feature/Package Policy section and other use cases being others. Just out of curiosity, do you have already any candidates for File Triggers? I suppose /sbin/ldconfig is one of them. Do you plan to have some F24 feature to get rid of these? This may start in the F24 time frame - especially for some urgent corner cases - but my guess is that this will rather take multiple releases. Florian [1] http://rpm.org/wiki/PackagerDocs/BooleanDependencies -- Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com/ Registered seat: Grasbrunn, Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243, Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham, Michael O'Neill, Charles Peters -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org mailto:devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Is there a reason why we can't maintain all three kinds? Also, why in the world are bitwise operation operators supported for logical operations? I'd be okay with maintaining options 1 and 3, to be honest. 1 and 3 looks good to me. Vít -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide
On Tue, 2015-07-28 at 14:49 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: Just out of curiosity, do you have already any candidates for File Triggers? I suppose /sbin/ldconfig is one of them. Do you plan to have some F24 feature to get rid of these? Here is a list of candidates: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Tasklist#filetrigger -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide
On 07/26/2015 08:18 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:31:45 +0200 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com wrote: Le 25/07/2015 13:20, Florian Festi a écrit : On 07/25/2015 11:18 AM, Remi Collet wrote: Thanks for catching that! Do you want me to file a bug ? Yes, please! FYI https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246743 Just FYI, this landing on friday afternoon/evening resulted in no rawhide composes this weekend. :( Next time can you give more notice, and/or rebuild at least createrepo_c, fedup-dracut, and drpm? Those are the minimum needed to make the mock root that rawhide composes use. Sorry, I am still new to this releasing rpm business. I had hoped that only pushing stuff in rawhide and not in F23 would stay off most peoples toes. I'll try to be more careful next time. Florian -- Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com/ Registered seat: Grasbrunn, Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243, Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham, Michael O'Neill, Charles Peters -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide
We fixed this problem in rawhide in rpm-4.12.90-2.fc24
Lubos
- Original Message -
From: Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2015 11:18:05 AM
Subject: Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide
Le 24/07/2015 15:49, Florian Festi a écrit :
The freshly released rpm-4.12.90 aka rpm-4.13.0-alpha is going to hit
rawhide soon. The two major new features are:
* Boolean (aka rich) dependencies to support more complicated relation
between packages
* File Triggers - run scripts if files get installed in given paths -
possibly to replace most of the regular - per package - scriptlets at
some point in the future.
But for now and for Fedora this update is more about testing and
stabilizing the many smaller changes as far as they have not been ported
back already.
See the draft release notes for details:
http://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.13.0
It seems we have a regression (thanks Koschei)
See https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/work/tasks/4402/10474402/build.log
In spec (which is quite common, I think)
%doc imagick-3.1.2/{CREDITS,TODO,INSTALL}
During %doc
+ cp -pr imagick-3.1.2/CREDITS imagick-3.1.2/TODO imagick-3.1.2/INSTALL
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/php-pecl-imagick-3.1.2-3.fc24.i386/usr/share/doc/php-pecl-imagick
+ exit 0
RPM build errors:
error: File not found:
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/php-pecl-imagick-3.1.2-3.fc24.i386/usr/share/doc/php-pecl-imagick/{CREDITS,TODO,INSTALL}
File not found:
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/php-pecl-imagick-3.1.2-3.fc24.i386/usr/share/doc/php-pecl-imagick/{CREDITS,TODO,INSTALL}
Do you want me to file a bug ?
Remi
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide
On 07/25/2015 11:18 AM, Remi Collet wrote:
Le 24/07/2015 15:49, Florian Festi a écrit :
The freshly released rpm-4.12.90 aka rpm-4.13.0-alpha is going to hit
rawhide soon. The two major new features are:
* Boolean (aka rich) dependencies to support more complicated relation
between packages
* File Triggers - run scripts if files get installed in given paths -
possibly to replace most of the regular - per package - scriptlets at
some point in the future.
But for now and for Fedora this update is more about testing and
stabilizing the many smaller changes as far as they have not been ported
back already.
See the draft release notes for details: http://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.13.0
It seems we have a regression (thanks Koschei)
See https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/work/tasks/4402/10474402/build.log
In spec (which is quite common, I think)
%doc imagick-3.1.2/{CREDITS,TODO,INSTALL}
During %doc
+ cp -pr imagick-3.1.2/CREDITS imagick-3.1.2/TODO imagick-3.1.2/INSTALL
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/php-pecl-imagick-3.1.2-3.fc24.i386/usr/share/doc/php-pecl-imagick
+ exit 0
RPM build errors:
error: File not found:
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/php-pecl-imagick-3.1.2-3.fc24.i386/usr/share/doc/php-pecl-imagick/{CREDITS,TODO,INSTALL}
File not found:
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/php-pecl-imagick-3.1.2-3.fc24.i386/usr/share/doc/php-pecl-imagick/{CREDITS,TODO,INSTALL}
Do you want me to file a bug ?
Remi
Hi,
there is another change involving %doc. A piece of libdvdread.spec:
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc AUTHORS COPYING NEWS README
%{_libdir}/libdvdread.so.*
%files devel
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc ChangeLog TODO
...
With old rpm, files ChangeLog and TODO were included in both
libdvdread.rpm and libdvdread-devel.rpm. With this new rpm, koji build
fails with:
Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
/usr/share/doc/libdvdread/ChangeLog
/usr/share/doc/libdvdread/TODO
Which behavior is correct? I guess both are wrong. Should bugzillas be
filed?
Have a nice day,
Fero
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide
On 07/25/2015 11:18 AM, Remi Collet wrote:
%doc imagick-3.1.2/{CREDITS,TODO,INSTALL}
To give a bit more context:
Globs with braces have not been supported in rpm's %files section ever.
But https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728959 caused all kind
of docs file being added to the package and files not being properly
checked. As a result such constructs as
imagick-3.1.2/{CREDITS,TODO,INSTALL} - which are not at all supported -
did not result in an error.
As we fixed that bug rpm spits out an error - quite correctly. But
actually there is no good reason to not support braces in the globs,
especially as it is just one flag to set internally. So we added the
support and the package should now build.
But still packages with broken doc entries may refuse to build. Please
fix them if you encounter such errors. This is one of the many cases
were making rpm do the right thing and do the proper checks breaks
broken packages.
Florian
--
Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com/ Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham, Michael
O'Neill, Charles Peters
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide
The current behavior is right. Your install script insert files into buildroot
and these files are not listed in %files section.
Correctly you should replace this:
%files
%doc AUTHORS COPYING NEWS README
...
with this:
%files
%{_pkgdocdir}/AUTHORS
%{_pkgdocdir}/COPYNIG
%{_pkgdocdir}/NEWS
%{_pkgdocdir}/README
%{_pkgdocdir}/ChangeLog
%{_pkgdocdir}/TODO
...
Tag %doc followed by relative path of a file is used when you want rpm to copy
files from BUILD to BUILDROOT document directory but in your case this is done
by your install script.
Lubos
- Original Message -
From: Frantisek Kluknavsky fkluk...@redhat.com
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 3:55:53 PM
Subject: Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide
On 07/25/2015 11:18 AM, Remi Collet wrote:
Le 24/07/2015 15:49, Florian Festi a écrit :
The freshly released rpm-4.12.90 aka rpm-4.13.0-alpha is going to hit
rawhide soon. The two major new features are:
* Boolean (aka rich) dependencies to support more complicated relation
between packages
* File Triggers - run scripts if files get installed in given paths -
possibly to replace most of the regular - per package - scriptlets at
some point in the future.
But for now and for Fedora this update is more about testing and
stabilizing the many smaller changes as far as they have not been ported
back already.
See the draft release notes for details:
http://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.13.0
It seems we have a regression (thanks Koschei)
See https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/work/tasks/4402/10474402/build.log
In spec (which is quite common, I think)
%doc imagick-3.1.2/{CREDITS,TODO,INSTALL}
During %doc
+ cp -pr imagick-3.1.2/CREDITS imagick-3.1.2/TODO imagick-3.1.2/INSTALL
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/php-pecl-imagick-3.1.2-3.fc24.i386/usr/share/doc/php-pecl-imagick
+ exit 0
RPM build errors:
error: File not found:
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/php-pecl-imagick-3.1.2-3.fc24.i386/usr/share/doc/php-pecl-imagick/{CREDITS,TODO,INSTALL}
File not found:
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/php-pecl-imagick-3.1.2-3.fc24.i386/usr/share/doc/php-pecl-imagick/{CREDITS,TODO,INSTALL}
Do you want me to file a bug ?
Remi
Hi,
there is another change involving %doc. A piece of libdvdread.spec:
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc AUTHORS COPYING NEWS README
%{_libdir}/libdvdread.so.*
%files devel
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc ChangeLog TODO
...
With old rpm, files ChangeLog and TODO were included in both
libdvdread.rpm and libdvdread-devel.rpm. With this new rpm, koji build
fails with:
Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
/usr/share/doc/libdvdread/ChangeLog
/usr/share/doc/libdvdread/TODO
Which behavior is correct? I guess both are wrong. Should bugzillas be
filed?
Have a nice day,
Fero
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide
On 07/27/2015 04:55 PM, Lubos Kardos wrote:
The current behavior is right. Your install script insert files into buildroot
and these files are not listed in %files section.
Correctly you should replace this:
%files
%doc AUTHORS COPYING NEWS README
...
with this:
%files
%{_pkgdocdir}/AUTHORS
%{_pkgdocdir}/COPYNIG
%{_pkgdocdir}/NEWS
%{_pkgdocdir}/README
%{_pkgdocdir}/ChangeLog
%{_pkgdocdir}/TODO
...
Tag %doc followed by relative path of a file is used when you want rpm to copy
files from BUILD to BUILDROOT document directory but in your case this is done
by your install script.
Lubos
there is another change involving %doc. A piece of libdvdread.spec:
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc AUTHORS COPYING NEWS README
%{_libdir}/libdvdread.so.*
%files devel
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc ChangeLog TODO
...
RPM actually copies those to
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/php-pecl-imagick-3.1.2-3.fc24.i386/usr/share/doc/php-pecl-imagick-devel/
and includes them into the devel package.
It now refuses to use the copies in
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/php-pecl-imagick-3.1.2-3.fc24.i386/usr/share/doc/php-pecl-imagick
which have previously been added to the main package erroneously.
Florian
--
Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com/ Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham, Michael
O'Neill, Charles Peters
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide
Dne 24.7.2015 v 15:49 Florian Festi napsal(a): * Boolean (aka rich) dependencies to support more complicated relation between packages Is this supported by dnf/hawkey/libsolv already or just RPM support is enough? Vít -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide
On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:31:45 +0200 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com wrote: Le 25/07/2015 13:20, Florian Festi a écrit : On 07/25/2015 11:18 AM, Remi Collet wrote: Thanks for catching that! Do you want me to file a bug ? Yes, please! FYI https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246743 Just FYI, this landing on friday afternoon/evening resulted in no rawhide composes this weekend. :( Next time can you give more notice, and/or rebuild at least createrepo_c, fedup-dracut, and drpm? Those are the minimum needed to make the mock root that rawhide composes use. Thanks, kevin pgpdpypEhWwao.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide
Le 24/07/2015 15:49, Florian Festi a écrit :
The freshly released rpm-4.12.90 aka rpm-4.13.0-alpha is going to hit
rawhide soon. The two major new features are:
* Boolean (aka rich) dependencies to support more complicated relation
between packages
* File Triggers - run scripts if files get installed in given paths -
possibly to replace most of the regular - per package - scriptlets at
some point in the future.
But for now and for Fedora this update is more about testing and
stabilizing the many smaller changes as far as they have not been ported
back already.
See the draft release notes for details: http://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.13.0
It seems we have a regression (thanks Koschei)
See https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/work/tasks/4402/10474402/build.log
In spec (which is quite common, I think)
%doc imagick-3.1.2/{CREDITS,TODO,INSTALL}
During %doc
+ cp -pr imagick-3.1.2/CREDITS imagick-3.1.2/TODO imagick-3.1.2/INSTALL
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/php-pecl-imagick-3.1.2-3.fc24.i386/usr/share/doc/php-pecl-imagick
+ exit 0
RPM build errors:
error: File not found:
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/php-pecl-imagick-3.1.2-3.fc24.i386/usr/share/doc/php-pecl-imagick/{CREDITS,TODO,INSTALL}
File not found:
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/php-pecl-imagick-3.1.2-3.fc24.i386/usr/share/doc/php-pecl-imagick/{CREDITS,TODO,INSTALL}
Do you want me to file a bug ?
Remi
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide
On 07/25/2015 11:18 AM, Remi Collet wrote:
Le 24/07/2015 15:49, Florian Festi a écrit :
The freshly released rpm-4.12.90 aka rpm-4.13.0-alpha is going to hit
rawhide soon. The two major new features are:
* Boolean (aka rich) dependencies to support more complicated relation
between packages
* File Triggers - run scripts if files get installed in given paths -
possibly to replace most of the regular - per package - scriptlets at
some point in the future.
But for now and for Fedora this update is more about testing and
stabilizing the many smaller changes as far as they have not been ported
back already.
See the draft release notes for details: http://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.13.0
It seems we have a regression (thanks Koschei)
See https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/work/tasks/4402/10474402/build.log
In spec (which is quite common, I think)
%doc imagick-3.1.2/{CREDITS,TODO,INSTALL}
During %doc
+ cp -pr imagick-3.1.2/CREDITS imagick-3.1.2/TODO imagick-3.1.2/INSTALL
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/php-pecl-imagick-3.1.2-3.fc24.i386/usr/share/doc/php-pecl-imagick
+ exit 0
RPM build errors:
error: File not found:
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/php-pecl-imagick-3.1.2-3.fc24.i386/usr/share/doc/php-pecl-imagick/{CREDITS,TODO,INSTALL}
File not found:
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/php-pecl-imagick-3.1.2-3.fc24.i386/usr/share/doc/php-pecl-imagick/{CREDITS,TODO,INSTALL}
Thanks for catching that!
Do you want me to file a bug ?
Yes, please!
Florian
--
Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com/ Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham, Michael
O'Neill, Charles Peters
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide
Le 25/07/2015 13:20, Florian Festi a écrit : On 07/25/2015 11:18 AM, Remi Collet wrote: Thanks for catching that! Do you want me to file a bug ? Yes, please! FYI https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246743 Remi -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Florian Festi ffe...@redhat.com wrote: See the draft release notes for details: http://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.13.0 Terminate builds on empty files (?_empty_manifest_terminate_build) That should probably read on empty manifest files. Anyway, one effect of this is that empty debuginfo packages will now cause builds to fail, yay! -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
[HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide
The freshly released rpm-4.12.90 aka rpm-4.13.0-alpha is going to hit rawhide soon. The two major new features are: * Boolean (aka rich) dependencies to support more complicated relation between packages * File Triggers - run scripts if files get installed in given paths - possibly to replace most of the regular - per package - scriptlets at some point in the future. But for now and for Fedora this update is more about testing and stabilizing the many smaller changes as far as they have not been ported back already. See the draft release notes for details: http://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.13.0 Florian -- Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com/ Registered seat: Grasbrunn, Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243, Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham, Michael O'Neill, Charles Peters -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
