Re: [CVS] RPM: rpm-5_0: rpm/ macros.in

2008-02-25 Thread Elan Ruusamäe
On Thursday 21 February 2008 23:55, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> Q: How many non-builds (think about install/erase/query/verify/
> import/... rpm modes)
> on any platform, including sparc9v2, care or need sparc9v2 added to  
> %sparc?
> A: 0

on a side note, is it possible for rpmbuild to have extra macros file?

-- 
glen
__
RPM Package Managerhttp://rpm5.org
Developer Communication Listrpm-devel@rpm5.org


Re: Some ruby 1.9 fixes

2013-08-26 Thread Elan Ruusamäe
Config vs RbConfig :

https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/v1_9_3_327/lib/rbconfig/obsolete.rb#L4

so i understand 1.8.x (latest is 1.8.7 [1]) works with RbConfig too

[2] ftp://ftp.ruby-lang.org/pub/ruby/1.8



On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 10:57 PM, Jeffrey Johnson  wrote:

>
> On Aug 26, 2013, at 2:30 PM, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote:
>
> > This patch fixes compatibility with ruby 1.9.
> >
>
> There are far far far deeper issues with ruby 1.8.x != 1.9.x behavior
> that need to be addressed.
>
> There is no "consensus" (no even a goal) stated that might lead to
> a more useful implementation. Instead there are gobs of macro magic
> glue to enable/disable and otherwise diddle up band-aids to a fundamentally
> flawed approach.
>
> Please read my comments (Sept 2009 iirc, +/- a year, was September)
> on  on fundamental design differences between
> "embedding" (as undertaken by me @rpm5.org) and "bindings" for a build
> system in ruby (as my existing implementation was (ab)used for).
>
> I see no rational way to extend RPM+RUBY usefully and portably by
> applying Yet More Macro Madness (in distro-du-jour dialect), with
> known and large differences in "embedding" behavior between
> ruby 1.8.x != 1.9.x implementations, particularly when all the
> cool kids interest is in creating a native ruby packaging system,
> not in devising more "standard" ruby *.rpm packaging.
>
> YMMV
>
> 73 de Jeff
>
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Per Øyvind
> > 
>
> __
> RPM Package Managerhttp://rpm5.org
> Developer Communication Listrpm-devel@rpm5.org
>



-- 
glen


Re: rpm-5.4.16 snapshot, take 2

2016-03-21 Thread Elan Ruusamäe

On 21.03.2016 16:32, Jeff Johnson wrote:

(aside)
I've added Reply-To:  which is likely the better forum,
and because I did not receive this msg for whatever reason:
 rpm-5.4.16 snapshot, take 2


i wish it would be possible to disable building cruft that is not used.
that is tests (as we do not run tests) and some weird and perhaps
experimental tools like b2sum. pld intention is not to do some build
coverage, but just get /bin/rpm compiled and packaged

Somehow I have to release one rpm-5.4.16 tarball, not one for every possible 
distro
purpose.


i was referring to error linking b2sum, that tool is not needed for 
building /bin/rpm as far i know.
currently there's no configure option to disable building tests or utils 
like b2sum



The issue with missing va_start has nothing to do with "cruft", but rather
that librpmio is misbuilt on PLD somehow: ensuring that
#include 
happens will surely be the fix. Can you find which .o is not including 
?
Or make the actual failed build available so that I can diagnose?


the build logs should be still available:
https://srcbuilder.pld-linux.org/th/queue.html#144799




and the text fields still contain garbage:

As I tried to say below, PLD and rpm5.org are likely going to differ on 
removing the
RPM_I18NSTRING_TYPE =  9
data type from rpm headers.
I explicitly verified that Summary/Group/Description could be displayed
using both rpm-4.13.0 (as in Fedora 23), and rpm-5.4.16, in both
LANG=en_US.UTF-8
and
LANG=fr_FR
with the underlying switch disabling the change in system.h:
/**
 * Eliminate RPM_I18NSTRING_TYPE.
 */
#define SUPPORT_I18NSTRING_TYPE 1
(which is what PLD is likely going to use).
I will check the other value of SUPPORT_I18NSTRING_TYPE next.


well, you said: "The issue is related to eliminating 
RPM_I18NSTRING_TYPE, there is likely a rpmbuild issue … easy fixing 
todo++. I seem to recall fixing this problem before ... ". i'm sorry but 
i have no clues what "eliminating RPM_I18NSTRING_TYPE" means as end 
result. to me it seems just lingua used by rpm-developers to refer some 
internal structures i definately do not need to understand.


so i assumed you will "fix" it.

if the result is still grabaged seen with rpm 4.5.15 (or rpm 4.5), i 
don't see how this is going to play well in real world. such major abi 
breakages should be introduced in next major version, or at least 
possible to --enable-i18n configure option to build compatible for use 
of older rpm versions.




hth

73 de Jeff



On Mar 18, 2016, at 3:49 AM, Jeff Johnson wrote:


I have uploaded another snapshot release that addresses
all the issues you have reported:

rpm-5.4.16-0.20160318.src.rpm

The issue of garbled text is both locale and rpm version dependent
and is _NOT_ reproducible with rpm-5.4.16, but is reproducible
with rpm-4.13.0 when a locale is specified.

PLD and rpm5.org are likely to disagree on the issue of including
I18N in spec files and in headers no matter what.

I have checked that rpm can be built using --without-openssl
and/or --without-acl.

The linkage problem with rpmio/tgfs which uses shm_open(3) has to do
with a missing -lrt which may be implicitly specified by some other
configure option, perhaps OPENMP.

Meanwhile I have hardwired -lrt for tgfs ldflags. The other issues I had with
tgfs (a test program for GridFS using MongoDB) had to do with misconfiguration,
not anything else. There is a need for an error message which I will add 
shortly.

hth

73 de Jeff

On Mar 15, 2016, at 6:14 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:


On 15.03.2016 22:27, Jeff Johnson wrote:

There is a snapshot release of rpm-5.4.16 now available at

http://rpm5.org/files/rpm/rpm-5.4/SNAPSHOT/rpm-5.4.16-0.20160315.src.rpm

it's text fields seem to contain garbage:

[~/rpm/packages/rpm(5.4.15) (dev-5.4.16)⚡] ➔ less rpm-5.4.16-0.20160315.src.rpm
Name: rpm  Relocations: (not relocatable)
Version : 5.4.16Vendor: (none)
Release : 0.20160315Build Date: T 15 märts 2016 
21:13:03 EET
Install Date: (not installed)Build Host: hi.jbj.org
Group   : (^E^B  Source RPM: (none)
Size: 20861253 License: LGPLv2
Signature   : RSA/SHA1, T 15 märts 2016 21:13:03 EET, Key ID fd73f8a36edb4910
URL : http://rpm5.org
Summary : <88>^F^B
Architecture: x86_64
Description :
^F^B
* K märts 16 2016 Jeff Johnson  -5.4.16
- improve uncoupling from rpmbuild configuration.


anyway, will push soon dev-5.4.16 branch in pld repo [1] for anyone wishing to 
test it

ps: tarball size increased 5mb:

[~/rpm/packages/rpm(5.4.16) (dev-5.4.16)⚡] ➔ l rpm-5.4.*gz
-rw-r- 1 glen users 15M 25. okt2014 rpm-5.4.15.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 glen users 20M 15. märts 21:04 rpm-5.4.16.tar.gz


[1] http://git.pld-li

Re: rpm-5.4.16 snapshot

2016-04-20 Thread Elan Ruusamäe

On 20.04.2016 18:01, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:

On 20.04.2016 15:38, Jeff Johnson wrote:

There is a final snapshot release of rpm-5.4.16 now available at

http://rpm5.org/files/rpm/rpm-5.4/SNAPSHOT/rpm-5.4.16-0.20160420.src.rpm 



so this did got finally addressed?

http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/pipermail/pld-devel-en/2015-November/thread.html#24537 




sorry, the patch that pld has applied now is here:

https://github.com/pld-linux/rpm/blob/ff1a99fc4/do_not_write_before_macro_buffer.patch

--
glen

__
RPM Package Managerhttp://rpm5.org
Developer Communication Listrpm-devel@rpm5.org


Re: rpm-5.4.16 snapshot

2016-04-20 Thread Elan Ruusamäe

On 20.04.2016 15:38, Jeff Johnson wrote:

There is a final snapshot release of rpm-5.4.16 now available at

http://rpm5.org/files/rpm/rpm-5.4/SNAPSHOT/rpm-5.4.16-0.20160420.src.rpm


so this did got finally addressed?

http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/pipermail/pld-devel-en/2015-November/thread.html#24537

--
glen

__
RPM Package Managerhttp://rpm5.org
Developer Communication Listrpm-devel@rpm5.org