Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Metatags (#107)
@proyvind pushed 1 commit. cfe0869 MetaTags: should be translatable -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/107/files/8d0a541248e136b1ebcdec93ae4a2d5b9924882d..cfe0869f08b5d0248c4b19e4da29a0eddda6561e ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Metatags (#107)
@proyvind pushed 1 commit. 8d0a541 update tests with METATAGS added to queryformat test -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/107/files/7b838c4eb22c5df3b9a0c308cbe311d8764118c0..8d0a541248e136b1ebcdec93ae4a2d5b9924882d ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Metatags (#107)
Erm, how comps are related to this? -- 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/107#issuecomment-265371083___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Metatags (#107)
Can one of the admins verify this patch? -- 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/107#issuecomment-265370455___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Metatags (#107)
Maintenance of multiple meta tags for packages outside of packages, replacing optional group tag isn't ideal wrt. package maintenance scaling.. In stead a MetaTags: tag has been added, accepting multiple tag words. This seems like a far more ideal solution than what's currently implemented with comps groups in dnf, while remaining independent of package solver. You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/107 -- Commit Summary -- * make sure not to dereference NULL pointer * handle new MetaTags: tag -- File Changes -- M build/parsePreamble.c (15) M build/parseSpec.c (1) M lib/rpmtag.h (1) M lib/transaction.c (3) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/107.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/107.diff -- 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/107 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] make sure not to dereference NULL pointer (#106)
This bug made me really puzzled and I don't wanna dig further around to try wrap my head around to confirm that this fix is actually the right one, nor if I even understand the problem or not. I encountered it repeatedly right away, when installing a mageia installation from rpm5 based omv-cooker into chroot. I've not really tried installing a fresh rpm.org environment into a chroot using rpm.org, but I'd imagine some differences in headers, triggers what I found even more puzzling even more sloppy coding that made me extremely uncertain and confused.. rpmtdType() may return -1, which means that rpmtdGetChar() may return NULL, which as it's possible for this to actually happen, we need to handle it gracefully without trying to derereference a NULL pointer uncoditionally.. I was extremely confused about how noone else had encountered this right away, which I did, but that would explain things using reasoning without confirming. Internals of rpm.org are wastly different from what used to with rpm5.org... You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/106 -- Commit Summary -- * make sure not to dereference NULL pointer -- File Changes -- M lib/transaction.c (3) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/106.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/106.diff -- 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/106 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] make sure not to dereference NULL pointer (#106)
Can one of the admins verify this patch? -- 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/106#issuecomment-265332776___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] make sure not to dereference NULL pointer (#105)
Closed #105. -- 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/105#event-884568493___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] make sure not to dereference NULL pointer (#105)
Can one of the admins verify this patch? -- 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/105#issuecomment-265322590___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] make sure not to dereference NULL pointer (#105)
This seems odd to me, on one hand if one were to dereference the value of rpmtdChar(ostate), and it being RPMFILE_STATE_NORMAL, it's the same value as the NULL pointer.. Just wanting to fix segfaults now rather than digging deep within code, so this might not be the right solution nor understanding for the problem, but.. You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/105 -- Commit Summary -- * make sure not to dereference NULL pointer -- File Changes -- M lib/transaction.c (3) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/105.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/105.diff -- 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/105 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
