Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Skip showing Group in output of `rpm -qi` (#534)
@jasontibbitts: presumably you meant --queryformat, not POPT, which already can conditionally test for existence of tags in headers. -- 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/534#issuecomment-416353966___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Skip showing Group in output of `rpm -qi` (#534)
> Or Fedora could just live with it. I like this option. :) -- 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/534#issuecomment-416353664___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Skip showing Group in output of `rpm -qi` (#534)
Various options: * Fedora could simply patch this downstream; it's just one popt file. * RPM could leave the Group field in the header empty instead of hardcoding "Unspecified". Then the popt file could just conditionally include the line. I've no idea what else would break, though. * The popt language could grow syntax to allow the Group line to be shown only if the Group tag is not equal to unspecified. Or Fedora could just live with it. dnf won't show useless group tags and I expect that's the more often used interface for getting package information. -- 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/534#issuecomment-416353373___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] %setup -T -a 0 -a 1 doesn't extract %{S:0} (#462)
This reminds me of the [weirdness of `%patch -P 1 2 3`](https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/19). Would it useful to make matters with `%setup` more complicated by permitting options `-b` and `-a` to have multiple numeric arguments? :wink: BTW, `debbuild`'s `%autosetup` acknowledges multiple `-b` and `-a` just by coincidence, because its implementation ships all options to `%setup` behind the scenes. -- 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/462#issuecomment-416261800___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Skip showing Group in output of `rpm -qi` (#534)
Personally, I would much rather see support for Tags instead of Groups. Nevertheless, If this will be approved: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_Group_Tag Then this tag does not have any value for Fedora and can be displayed conditionally as some other tags. -- 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/534#issuecomment-416233878___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Skip showing Group in output of `rpm -qi` (#534)
Re "... key reason ..." This is revisionist history without basis in fact by an outsider who was not present at RedHat Adding Group by value in package content forces rebuilds to Get It Right!. The better implementation associates Group values with packages, not within packages, so that the Group taxonomy can be changed, or so that multiple taxonomies organized by Group can be supported simultaneously. Readding support for the Group tag in packages within rpm libraries for alternative depsolver usage 15+ years later without addressing better implementations is a monumental mistake. -- 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/534#issuecomment-416218791___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Skip showing Group in output of `rpm -qi` (#534)
SUSE Linux distributions follow this guideline for categorizing packages with the Group tag: https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Package_group_guidelines Mageia follows this policy: https://wiki.mageia.org/en/RPM_groups_policy OpenMandriva follows a similar policy to Mageia. ALT Linux, PLD Linux, PCLinuxOS, and several other distributions also use the Group tag in this manner. The key reason why Red Hat/Fedora never bothered to extend the groups is because we've never had a tool in Fedora (prior to dnfdragora) that was capable of organizing packages by the Group tag that was using the default package manager. With apt-rpm, of course, there was Synaptic, which did organize it that way. And smart's GUI did too. But none of the GUI interfaces for YUM ever did, so there was not as much reason to extend the classifications for packages to actually support the wider array of packages. However, DNF does today through [dnfdragora](https://github.com/manatools/dnfdragora) on every distribution except Fedora, where it is built with `-DENABLE_COMPS=1` (which incidentally makes it much slower to map all the packages to groups due to the M:N relationship and the fact it's a subset mapping that has to be built up as the app starts). In SUSE distributions, both Zypper and YaST2 are capable of sorting through packages by the Group tag. In Mageia and OpenMandriva, RPMDrake (the legacy package manager) and dnfdragora (the new one) both sort by the Group tag. While DNF does not yet present the Group information at the CLI (it's something I am going to do at some point), urpmi (the legacy package manager) does. I don't know where the decision to not sort packages came from, but that's pretty much the difference between Fedora and every other distribution. -- 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/534#issuecomment-416206921___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Skip showing Group in output of `rpm -qi` (#534)
This follows up https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/532#issuecomment-415312692 I agree that Group should not be displayed at all. Fedora does not use it. I am really curious about the usage in other distributions as @Conan-Kudo mentioned. -- 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/534___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] macros: make unversioned python macros not expand to empty (#469)
How can I move this forward? -- 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/469#issuecomment-416191916___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] [feature request] autopatch to handle scm same as autosetup (#442)
You can use `%autosetup -N -S git` to initialize `%__scm` and then `%autopatch`/`%apply_patch` continues appropriately. I believe I have a private specfile somewhere that makes use of such a recipe (plus some manual `git commit`invocations in between). -- 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/442#issuecomment-416168839___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] add parse_evr() to python bindings (#533)
Yup, we don't want duplicate implementations of things in Python. Such a generic utility function deserves an implementation in C and just exported to Python. The problem with exposing parseEVR() does not a very nice API make. For one, it modifies its first argument, and then there's the question of epoch (it's returned as a string when it's really an integer). -- 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/533#issuecomment-416167140___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] add parse_evr() to python bindings (#533)
ignatenkobrain commented on this pull request. > @@ -126,3 +126,24 @@ def dsSingle(TagN, N, EVR="", Flags=RPMSENSE_ANY): dsSingle(RPMTAG_CONFLICTNAME, "rpm") corresponds to "Conflicts: rpm" """ return ds((N, Flags, EVR), TagN) + +def parse_evr(evr_string): note that there is same function in C and I think we should really expose that one. -- 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/533#pullrequestreview-149631552___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] add parse_evr() to python bindings (#533)
This was originally in in rpmUtils.miscutils.stringToVersion in yum. http://yum.baseurl.org/api/yum-3.2.26/rpmUtils.miscutils-pysrc.html#stringToVersion Yum is dead now (and not present for Python3), but this function is useful. Signed-off-by: Miroslav Suchý You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/533 -- Commit Summary -- * add parse_evr() to python bindings -- File Changes -- M python/rpm/__init__.py (21) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/533.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/533.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/533 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
