Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Drop support for buggy and problematic alternative Python build method (PR #2231)
@pmatilai pushed 1 commit. 9953a08e2610a5cb42480b6e639146d42e831172 Generate Python egg-info from cmake builds -- View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2231/files/bb2b5ceb3e258c91912081b5be0bfbac37279380..9953a08e2610a5cb42480b6e639146d42e831172 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix silent wait when missing pipeline input (PR #2235)
#2210 Hi,I found that most of the people who use the popt do not judge the validity of the parameters. They only care about their own specific parameters, so I added judgment on the pipeline input to see if it can solve your problems?  You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2235 -- Commit Summary -- * Fix silent wait when missing pipeline input -- File Changes -- M rpm2archive.c (4) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2235.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2235.diff -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2235 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2...@github.com ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Verify that all OpenPGP signatures are a single signature packet (Issue #2233)
Closed #2233 as completed. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2233#event-7614349188 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Verify that all OpenPGP signatures are a single signature packet (Issue #2233)
@nwalfield: then there is no bug, closing. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2233#issuecomment-1282830219 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Verify that all OpenPGP signatures are a single signature packet (Issue #2233)
In `pgpPrtParams`, [`rpm-sequoia` checks that there is exactly one signature packet](https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm-sequoia/blob/main/src/lib.rs#L951). Can you please provide a reproducer for this bug. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2233#issuecomment-1282827575 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Verify that all OpenPGP signatures are a single signature packet (Issue #2233)
Can you explain what you are trying to accomplish. Is your claim that an rpm signature should be exactly one signature package and a literal data packet? Out of curiosity, how are multiple signatures handled in rpm? -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2233#issuecomment-1282813848 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Rust-less bootstrapping (Discussion #2234)
Bootstrapping without Rust has been mentioned as a requirement on the Fedora development mailing list. However, not being able to verify signatures is a very bad idea for security. This discussion is about trying to resolve this conundrum. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2234 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Verify that all OpenPGP signatures are a single signature packet (Issue #2233)
This is enforced by the current in-tree parser, but (presumably) not by the Sequoia parser. It does not require parsing the contents at all, merely the framing. I am willing to make a patch. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2233 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Drop support for buggy and problematic alternative Python build method (PR #2231)
@junaruga commented on this pull request. > @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +Metadata-Version: 1.0 +Name: @PROJECT_NAME@ +Version: @PROJECT_VERSION@ +Summary: Python bindings for rpm +Home-page: @PROJECT_HOMEPAGE_URL@ +Author: Rpm community +Author-email: rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org +License: GNU General Public License v2 +Description: Python bindings for rpm +Platform: UNKNOWN + This blank line is intentional? -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2231#pullrequestreview-1145878463 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Expedited autotools exit strategy (Issue #2232)
You may also consider this a call to arms to all the autotools haters here :grin: Please help us testing + filling the gaps in the cmake build! -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2232#issuecomment-1282382413 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Expedited autotools exit strategy (Issue #2232)
After wrestling with two build systems for a few months now, this is such a terrible drag to all development that we really do not want to maintain the situation for another 1.5 years if we can help it. So, if we can make ends meet, the new plan is to have autotools out in 4.19.0 already. If it doesn't happen then it doesn't, but lets at least try. This ticket shall track the missing pieces in cmake that prevent us from dropping autotools. The following is by no means a complete list at this time, more to be added as discovered/remembered: - [ ] ability to run test-suite - [ ] API docs via doxygen - [ ] translation integration - [ ] dist tarball process -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2232 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ 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 manual page for File Mode (PR #2215)
Oh and the new doc needs to be added to both autotools and cmake builds as well. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2215#issuecomment-1282349380 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Drop support for buggy and problematic alternative Python build method (PR #2231)
OK. Is there a way to create a PIP package from the `*.egg-info` file (`python/rpm.egg-info.in`)? -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2231#issuecomment-1282324947 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Drop support for buggy and problematic alternative Python build method (PR #2231)
Yep, tough cookies. It simply doesn't make sense for us to try and support two things to achieve the same thing, and poorly at that. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2231#issuecomment-1282315424 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Drop support for buggy and problematic alternative Python build method (PR #2231)
I am using the `setup.py.in` in the `rpm-py-installer` pip package that installs the RPM Python binding pip package, and enables people to use the RPM python binding on some Python environments. https://github.com/junaruga/rpm-py-installer -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2231#issuecomment-1282307661 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Drop support for buggy and problematic alternative Python build method (PR #2231)
The cmake build has ways to go before we can start actually recommending it (the inability to run the test-suite being the biggie of course), but the sooner people start testing it on their distros and systems etc, the better. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2231#issuecomment-1282304585 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Drop support for buggy and problematic alternative Python build method (PR #2231)
@pmatilai pushed 1 commit. bb2b5ceb3e258c91912081b5be0bfbac37279380 Generate Python egg-info from cmake builds -- View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2231/files/25c428f3ed570f98217894f39c8372d0ec77d2f1..bb2b5ceb3e258c91912081b5be0bfbac37279380 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Drop support for buggy and problematic alternative Python build method (PR #2231)
We probably should mark the autotools build as deprecated now and prioritize recommending the cmake build... -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2231#issuecomment-1282297343 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Drop support for buggy and problematic alternative Python build method (PR #2231)
@Conan-Kudo approved this pull request. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2231#pullrequestreview-1145684435 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] python bindings are using system RPM instead of in-source one (#130)
There you go: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2231 -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/130#issuecomment-1282293306 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Drop support for buggy and problematic alternative Python build method (PR #2231)
This was a kind of a necessary evil to see through us the Python 3 transition but with *that* over, theres little justification for maintaining an alternative build method to accumulate bugs and deprecated cruft on. The one useful thing it provides is egg-info, but thats simple enough that we dont need Python libraries to do it, just generate it from the cmake build. Fixes: #130, #2230 You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2231 -- Commit Summary -- * Drop support for buggy and problematic alternative Python build method * Generate Python egg-info from cmake builds -- File Changes -- M configure.ac (1) M python/CMakeLists.txt (5) A python/rpm.egg-info.in (11) D python/setup.py.in (51) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2231.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2231.diff -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2231 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2...@github.com ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] python bindings are using system RPM instead of in-source one (#130)
It's a deal :grin: -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/130#issuecomment-1282252678 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] python bindings are using system RPM instead of in-source one (#130)
We can probably do this with the CMake build and rip out everything else. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/130#issuecomment-1282247535 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] python bindings are using system RPM instead of in-source one (#130)
This resurfaced via #2230. So okay, losing egg-info would be a loss, but if one actually looks at this precious egg: ``` etadata-Version: 1.0 Name: rpm Version: 4.18.0 Summary: Python bindings for rpm Home-page: http://www.rpm.org/ Author: UNKNOWN Author-email: rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org License: GNU General Public License v2 Description: UNKNOWN Platform: UNKNOWN ``` I think we're able to create such a file without the aid of a Python library :sweat_smile: -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/130#issuecomment-1282156960 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Eliminate Python distutils uses (Issue #2230)
distutils is going to be removed from the stdlib in Python >= 3.12. We should either update setup.py to use setuptools, or get rid of this alternative entirely. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2230 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Dynamic Spec generation (#1485)
@pmatilai requested changes on this pull request. Okay so to recoup the on-off discussions over many moons: there are further details to sort out. While we can work on the details later, the bare minimum requirements for merging are: - documentation - a test-case or two For clarity, flagging as changes-needed for these two. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1485#pullrequestreview-1145177165 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ 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 a handler for libselinux log messages (RhBug:2123719, RhBug:2050774) (PR #2201)
Merged #2201 into master. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2201#event-7608258654 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ 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 manual page for File Mode (PR #2215)
@pmatilai commented on this pull request. > + +The `flags` parameter is optional and contains compressor-specific options, +most commonly a compression *level* or the *number of threads*. If an option +is omitted, the compressor's default value is used. For the actual supported +values, consult the given compressor's section below. For some real-world +examples, see [Example modes](#example-modes). + + GZIP flags + +These can include a compression level (from 0 to 9) and a strategy (e.g. `h` +for Huffman-only compression). See the description of `gzopen()` in +`/usr/include/zlib.h` for more details. + + BZIP2 flags + +These can include a compression level (from 1 to 9) and `s` (enables "small Oh okay, 's' is another compressor-specific (small) flag. The real problem with these is that they leak the API of the underlying library through librpmio, which we do not want. So even if we may currently let them pass through unnoticed, I think we should not document these, but only the bits explicitly supported by librpmio. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2215#pullrequestreview-1145159961 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
