Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Minor test-suite tweaks/fixes, volume V (PR #2696)
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> @@ -52,6 +52,23 @@ RUN dnf -y install \
&& dnf clean all
RUN echo "%_dbpath $(rpm --eval '%_dbpath')" > /root/.rpmmacros
+# Workaround for pkgconf(1)'s unlisted dependency on rpm.
+# This is needed for cmake to work without an rpm installation.
+RUN ln -sf $(rpm --eval '%{_target_platform}%{?_gnu}')-pkg-config \
+ /usr/bin/pkg-config
+
+RUN rpm -e --nodeps --nodb \
Hey, somebody found a use-case for --nodb :partying_face:
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2696#pullrequestreview-1658924593
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] Split development tests into its own file (PR #2698)
These are rather different than the general tests otherwise, might as well have them in their own set. You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2698 -- Commit Summary -- * Split development tests into its own file -- File Changes -- M tests/CMakeLists.txt (1) A tests/rpmdevel.at (37) M tests/rpmgeneral.at (35) M tests/rpmtests.at (1) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2698.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2698.diff -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2698 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] Minor test-suite tweaks/fixes, volume V (PR #2696)
@dmnks pushed 4 commits. 8194e8fdf95dc456397b2ea173bb9b0918246a3c Move snapshot() to mktree.common 9037d8290b254fa6f243dd97f314cafb8cb4b7b2 Rename make target env to atshell e67e5e7d2f7953183002d64c2812f65d05fdf92b Keep record of stock RPM in RPMDB in Dockerfile 6db07918dfc25dbe7b3bd5016b689d06df9716c6 Add build stages to Dockerfile -- View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2696/files/df79a0c58fff90a5e9e65121d6ca3125595faf54..6db07918dfc25dbe7b3bd5016b689d06df9716c6 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] Don't assume PWD of / in tests (PR #2695)
OK, I realized this change is actually not needed for #2691 or at all, so scratch that. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2695#issuecomment-1747774484 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] Minor test-suite tweaks/fixes, volume V (PR #2696)
@dmnks pushed 5 commits. 14aa701f38bcd1c32b31d5d9db47e78a68c10535 Make snapshot() work without CMake configuration 55c24dc6e444ebd3ce54af1d2ecafe6fbc808b4d Move snapshot() to mktree.common f9113d73e2f9de831874b1299967b9fa563d186d Rename make target env to atshell 0d9df924a81f90c27bdbed3b51edb3cef8b31b41 Keep record of stock RPM in RPMDB in Dockerfile df79a0c58fff90a5e9e65121d6ca3125595faf54 Add build stages to Dockerfile -- View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2696/files/3f4e7c960abdcf71f7ac31192f1d6cc9ba4c..df79a0c58fff90a5e9e65121d6ca3125595faf54 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] Native sysusers support is missing dependencies (Issue #2697)
Please correct me if I got something wrong. My understanding is the following:
- rpmbuild will generate `Provides: user(foo) = ` and `Provides:
group(foo) = ` (??, see below) for packages which have sysusers.d files
- rpmbuild will generate `Requires: {user,group}(foo)` or `Recommends:
{user,group}(foo)` for packages which carry files owned by user or group `foo`
(depending on `%_use_weak_usergroup_deps`)
- rpm carries `/usr/lib/rpm/sysusers.sh` and will invoke it when installing
packages which have the appropriate Provides.
- `sysusers.sh` is in bash (provided by `bash.rpm`) and calls `useradd`,
`groupadd`, `usermod`, `groupmod` (provided by `shadow-utils.rpm`), `touch`,
`cut`, `mkdir` (provided by `coreutils.rpm`), and `grep` (provided by
`grep.rpm`).
- `rpm.rpm` declares dependency on `bash` and `coreutils`, but **not** `grep`
or `shadow-utils`
- `sysusers.sh` implements `u`, `g`, and `m`, but **not** `r`
- `sysusers.sh` knows about `/usr/lib/sysusers.d`, `/run/sysusers.d`, and
`/etc/sysusers.d`, but **not** about `/usr/local/lib/sysusers.d`.
- `sysusers.sh` also doesn't know about specifiers
The lack of dependencies seems to be a problem. A package may have `Requires:
user(foo)`, which will pull in some package that has `Provides: user(foo)`, but
this is not enough. Something else needs to pull in both `rpm` and
`shadow-utils` and `grep`.
Those tool dependencies are a problem: `rpm` is a very big dependency. It is
strange to install it in images just to create users. Maybe it should be split
out to `rpm-sysusers-impl` (name TBD), so it can be installed without the rest
of the stack? Also, that package should probably get dependencies on the
appropriate tools.
Packages which are supposed to provide a user should get a Requires or
Recommends dependency on the implementing tool (depending on
`%_use_weak_usergroup_deps`).
I understand the decision to move away from `systemd-sysusers` as the
implementation, but it would be great if it was still allowed as an option. In
fact, systemd provides two implementations: one in `systemd.rpm` and the second
one in `systemd-standalone-sysusers`. The latter has dependencies only on
`glibc`, `libcap`, `libgcc`, `libselinux`, and `libgcrypt`, and is much smaller
than `shadow-utils`.
For example, packages that have `Provides: {user,group}(…)`, could have a
dependency on `rpm-sysusers-impl | systemd-sysusers`, and `rpm` should attempt
to call both `systemd-sysusers` and `sysusers.sh`.
Please explain how this is all supposed to be integrated by a distro…
---
I was testing this with `dbus` package, and I noticed the following:
- `dbus-common` has `Provides: user(dbus) =
dSBkYnVzIDgxICJTeXN0ZW0gTWVzc2FnZSBCdXMiIC0gLQAA` but `Provides: group(dbus)`,
with no `= …`. Looking at the code, this provides will be ignored. Is this
intentional?
- I can't get this to work at all. After calling `sudo dnf5 install
--use-host-config --installroot=/var/tmp/inst5
noarch/dbus-common-1.14.10-1.fc40.noarch.rpm` I get no dbus in
`/var/tmp/inst5/etc/{group,passwd}`. I tried installing `rpm`, `grep`,
`shadow-utils` and part of the same transaction, or in an earlier transaction,
and the result is the same.
/cc @DaanDeMeyer
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2697
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] [RFE] Execute dependency generators on the .spec file which ships them (#782)
Looking into this again and in more detail, I think it would be enough if there were some `dummy.attr` file loaded. This would later enable to just define some `__dummy_requires` macro and this could be enough. My (probably very silly idea) would be to ship `find.attr` file with RPM, that would enable to reuse the `__find_requires` macro used previously for the external helpers. This functionality is controlled by separate macro anyway. But I don't think that RPM protect these macros in any special way. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/782#issuecomment-1747200612 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] Minor test-suite tweaks/fixes, volume V (PR #2696)
@dmnks pushed 2 commits. e281e9559faafa0f23d666cc59aa4a73080ea95b Keep record of stock RPM in RPMDB in Dockerfile 1d7f308059202bfd44c0cdbfcfaf7f699949aef7 Add build stages to Dockerfile -- View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2696/files/4871b237fe9b98b001880b7d2dc70a72b6526ff8..1d7f308059202bfd44c0cdbfcfaf7f699949aef7 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] Minor test-suite tweaks/fixes, volume V (PR #2696)
@dmnks pushed 3 commits. e3d8b2a627ffb79e6a098788f39fd8a2b40288cf Make snapshot() work without CMake configuration dd08d096253a1f1137ad4cde32fbbf977a2281f4 Move snapshot() to mktree.common 4871b237fe9b98b001880b7d2dc70a72b6526ff8 Rename make target env to atshell -- View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2696/files/945dc36f0e7b9c7d4edcfb0710d9299eaa1badd6..4871b237fe9b98b001880b7d2dc70a72b6526ff8 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] Minor test-suite tweaks/fixes, volume V (PR #2696)
These are mostly preparatory work for #2643. You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2696 -- Commit Summary -- * Dont assume PWD of / in tests * Make snapshot() work without CMake configuration * Move snapshot() to mktree.common * Rename make target env to atshell -- File Changes -- M tests/CMakeLists.txt (4) M tests/README.md (4) M tests/atlocal.in (51) M tests/mktree.common (49) M tests/mktree.fedora (9) M tests/mktree.rootfs (2) M tests/rpmbuild.at (2) M tests/rpmgeneral.at (4) M tests/rpmi.at (2) M tests/rpmmacro.at (2) M tests/rpmquery.at (2) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2696.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2696.diff -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2696 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] Don't assume PWD of / in tests (PR #2695)
Closed #2695. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2695#event-10551803373 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] Don't assume PWD of / in tests (PR #2695)
Included in #2696, closing this one. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2695#issuecomment-1746976877 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] 4.18.99: broken off-source-tree install target (Issue #2650)
Closed #2650 as completed. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2650#event-10551580009 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] 4.18.99: broken off-source-tree install target (Issue #2650)
Closing as I fail to see any bug in here. All our CI builds are done outside the source tree. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2650#issuecomment-1746943425 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 OCI mktree backend (PR #2691)
@dmnks commented on this pull request. > @@ -647,7 +647,7 @@ AT_SETUP([xml format]) AT_KEYWORDS([query]) RPMTEST_CHECK([ RPMDB_INIT -runroot rpm -qp --xml data/RPMS/hello-2.0-1.x86_64.rpm +runroot rpm -qp --xml /data/RPMS/hello-2.0-1.x86_64.rpm Fix for the above: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2695 -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2691#discussion_r1345784102 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] Don't assume PWD of / in tests (PR #2695)
Instead, just use absolute paths everywhere. This allows us to revert the ugly workaround for bwraps double-chdir warning from commit 5e9c71296e8cd6c5f2f5a6188b303bbd7a2c74db as well as let make shell also start in /srv. No functional change. You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2695 -- Commit Summary -- * Dont assume PWD of / in tests -- File Changes -- M tests/atlocal.in (4) M tests/mktree.fedora (3) M tests/rpmbuild.at (2) M tests/rpmgeneral.at (4) M tests/rpmi.at (2) M tests/rpmmacro.at (2) M tests/rpmquery.at (2) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2695.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2695.diff -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2695 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
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Software Heritage archival of RPM source code (Discussion #2694)
Hello, Software Heritage is the universal archive of source code, and a non profit organization. Our mission is to collect, preserve and share source code from every possible origins, including forges and package managers. Software Heritage will soon be ready to support the ingestion of RPM source code modules. The RPM loader has been deployed in our staging infrastructure [1]. We have ingested origins that were listed from Fedora and CentOS [2]. We now would like to have a round of public review on the actual data output of the ingestion process, so we can either validate or ask for some more updates, and then eventually deploy it in production. Still, for now, please have a look at some of those origins loaded [2] and let us know what you think! [1] https://gitlab.softwareheritage.org/swh/meta/-/issues/5042 [2] https://webapp.staging.swh.network/browse/search/?q=_visit=true_content=true_type=rpm Best regards, Benoit Chauvet Software Engineering Manager Software Heritage -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2694 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] Wrong src RPM deps parsing by rpmbuild (Issue #2690)
#781 -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2690#issuecomment-1746702064 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] 'rpmbuild -br --nodeps' does not always generate buildreqs.nosrc.rpm (#781)
#797 -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/781#issuecomment-1746701819 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] Wrong src RPM deps parsing by rpmbuild (Issue #2690)
Seems dup of #797 -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2690#issuecomment-1746700437 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] Wrong src RPM deps parsing by rpmbuild (Issue #2690)
Seems I figured out. After installing deps from file generated by `-bs` some macroses appear. that's what is changed in environment. So the bug is: not generating `.buildreqs.nosrc.rpm`. If it was generated, bug would not happen. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2690#issuecomment-1746648425 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] Wrong src RPM deps parsing by rpmbuild (Issue #2690)
@pmatilai there are no difference. Really. I have provided part of the shell script. Tell me how to debug, please. I strongly consider there is a bug in RPM, but con not knock it down. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2690#issuecomment-1746632944 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] Wrong src RPM deps parsing by rpmbuild (Issue #2690)
Rpm doesn't use the dependencies recorded into an src.rpm in any circumstance, the spec is always reparsed. I don't know what the difference between rpmbuild -bs and -br is in your environment, but that's where the issue is. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2690#issuecomment-1746629087 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] Wrong src RPM deps parsing by rpmbuild (Issue #2690)
Interesting... `-rr --nodeps` rewrites .src.rpm in a way that `dnf` INSTALLS `pkgconfig(systemd)` afterwards. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2690#issuecomment-1746625208 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] Prevent Dynamic Spec part to create things needed earlier (Issue #2693)
As noted in #2646 dynamic spec parts can create/declare tags and sections that cannot be used that late and we should not allow that and error out. First rough list: - all build sections - including %generatebuildrequires - BuildRequires - BuildArch except noarch -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2693 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] Move checks and package initialization after build (PR #2646)
Yes, this thought has occurred to me, too. I have not addressed this here as it is mainly an issue of the original dynamic spec change. But it is something we need to address. Funny enough we could actually allow %prep to create later build scripts. Ofc this doesn't work right now. Also there isn't really a point. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2646#issuecomment-1746599449 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] Wrong src RPM deps parsing by rpmbuild (Issue #2690)
@pmatilai sorry for not explaining clearly. Seems it is another bug. When `-rr` says error about missing deps but does not generate `.buildreqs.nosrc.rpm` in some conditions. In generally – yes, it works as expected. Especially on pyproject srpms, where 3-5 iterations are possible. please reopen -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2690#issuecomment-1746597606 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] Wrong src RPM deps parsing by rpmbuild (Issue #2690)
@pmatilai sorry for bash script, but I want just show what happens in our build
script:
```bash
unpriv rpmbuild "${defines[@]}" -bs "$spec_file" --rmspec
srpm=("$RPMBUILD"/SRPMS/*.src.rpm)
while :; do
unpriv rpmbuild "${defines[@]}" -rr "$srpm" && exit_code=0 ||
exit_code=$?
case "$exit_code" in
0)
break
;;
11)
reqsrpm=("$RPMBUILD"/SRPMS/*.buildreqs.nosrc.rpm)
if [ -f "$reqsrpm" ]; then
install_deps "$reqsrpm"
rm -f "$reqsrpm"
else
install_deps "$srpm"
fi
;;
*)
echo "rpmbuild -rr FAILED code $exit_code" >&2
exit 42
;;
esac
done
```
And on this package it falls into endless loop. Note, environment is exactly
the same on both rpmbuild runs.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2690#issuecomment-1746578126
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] Wrong src RPM deps parsing by rpmbuild (Issue #2690)
@pmatilai I always run everything in a clear environment. i.e. in the container, yes. Does `rpmbuild -rr` re-parse .spec-file ? Thought it does not. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2690#issuecomment-1746570147 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] Wrong src RPM deps parsing by rpmbuild (Issue #2690)
Oh, I see it now. Try 'rpmspec --parse frr.spec' to see how it looks to rpm,
and it becomes quite clear.
The pkgconf(systemd) dependency comes from the `%{?selinux_requires}` macro.
And if rpmbuild -bs is executed in an environment where that macro is not
defined then it will miss those defines and no error message will be emitted
because it's a conditional macro like that.
No bug here.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2690#issuecomment-1746550558
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] Wrong src RPM deps parsing by rpmbuild (Issue #2690)
Closed #2690 as completed. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2690#event-10548896970 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] Wrong src RPM deps parsing by rpmbuild (Issue #2690)
I suggest you try reproducing it in a different environment. A clean container image or such. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2690#issuecomment-1746536531 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] Wrong src RPM deps parsing by rpmbuild (Issue #2690)
The one thing -bs and -br *will* disagree with is dynamic buildrequires from %generate_buildrequires. I don't see that in the src.rpm but I don't know what macros and stuff you may have locally. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2690#issuecomment-1746532629 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] Could the default %clean section remove non-readable+non-empty directories? (Issue #2519)
FTR, CMake does something similar on `make clean` as I discovered the other day. As for the test-suite artifacts, we already do exactly [that](https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/blob/ea19571b86ff1f828efc264744715b69e30d6832/tests/mktree.fedora#L82). It just seems natural to have `%clean` follow suit... -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2519#issuecomment-1746525731 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] Wrong src RPM deps parsing by rpmbuild (Issue #2690)
@pmatilai Commented things – are my lines – I did not remove after experiments. Yes, our scripts build `.src.rpm` from `.spec` file and then (in the same environment) install build deps. The problem that `rpmbuild -rr` says about missing deps, but `dnf builddep` does not install them (does not see them). -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2690#issuecomment-1746512482 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] Move checks and package initialization after build (PR #2646)
Seeing requiredTagsForBuild inspired some thoughts for the basical reverse cases of things that cannot be handled from generated content. What happens if somebody generates a BuildArch line from inside the build? Other than noarch sub-packages that is. What happens with stuff like BuildRequires / %generate_buildrequires? Those would end up in the src.rpm requires and the parsed spec in the src.rpm, but since they're not in the spec they wouldn't be enforced in the next build either. Or %prep/%build/%install? And that must be just scratching the surface of such issues... -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2646#issuecomment-1746477484 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] rpmbuild should report missing files for all subpackages (#1277)
Just FTR, this could be related to #1277. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1277#issuecomment-1746473960 You are receiving this because you commented. 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] Wrong src RPM deps parsing by rpmbuild (Issue #2690)
BTW, it's also technically possible to (externally) rewrite the specfile after launching a build on it, and end up with wildly different in the src.rpm than what the build was launched with. It would be a nasty thing to do of course, but technically possible, and could explain oddities like this when external build scripts are involved. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2690#issuecomment-1746421744 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] Wrong src RPM deps parsing by rpmbuild (Issue #2690)
The dependencies recorded in an src.rpm are only valid for the environment (including any cli-switches) it was generated in. It's entirely possible to end up with something quite different on a spec reparse, which is what happens on any build. As for pkg-config deps, I see this in the spec, which makes me wonder: ``` # . # BuildRequires: pkgconfig(systemd) # BuildRequires: selinux-policy-devel ``` I can't reproduce any pkgconfig deps appearing in the build, and I can't imagine rpm hallucinating them up either (this is certainly not AI :sweat_smile: ). I suggest you double check your findings. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2690#issuecomment-1746412779 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 OCI mktree backend (PR #2691)
@dmnks commented on this pull request. > @@ -647,7 +647,7 @@ AT_SETUP([xml format]) AT_KEYWORDS([query]) RPMTEST_CHECK([ RPMDB_INIT -runroot rpm -qp --xml data/RPMS/hello-2.0-1.x86_64.rpm +runroot rpm -qp --xml /data/RPMS/hello-2.0-1.x86_64.rpm Indeed, this is another example of something that could've gone in separately. In fact, I'll start submitting these little changes now, before this PR is undrafted. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2691#discussion_r1345402104 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] Binary PGP keys cannot be imported (Issue #2689)
Oh right, so there was a concrete reason for not allowing binary certificates in the current API. Wherever new APIs are needed, just do what makes most sense to you. No reason to hang with the old ad-hoc API and its naming. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2689#issuecomment-1746378294 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 OCI mktree backend (PR #2691)
@pmatilai commented on this pull request. > @@ -647,7 +647,7 @@ AT_SETUP([xml format]) AT_KEYWORDS([query]) RPMTEST_CHECK([ RPMDB_INIT -runroot rpm -qp --xml data/RPMS/hello-2.0-1.x86_64.rpm +runroot rpm -qp --xml /data/RPMS/hello-2.0-1.x86_64.rpm These relative -> absolute path changes look like something that could be applied regardless of this change. Most path usage in the tests is absolute anyhow, these mostly just look out of the place now, but could be remnants from the days where we actually ran some stuff outside the test-root. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2691#pullrequestreview-1656881464 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] Fix build-order regression from 1c98b67911e19a5f92c7fa4492aaa1000a06edad (PR #2692)
Merged #2692 into master. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2692#event-10547324621 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 OCI mktree backend (PR #2691)
There's also at least commit a25d881f287e67568c15a87c9fc9a2c4acc0650e embedded in here. So yep, please rebase before a closer look. Rebasing before submitting a PR is usually a good idea. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2691#issuecomment-1746323721 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] Fix build-order regression from 1c98b67911e19a5f92c7fa4492aaa1000a06edad (PR #2692)
LGTM -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2692#issuecomment-1746316556 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 OCI mktree backend (PR #2691)
@pmatilai commented on this pull request. > @@ -1,6 +1,4 @@ -# Use our top-level targets as an ordering clue to cmake: the project -# needs to be built before we can populate anything... -get_property(TOP_TARGETS DIRECTORY .. PROPERTY BUILDSYSTEM_TARGETS) +set(RPM_TARGETS librpm librpmio librpmbuild librpmsign) It's also a good example of bad (variable) naming in the original version: being top-level had nothing to do with it, it was the tools we were after. Had the variable been called "TOOLPROGS" or such from the start, it probably would've been far more obvious as to why it's not working now. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2691#discussion_r1345340162 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 OCI mktree backend (PR #2691)
@pmatilai commented on this pull request. > @@ -1,6 +1,4 @@ -# Use our top-level targets as an ordering clue to cmake: the project -# needs to be built before we can populate anything... -get_property(TOP_TARGETS DIRECTORY .. PROPERTY BUILDSYSTEM_TARGETS) +set(RPM_TARGETS librpm librpmio librpmbuild librpmsign) Submitted as #2692 now. And whenever you run into mysteries like that, just ask :sweat_smile: -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2691#discussion_r1345337173 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 build-order regression from 1c98b67911e19a5f92c7fa4492aaa1000a06edad (PR #2692)
Running the test-suite obviously requires on having the project completely built first. The test-suite was relying on the cli tools in the top level directory for this, but now that we moved the tools elsewhere there are zero targets at the top-level. Oops. Update the property get_property() path accordingly, this shouldve been in commit 1c98b67911e19a5f92c7fa4492aaa1000a06edad. Rename the variable and add commentary on why were doing this the way we are, its not entirely obvious. Suggested-by: Michal Domonkos mdomo...@redhat.com You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2692 -- Commit Summary -- * Fix build-order regression from 1c98b67911e19a5f92c7fa4492aaa1000a06edad -- File Changes -- M tests/CMakeLists.txt (9) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2692.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2692.diff -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2692 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] Add OCI mktree backend (PR #2691)
@dmnks commented on this pull request. > @@ -1,6 +1,4 @@ -# Use our top-level targets as an ordering clue to cmake: the project -# needs to be built before we can populate anything... -get_property(TOP_TARGETS DIRECTORY .. PROPERTY BUILDSYSTEM_TARGETS) +set(RPM_TARGETS librpm librpmio librpmbuild librpmsign) Oh, this explains that little mystery of "why on earth doesn't this TOP_TARGETS work for me as expected" :smile: I actually settled on that having been broken from the start and just patched it quickly this way, with the thought of investigating a bit more afterwards. And yes, this would've gone to a separate commit in this PR as well :smile: So yup, feel free to fix, I'll then just rebase. Thanks :smile: -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2691#discussion_r1345326049 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 OCI mktree backend (PR #2691)
@pmatilai commented on this pull request. > @@ -1,6 +1,4 @@ -# Use our top-level targets as an ordering clue to cmake: the project -# needs to be built before we can populate anything... -get_property(TOP_TARGETS DIRECTORY .. PROPERTY BUILDSYSTEM_TARGETS) +set(RPM_TARGETS librpm librpmio librpmbuild librpmsign) After a brief wtf moment, I see that I broke the top level target fetch in commit 86d99a1d20bbebfeb4427c99b1bb1053029c3317. Oof. But this is a fine example of what should've gone into a separate PR as soon as noticed because this has nothing to do with the change in *this* PR. I'll fix since it's me who broke it in the first place. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2691#pullrequestreview-1656827186 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] WIP: Use Python Stable ABI for the bindings (PR #2674)
I'd prefer the "Fix comment style" commit to be merged into the previous commit that introduces the comment, but other than that looks fine to me. Unless you have something else you're planning to work on here, just flag ready for review and I'll merge, we already did the review part here. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2674#issuecomment-1746264256 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
