Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] [RFE] Execute dependency generators on the .spec file which ships them (#782)
> > My (probably very silly idea) would be to ship `find.attr` file with RPM > > Should I create package shipping such file for Fedora 浪 It would need to be > explicitly BRed, so it should not create any havoc 樂 More details including implementation, where I went with `local_generator` name: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/de...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/3MHROKOM53HM6NF7RGGLFBIQFG5IEIQG/ -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/782#issuecomment-1751030732 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)
> My (probably very silly idea) would be to ship `find.attr` file with RPM Should I create package shipping such file for Fedora :zany_face: It would need to be explicitly BRed, so it should not create any havoc :thinking: -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/782#issuecomment-1750748001 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] Native sysusers support is missing dependencies (Issue #2697)
Oh and of course, it *is* all very very different from what user/group handling in rpm has traditionally been. You need to just unlearn that all :smile: The key difference really is that with the sysuser integration, the rpm running the transaction is what does the work and contains any tooling dependencies, whereas in the traditional model it's the packageset being installed that get to do the work. So instead of adding more shadow-utils deps and the like, you instead get to *remove* those deps from the packages. And, like said, you can now have arbitrary users starting from the very first package being installed because the user/group tooling doesn't need to be bootstrapped first in that environment. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2697#issuecomment-1750666169 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] Native sysusers support is missing dependencies (Issue #2697)
> Please explain how this is all supposed to be integrated by a distro… I did just that in this fedora-devel post from June: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/de...@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/NEFOV236FJYS2RED2SEOV5YHDFLDX7DK/ It doesn't talk anything about shadow-utils and such dependencies because for all practical purposes *there are none*. You just don't need to care. > 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. Just point `%__systemd_sysusers` to the binary/script that will handle it. The implementation is entirely selectable, and systemd-sysusers is *the* interface that it actually follows. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2697#issuecomment-1750560148 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] Document and/or implement the rpm.org content generation process (Issue #2259)
Documented how to build the reference manual locally but we really should actually do that in our cmake files. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2259#issuecomment-1750545445 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] Making the os_release function more strict (PR #2657)
Closed #2657. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2657#event-10574182185 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] Making the os_release function more strict (PR #2657)
Merged via #2708 since there's been no activity on this PR. Thanks for the patch + report! -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2657#issuecomment-1750508612 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] Make test-suite os detection stricter (PR #2708)
Merged #2708 into master. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2708#event-10574172038 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] Make test-suite os detection stricter (PR #2708)
On Rocky Linux /etc/os-release contains not only ID=rocky, but also ID_LIKE=rhel centos fedora and the grepping got that wrong. Let the shell do the work for us. Reported-by: Dmitry Mikushin dmi...@kernelgen.org You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2708 -- Commit Summary -- * Make test-suite os detection stricter -- File Changes -- M tests/CMakeLists.txt (2) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2708.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2708.diff -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2708 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 a new perl.prov script to generate normalized module versions (PR #2586)
> I created https://github.com/perlpunk/rpm-perl > For now it just contains copies of the original perl files. I'd recommend copying the history too, there's over 20 years of history in there. The name of the repo is up to you of course, but just for reference the python counterpart is named thus: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/python-rpm-packaging The nice thing about that is that there's no confusing it with the language bindings. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2586#issuecomment-1750487096 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 install rpmrc, platform and macros files with off-source-tree build (PR #2651)
The --install issue fixed in commit fcbc584db49b9862f8a8501dcb9f1a93eac392c2 Thanks for the patch/report Tomasz, but when reporting issues *please* pay more attention to the reproducer. A lot of time and effort got wasted here on working out the remarkably simple way to reproduce the issue: ``` $ cmake -B build -S rpm $ cmake --build build/ $ cmake --install build/ ``` --install --prefix which looks like it should be the same as passing DESTDIR still doesn't work, not going to chase that now. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2651#issuecomment-1750471604 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 install rpmrc, platform and macros files with off-source-tree build (PR #2651)
Closed #2651. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2651#event-10573985852 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] Ensure proper working dir when processing rpmrc, platform and macros (PR #2707)
Merged #2707 into master. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2707#event-10573934869 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] Ensure proper working dir when processing rpmrc, platform and macros (PR #2707)
Fixes `cmake --install` failing on these files as the working directory is unexpected from the trad. makefile POV. Reported-by: Tomasz Kłoczko kloc...@github.com You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2707 -- Commit Summary -- * Ensure proper working dir when processing rpmrc, platform and macros -- File Changes -- M CMakeLists.txt (3) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2707.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2707.diff -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2707 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] `%error` does not abort specfile processing when called through lua (Issue #2653)
Fixed in commit 5079c05b001489f1f2e6cbf283c1d72aa83865f9, thanks again for reporting! -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2653#issuecomment-1750407927 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] `%error` does not abort specfile processing when called through lua (Issue #2653)
Closed #2653 as completed via #2706. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2653#event-10573641165 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] Return an error on macro expansion failure from Lua macros table too (PR #2706)
Merged #2706 into master. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2706#event-10573640948 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] Return an error on macro expansion failure from Lua macros table too (PR #2706)
Fixes: #2653 You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2706 -- Commit Summary -- * Return an error on macro expansion failure from Lua macros table too -- File Changes -- M rpmio/rpmlua.c (2) M tests/rpmmacro.at (30) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2706.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2706.diff -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2706 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] Strange doc (Issue #2673)
Closed #2673 as completed via 0dc37b5c2d2fd06d1ff93e0225d952310f0a46a1. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2673#event-10573346001 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] Docs/README and minor rewording (PR #2705)
Merged #2705 into master. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2705#event-10573345513 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] Docs/README and minor rewording (PR #2705)
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2705 -- Commit Summary -- * Reword to make sentence easier to understand * Add docs/README.md -- File Changes -- M docs/CMakeLists.txt (1) A docs/README.md (30) M docs/manual/dependencies.md (2) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2705.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2705.diff -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2705 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)
Oh, yup, thanks. What I actually meant by "not needed" was just the `--chdir` part, not the paths themselves of course, those were indeed just confusing. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2695#issuecomment-1750260698 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)
I took the liberty of pushing about half of this commit anyway: there's no point in having those test-cases use relative paths at all. It just looks confusing, as if they were something special. They may have once been but they no longer are. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2695#issuecomment-1750255126 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 internal OpenPGP parser into a subdirectory (PR #2704)
Having more modules does indeed complicate things, but then we're already in a situation where we need to coordinate any API additions between rpm and rpm-sequoia. It just hasn't really come up yet because ATM we're just bumping the required rpm-sequoia version as we go, but at some point we'll probably need to allow for more freedom (for older versions and such). I basically see this as another step on our way to drop support for the internal parser entirely, I have a hard time seeing the development on it "taking off" due to the split. And if I'm proven wrong on that, then I guess it shouldn't have trouble keeping up with the new APIs either. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2704#issuecomment-1750249919 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] Software Heritage archival of RPM source code (Discussion #2694)
Hi, and thanks for your interest! I thinkt there's some terminology confusion here: the rpm source code is in this GH repository. We'd certainly want it archived too. The material in the second link is known as "RPM spec files", which are essentially build recipes for other software packages. It does seem like a good idea to archive that kind of material as well, but the rpm upstream doesn't "own" that material in any sense of the word. So it might be better to ask for input in the communities whose spec files are being collected: Fedora and CentOS. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2694#discussioncomment-7207521 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 VI (PR #2703)
Yeah :laughing: I realized some of the commits weren't quite right and also not strictly necessary either so I pulled them back. And then my traditional "crap, this commit message is confusing, reword it" kind of struggle :smile: -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2703#issuecomment-1750224168 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 internal OpenPGP parser into a subdirectory (PR #2704)
If we add new functions to the API, as suggested recently [in this issue](https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2689), then the internal implementation will need to be updated. This will require a versioning scheme for the API, I think, which would complicate maintenance. Alternatively, we say we don't support the internal API at all. What do you think? -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2704#issuecomment-1750216855 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 VI (PR #2703)
> force-pushed the test-tweaks-vol-6 branch 12 times That may well be a some kind of a record :smile: Better merge before you change your mind again... -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2703#issuecomment-1750213788 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 VI (PR #2703)
Merged #2703 into master. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2703#event-10572401609 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 internal OpenPGP parser into a subdirectory (PR #2704)
To elaborate, the idea here is to split the new rpmpgp subdirectory into a separate repository that can be pulled into the build for the "internal pgp" support, but to eliminate it from the rpm repo and release tarballs. This resolves #2414 as far as I'm concerned. @mlschroe , you indicated interest in maintaining the parser in #2414 - do you still think that way, and does this split look like you could work with? @nwalfield - just fyi. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2704#issuecomment-1750204682 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] Move internal OpenPGP parser into a subdirectory (PR #2704)
This will let us split it out of the main rpm repository in the next steps. Ie, first we declared its trash, and now were swiping it under the carpet. You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2704 -- Commit Summary -- * Move internal OpenPGP parser into a subdirectory -- File Changes -- M CMakeLists.txt (3) M rpmio/CMakeLists.txt (15) A rpmio/rpmpgp/CMakeLists.txt (21) R rpmio/rpmpgp/digest_libgcrypt.c (0) R rpmio/rpmpgp/digest_openssl.c (0) R rpmio/rpmpgp/rpmpgp_internal.c (0) R rpmio/rpmpgp/rpmpgp_internal.h (0) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2704.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2704.diff -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2704 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] Native sysusers support is missing dependencies (Issue #2697)
Didn't look through this all just now, but a couple of quick notes: - The sysusers support is disabled in the Fedora package, you need to uncomment %__systemd_sysusers in the main macros file - The sysusers addition runs from *outside* a chroot, so the "host" provides all the dependencies. That's basically the only way an empty chroot can be bootstrapped with file ownerships from the first package. In other words, you're overthinking it all by a mile. It's of course possible the main rpm is missing some packages for the script-based sysusers.sh version (and should be added explicitly), but grep, shadow-utils and all that are almost certainly pulled in by something else that rpm depends on. That's a Fedora packaging matter though. - The dbus user vs group EVR thing is explained in https://rpm-software-management.github.io/rpm/manual/users_and_groups.html the technical details section but in short: sysusers creates implicit groups for all users, so the group doesn't need any more info. The provides is there only for dependency resolution. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2697#issuecomment-1750090967 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
