Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add "local_generator" (PR #2734)
> > Subject to name-bikeshedding of course. "local_generator" is not a bad for > > what it is, but my head keeps coming up with spec_somethings instead (and > > then rejecting) > > This is the hardest think, right :( And that is why I have also considered the `find` name, which was already used in this context. But of course this might be confusing ... -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2734#issuecomment-1777647182 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 "local_generator" (PR #2734)
> I have to say, there's beauty to the simplicity of this. Would be even > simpler if the new generator was added as the last thing to the array I think. That is an option. Will look at it tomorrow > Subject to name-bikeshedding of course. "local_generator" is not a bad for > what it is, but my head keeps coming up with spec_somethings instead (and > then rejecting) This is the hardest think, right :( -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2734#issuecomment-1777641462 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 "local_generator" (PR #2734)
I have to say, there's beauty to the simplicity of this. Would be even simpler if the new generator was added as the last thing to the array I think. Subject to name-bikeshedding of course. "local_generator" is not a bad for what it is, but my head keeps coming up with spec_somethings instead (and then rejecting) :sweat_smile: -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2734#issuecomment-1777463960 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] Host specific %_install_langs affects --root installation (Issue #2623)
> That's why I said you'd need to supply all the desired files yourself when > using this CLI option as there's no way to just prepend/append paths to it. Just to illustrate better how one could use this (in order to achieve your original objective): ``` # dnf install --releasever=38 --installroot=/rootfs rpm [...] # echo '%_foobar 123' > /etc/rpm/macros.foobar # echo '%_foobar 456' > /rootfs/etc/rpm/macros.foobar # rpm --eval '%_foobar' 123 # rpm --root /rootfs --eval '%_foobar' 123 # rpm --macros /rootfs/etc/rpm/macros.foobar --eval '%_foobar' 456 ``` -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2623#issuecomment-1777441264 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] Host specific %_install_langs affects --root installation (Issue #2623)
> When we talk about configuration, what's meant by that? All macro
> definitions? Because there **only** seems to be an issue with
> `/etc/rpm/macros.image-language-conf` like things.
Yeah, apologies for the confusion. Even though a lot of RPM "configuration" is
done through macros, RPM does distinguish between *configuration* and *macros*,
both of which can be overridden with the `--rcfile` and `--macros` CLI options,
respectively.
What I meant was *macro* configuration, i.e. `--macros`. That takes a
colon-separated list of paths and defaults to this (line breaks are mine):
```
/usr/lib/rpm/macros:/usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.*:
/usr/lib/rpm/platform/%{_target}/macros:
/usr/lib/rpm/fileattrs/*.attr:/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/macros:
/etc/rpm/macros.*:
/etc/rpm/macros:
/etc/rpm/%{_target}/macros:
~/.rpmmacros
```
That's why I said you'd need to supply all the desired files yourself when
using this CLI option as there's no way to just prepend/append paths to it.
> As you asked for ideas; I think there's a space for a low-level,
> distro-specific, rpm-sub-package that would install the distro-specific
> configuration. If there was such an RPM, Mock could just simply tell DNF to
> ignore the host's configuration at the beginning (split the preparation into
> two steps):
>
> ```
> $ rootdir=$(mktemp -d)
> dnf5 --installroot "$rootdir" install rpm-config --use-host-config
> dnf5 --installroot "$rootdir" install @buildsys-build
> ```
This is mixing two separate issues. The one originally discussed here is about
RPM respecting the config/macro files in the target root when called with
`--root`. Populating the root with the desired configuration is a then a
separate matter and one that would need to be discussed on `fedora-devel` or
similar channels.
Out of curiosity, though, does the second `dnf5` command *already* work the way
you want, or was that just your proposal for how it *could* work? If DNF
already works this way, that means it *does* perform some kind of RPM isolation
by itself (by calling RPM in a chroot/namespace) and thus adding an option like
`--use-installroot-config` to DNF should be fairly easy.
>
> The first transaction needs to be as small as possible. Small enough to let
> distro-maintainers cure the target distribution so the transaction **isn't
> affected** by the **host** configuration at all. The second transaction,
> since the config is already **in chroot**, can ignore the host configuration
> entirely.
>
> Seems like the set of packages in the first transaction in Fedora is
> currently pretty small:
>
> ```
> $ sudo dnf5 --installroot "$rootdir" install setup --use-host-config
> Updating and loading repositories:
> Repositories loaded.
> PackageArch Version Repository Size
> Installing:
> setup noarch 2.14.4-1.fc39 fedora 720.3 KiB
> Installing dependencies:
> fedora-gpg-keys noarch 39-1 fedora 123.2 KiB
> fedora-releasenoarch 39-30 fedora 0.0 B
> fedora-release-common noarch 39-30 fedora 17.7 KiB
> fedora-release-identity-basic noarch 39-30 fedora 666.0 B
> fedora-repos noarch 39-1 fedora 4.5 KiB
> filesystemx86_64 3.18-6.fc39 fedora 106.0 B
>
> Transaction Summary:
> Installing:7 packages
>
> Total size of inbound packages is 1 MiB. Need to download 1 MiB.
> After this operation 867 KiB will be used (install 867 KiB, remove 0 B).
> Is this ok [y/N]:
> ```
>
> Not sure if one of those could be recycled for this purpose, instead of
> creating a new `rpm-config` package?
Again, while possibly a valid proposal, this is not the right venue for
discussing it, it needs to be brought up on the Fedora channels.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2623#issuecomment-1777409514
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] Add "local_generator" (PR #2734)
This generator can be used by .spec file, which ships their own generators:
~~~
Source1: generator.req
%global __local_generator_requires bash %{SOURCE1}
~~~
Resolves #782
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2734
-- Commit Summary --
* Add local_generator
-- File Changes --
M build/rpmfc.c (7)
-- Patch Links --
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2734.patch
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2734.diff
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2734
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] Standardize on OCI images in test-suite (PR #2733)
OK, fixed a few typos and thinkos in the commit messages :smile: -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2733#issuecomment-1777226729 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)
Closed #2691. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2691#event-10753425349 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)
Superseded by #2733. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2691#issuecomment-1777132805 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] Standardize on OCI images in test-suite (PR #2733)
Replace mktree.fedora with mktree.podman for local use as well. Please see the commit messages for details. You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2733 -- Commit Summary -- * Add --shell command to rpmtests wrapper * Bind-mount host directory in mktree.podman * Use the new --shell command in mktree.podman * Only rebuild the RPM test layer * Add Dockerfile.fedora * Only use --log in CI * Add native mode to mktree.podman * Standardize on OCI images in test-suite -- File Changes -- M .github/workflows/linux.yml (2) M .gitignore (1) M tests/CMakeLists.txt (46) D tests/Dockerfile (87) A tests/Dockerfile (1) A tests/Dockerfile.fedora (87) M tests/README.md (38) D tests/mktree.fedora (195) M tests/mktree.podman (86) M tests/rpmtests.sh (60) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2733.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2733.diff -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2733 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] Use uniform formatting for SEE ALSO sections (PR #2732)
Improved wording of the commit message -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2732#issuecomment-1777100699 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] Use uniform formatting for SEE ALSO sections (PR #2732)
While there is no generally agreed standard for this we should at least use only one. Comma separated lists are commonly used. Lets just pick *italic* for man pages. Thanks to Frank Dana https://github.com/ferdnyc; for pointing this out. Resolves: #2731 You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2732 -- Commit Summary -- * Use uniform formatting for SEE ALSO sections -- File Changes -- M docs/man/gendiff.1.md (2) M docs/man/rpm-plugin-audit.8.md (2) M docs/man/rpm-plugin-dbus-announce.8.md (2) M docs/man/rpm-plugin-fapolicyd.8.md (2) M docs/man/rpm-plugin-ima.8.md (2) M docs/man/rpm-plugin-prioreset.8.md (2) M docs/man/rpm-plugin-selinux.8.md (2) M docs/man/rpm-plugin-syslog.8.md (2) M docs/man/rpm-plugin-systemd-inhibit.8.md (2) M docs/man/rpm-plugin-unshare.8.md (2) M docs/man/rpm-plugins.8.md (4) M docs/man/rpm.8.md (10) M docs/man/rpm2archive.8.md (2) M docs/man/rpmbuild.8.md (9) M docs/man/rpmdb.8.md (9) M docs/man/rpmdeps.8.md (4) M docs/man/rpmgraph.8.md (6) M docs/man/rpmkeys.8.md (9) M docs/man/rpmlua.8.md (6) M docs/man/rpmsign.8.md (9) M docs/man/rpmspec.8.md (9) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2732.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2732.diff -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2732 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] Multiple builds via the BuildArch tag do not work (Issue #2319)
I also don't have too strong of an opinion on that. Only the comment that most build systems may be pretty surprised if suddenly packages from more than one build arch show up. May be we should keep things as they are and just clean up the code. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2319#issuecomment-1777023252 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] Filter requires per subpackage (Issue #2720)
Yeah, giving the packager more control here is something we generally want. The dependency generators are a bit clunky as soon as they don't exactly what one wants/needs. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2720#issuecomment-1777016222 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: allow overriding buildtime and hostname via environment variable (Issue #2603)
Guess not. Feel free to re-open if we missed something and there is really something that needs doing. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2603#issuecomment-1777011289 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: allow overriding buildtime and hostname via environment variable (Issue #2603)
Closed #2603 as completed. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2603#event-10752520725 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
