Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] 363: rpm -e and verify conflicting files removed 1 FAILED (rpme.at:305) (Issue #2376)
No reproducer is available, closing now. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2376#issuecomment-1791020122 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] 363: rpm -e and verify conflicting files removed 1 FAILED (rpme.at:305) (Issue #2376)
Closed #2376 as completed. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2376#event-10846061102 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] RPM 4.18.2 bugfix update (PR #2744)
@ffesti I was wondering about ced4d24f0. Does it have any uses outside the Dynamic spec feature? -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2744#issuecomment-1790955338 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] RPM 4.18.2 bugfix update (PR #2744)
This is a bugfix update with a few small enhancements on top. Let me know if
Ive missed your favorite patch.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2744
-- Commit Summary --
* Fix numberless T for thread number autodetection in zstdio
* Remove a misleading comment
* Catch runaway forked children from Lua scriptlets centrally
* add more libmagic exceptions for HTML, SVG and PNG
* Describe the stripped down payload format
* triggers.md: fix a typo
* triggers.md: remove trailing spaces
* Fix compiler error on clang
* Move variable to nearest available scope
* Fix a segfault on a non-stringable argument to macro call from Lua
* Populate user and group data in cpio payload again
* Add documentation for shell like macro %**
* Add test case for macro %**
* Add a note about CI tests to contributing guidelines
* Conditionally display VCS tag in --info query
* Briefly document %attr() and %defattr() in the manual
* Document %description and put %package to its own section
* Added more details to the doc about what is returned by the macros
%-x and %-x*
* Bring RPM_MASK_RETURN_TYPE in to the signed int range
* Remove RPM_MASK_RETURN_TYPE from rpmTagReturnType_e; make it a macro
* Axe outdated multiple build areas doc
* Make the higher level file info selection flags available to Python
* Fix file signatures getting loaded when not asked for
* Fix thinko in archive size tag(s) description
* Dont mask the user verify fail on invalid symlink test
* Silence an apparent false positive warning from gcc in -Og mode
* Fix a copy-paste --help description of --whatconflicts (RhBug:2208661)
* Add %{rpmversion} builtin macro for getting the running rpm version
* Fix Lua docs rpmio mode table rendering (missing newline)
* Remove obscure check for package build time from --rebuilddb (#2527)
* Fix error handling of rpm.execute() and rpm.redirect2null()
* Add doc note about disabled option processing
* Add doc note that getopt processing only supports short options
* Show the tag number for unknown tags in --xml output
* Fix possible null pointer reference in ndb
* Fix rpmDigestBundleFinal() and Update() return code on invalid arguments
* Document spec parse recursing at BuildArch
* Fix per-file plugin hook regression introduced in 4.18
* Dont muck with per-process global sqlite configuration from the db
backend
* Actually return an error in parseScript if parsing fails
* Require real names for contributions
* Fix reproducability test --define usage
* Silence mknod failure in the test-suite setup
* Fix broken link to downloads page
* Fix missing signal.h include
* Fix missing basename include on macOS
* Duplicate filename before passing it to basename
* Rewrite --last to just use sed for formatting
* Remove duplicate line
* Add aliases for weak dependency queries to rpmspec.
* Fix misleading error message on some invalid filetrigger conditions (#2584)
* Python tests: Close open files
* Reword to make sentence easier to understand
* Add docs/README.md
* Return an error on macro expansion failure from Lua macros table too
* Document the argv[1] (vs 0) in rpmlua manual
* Add %_iconsdir macro
* Use uniform formatting for SEE ALSO sections
* Remove lead checks other than the magic number check
* Fix typos
* Add a blurb about portability expecations to contributing guidelines
* Preparing for rpm 4.18.2
-- File Changes --
M CONTRIBUTING.md (27)
M README (4)
M build/files.c (3)
M build/parseReqs.c (24)
M build/parseScript.c (12)
M build/parseSpec.c (1)
M build/rpmfc.c (3)
M configure.ac (2)
M docs/Makefile.am (2)
A docs/README.md (30)
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-plugins.8.md (6)
M docs/man/rpm.8.md (10)
M docs/man/rpm2archive.8.md (2)
M docs/man/rpm2cpio.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 (9)
M docs/man/rpmsign.8.md (9)
M docs/man/rpmspec.8.md (9)
M docs/manual/dependencies.md (2)
M docs/manual/format.md (8)
M docs/manual/index.md (2)
M docs/manual/lua.md (1)
M docs/manual/macros.md (23)
D docs/manual/multiplebuilds.md (49)
M docs/manual/spec.md (52)
M docs/manual/tags.md (4)
M docs/manual/triggers.md (14)
M include/rpm/rpmfiles.h (2)
M include/rpm/rpmtag.h (4)
M lib/backend/ndb/rpmxdb.c (2)
M lib/backend/sqlite.c (10)
M
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] [RFE] Subpackage for excluded files (#1448)
I agree that there should be more control over what files go where and the current means given to the packagers are not that great. Having more special code for creating sub packages is not something we want, though. We'd rather give the packager the means to do that in the spec - or the build scripts via dynamic spec files. #2555 is somthing that's more likey to be implemented and may help here. Closing this ticket. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1448#issuecomment-1790708361 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] Subpackage for excluded files (#1448)
Closed #1448 as completed. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1448#event-10843864415 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] Set %_sharedstatedir to %{_var}/lib (PR #2743)
Actually the reason why it's safe in the rpm realm is that it *does* change the default `%configure` parameter too. So with this change it's out of sync with `./configure`, but then if somebody uses that and cares about this then they should be passing in an explicit --sharedstatedir anyhow. Because /usr/com truly doesn't exist anywhere outside autoconf :smile: -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2743#issuecomment-1790698704 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 let macro '%-x' add extra space between flag and argument (PR #2455)
Closed #2455. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2455#event-10843736071 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 let macro '%-x' add extra space between flag and argument (PR #2455)
As per the ticket conclusion, sorry but NAK: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2454 Apologies for taking so long with this. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2455#issuecomment-1790690888 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] Macro %-x modifies original flag if argument follows without intervening space (Issue #2454)
Closed #2454 as completed. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2454#event-10843698525 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] Macro %-x modifies original flag if argument follows without intervening space (Issue #2454)
Discussed this with the team to the same conclusion, closing. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2454#issuecomment-1790685429 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] Set %_sharedstatedir to %{_var}/lib (PR #2743)
Configure traditionally sets it to %{_prefix}/com which RPM has followed so
far. But this directory is not used anywhere and everybody changes the location
to /var/lib. As we are only changing the macro and not the configure default
this should be relatively save to do.
Resolves: #2092
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2743
-- Commit Summary --
* Set %_sharedstatedir to %{_var}/lib
-- File Changes --
M macros.in (2)
-- Patch Links --
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2743.patch
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2743.diff
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2743
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] Unable to read old RPMs with 4.16 (#1762)
Closed #1762 as completed. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1762#event-10843597605 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] Unable to read old RPMs with 4.16 (#1762)
We never did an update on the 4.16 branch (4.16.2) and that release is now out of support. Closing. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1762#issuecomment-1790671978 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] logging: Header verification logged as multiline message (Issue #2028)
Pondering about this a little more, it really isn't an easyfix as it touches some rather low level code. If it turns out to be important enough for a lot of people, we can revisit but I'll just close now. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2028#issuecomment-1790670397 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 slicing sources list (Issue #2180)
Closed #2180 as completed. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2180#event-10843586067 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] logging: Header verification logged as multiline message (Issue #2028)
Closed #2028 as completed. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2028#event-10843586167 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 slicing sources list (Issue #2180)
Like noted above, there are various ways to achieve this already. If macro arrays (#1825) ever get implemented, then this might become more relevant/feasible. Closing for now though. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2180#issuecomment-1790670385 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] Obsoleted-by: would be useful in some cases (#1768)
Closed #1768 as completed. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1768#event-10843533706 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] Obsoleted-by: would be useful in some cases (#1768)
Looks like the conclusion in 2021 was that `Obsoleted-by:` is not the solution. Closing. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1768#issuecomment-1790663062 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] Implement a declarative autobuild system (prototype) (PR #2620)
The macro names here would be simply "%autobuild_build_opts", "%autobuild_conf_opts" and so on, entirely predictable, and enforced by the implementation. I agree tags *are* more, hmm, concrete somehow. I'll think about it :+1: -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2620#issuecomment-1790591666 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] Implement a declarative autobuild system (prototype) (PR #2620)
> You mean a spec tag, like `AutobuildConfOpts: --some-opts here`? I dunno. The > tags look even uglier to me than the macros, and macros is what the > implementations need to deal with anyhow. I guess, it's just that a spec tag field is standardized, whereas a macro is not. Macro names can be anything at all and there are no real rules or discovery mechanisms for them. And if we're talking about handling the basic case in a reasonably sane way, then being able to pass autobuild configuration options in a uniform fashion would be nice. I'm not totally married to the idea of it being a spec tag though. It just feels like doing so would enforce more consistency. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2620#issuecomment-1790550120 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] Implement a declarative autobuild system (prototype) (PR #2620)
There would need to be a way to pass options to all the autobuild macros, not just conf. Because sometimes you need that extra FU=1 SOMEDIR=/there to a make invocation etc, and ... of course the configure / make style line might not be the last thing in the autobuild macro. And so .. maybe these do need to be parametric afterall, *to enforce* a common convention for passing stuff, so we don't end up with one macro accepting anything passed after it and another one throwing an error. And thanks for the feedback so far everybody! -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2620#issuecomment-1790541011 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] Implement a declarative autobuild system (prototype) (PR #2620)
You mean a spec tag, like `AutobuildConfOpts: --some-opts here`? I dunno. The tags look even uglier to me than the macros, and macros is what the implementations need to deal with anyhow. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2620#issuecomment-1790529370 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] Implement a declarative autobuild system (prototype) (PR #2620)
Why not define it as a field instead of a macro? -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2620#issuecomment-1790520257 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] Implement a declarative autobuild system (prototype) (PR #2620)
> Would it make sense to be able to expose some kind of simple way to pass
> options to the configure stanza? Autotools, CMake, and Meson at least all
> accept configure options, and it'd make sense to be able to do this without
> having to override the whole stage.
The thought crossed my mind too, we could of course add an optional
%{autobuild_mumble_opts} macro that can be used for passing extra options. I'm
not sure how much more readable it is than overriding the section though (which
is why it's not in the draft):
```
%conf
%autobuild_conf --add-some-option 2
```
vs
``
%define autobuild_conf_opts --add-some-option 2
```
The latter *is* more in line with the notion of declarative, so perhaps that's
the way to go. Without taking away the ability to override sections.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2620#issuecomment-1790475991
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: macros as arrays/sets/dicts (Issue #1825)
The need for macro arrays hasn't gone anywhere, even if the initial PR died of old age. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1825#issuecomment-1790284946 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] Allow to initialize SCM in `%{_builddir}` (#1767)
Writing anything package specific all into %{builddir} is a bad, bad idea. In
the default configuration, that directory is shared by all the packages built
by a user!
That said, we can revisit the matter once #2078 is done.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1767#issuecomment-1790277637
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 support for macro aliases (PR #2722)
This will need at least a C API for adding aliases. And maybe look at the bash-style alias thing too. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2722#issuecomment-1790269719 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
