[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Store source rpm info in built binary rpm (Issue #2796)
This ticket is to track what would be a "reverse" of #642. The RFE was originally opened in Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008387 -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2796 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] Dependency generator for shell (#628)
Closed #628 as completed. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/628#event-11095975641 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] Dependency generator for shell (#628)
I had yet another look at this and it seems just as unfeasible as it always did: - The vast majority of commands in scriptlets lack absolute paths, so it emits executable(fu), which would need packages to provide the basenames of all their executables to match these, which can cause wrong packages to be required when the path is stripped off. The alternative is to map these to paths at build-time, but the scriptlet commands aren't necessarily build requires so we couldnt' know what the right path is, unless we ask packagers to add them as build-requires at which point .. what was the point again? Oh right, reduce the dependencies packagers need to add manually! - if we limited the rpm-used dependencies to absolute paths, then the experience will be wildly inconsistent, which I think is even worse for packager sanity - even if we ignored the inconsistency, `bash --rpm-requires` introduces dependencies for constructs that specifically try to avoid that dependency, eg this is picked up as a dependency on /usr/bin/fubar: ``` if [ -x /usr/bin/fubar ] ; then /usr/bin/fubar --something fi ``` So, no. This isn't worth the trouble and all the false positives and whatnot. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/628#issuecomment-1831834270 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: print autodep/autoprov calls if something writes to stderr (#620)
Closed #620 as completed. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/620#event-11095579544 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: print autodep/autoprov calls if something writes to stderr (#620)
I don't see us implementing stderr watching as such, so closing this in favor of #1183 - we do need to care about exit code, and emit meaningful diagnostics output in that case. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/620#issuecomment-1831779007 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 generators errors are ignored (#1183)
Besides stopping the build, it should emit the exact command that was executing when it failed. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1183#issuecomment-1831777535 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] Auto-detect systemd-sysusers(8) in tests (Issue #2592)
Actually, this didn't change much with the full move to OCI images. However, `systemd-sysusers` *is* installed into the image which means we can trivially use it in the test. I'm thinking we should probably just enhance the current test to run twice, setting `%__systemd_sysusers` to `@__SYSTEMD_SYSUSERS@` the second time. Or just duplicate the test. In any case, Todo material... -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2592#issuecomment-1831771396 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] OpenPGP: Function `pgpParsePkts` supports only "PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK" block, "PGP SIGNATURE" is needed (Issue #2512)
Closed #2512 as completed. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2512#event-11095282424 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] OpenPGP: Function `pgpParsePkts` supports only "PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK" block, "PGP SIGNATURE" is needed (Issue #2512)
Considering that the internal parser is on its way out, and changing rpm-sequoia to reject data that the return values suggest the function supports, breaking librepo in the process... I think the only reasonable thing is to just leave it all as it is. There are and will be significant differences in the backends as long as the internal one is there, so it seems to me the sooner we get rid of it the better it is for everybody, ultimately. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2512#issuecomment-1831737612 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] Please provide `%excludes` section (Issue #1852)
@dmnks converted this issue into discussion #2795. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1852#event-11095249265 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] OpenPGP: Function `pgpParsePkts` missing length argument (Issue #2513)
This doesn't seem like something worth doing on its own, but I mentioned this as another consideration whenever the grand crypto API redesign happens in #2041. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2513#issuecomment-1831715123 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] OpenPGP: Function `pgpParsePkts` missing length argument (Issue #2513)
Closed #2513 as completed. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2513#event-11095123186 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] Provide a decent API for verifying package signatures (Issue #2041)
Another related API improvement that is hardly worth it in itself but something that could be addressed whenever https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2487 is: #2513 -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2041#issuecomment-1831713367 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: introduce an rpm-controlled per-build directory to builds (Issue #2078)
See also https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479198 which is a similar issue also including debuginfo not working outside of `%buildsubdir` -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2078#issuecomment-1831710406 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] Please provide `%excludes` section (Issue #1852)
> ```
> %files
> %{gem_instdir}/config
>
> %excludes
> %{gem_instdir}/config
> ```
>
> Also, I believe that your examples are not really equivalent. Because one of
> the issues is that currently `%excludes` does exclude such item from package,
> but does not exclude it from other processing (which is actually one of the
> problems). This might also disqualify #2555
Yes, as I said, this is all assuming that we would *not* complain about
unpackaged files in the case of `%excludes`.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1852#issuecomment-1831709987
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] OpenPGP: Function `pgpParsePkts` parses only first ascii-armor block (Issue #2487)
Closed #2487 as completed. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2487#event-11095054217 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] OpenPGP: Function `pgpParsePkts` parses only first ascii-armor block (Issue #2487)
Clarified the documentation in bccf58f0d414a90fe2aca736255f126ad2bf45b2 (and managed to typo the ticket number, sigh) -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2487#issuecomment-1831705336 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: Utilize hwcaps mechnism for sub-arch detection (+ more) (Issue #2318)
@pmatilai converted this issue into discussion #2794. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2318#event-11094706061 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] Horrible error message for skipped headers in the database (Issue #2781)
Thanks for the explanation! -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2781#issuecomment-1831482587 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 4.19.1 bugfix update (PR #2791)
> I'd pull the whole rpm2archive improvement bunch (except the actual replacing > of rpm2cpio I guess) Argh, yup, good point, should've done that. There's no reason not to (except the replacement itself as you said). Will add. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2791#issuecomment-1831461789 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 4.19.1 bugfix update (PR #2791)
> We forgot the corresponding ticket again but done now: #2793 Oops, indeed. I also forgot to note this in the release guide :smile: How easy it is to forget these little steps here and there... -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2791#issuecomment-1831459213 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] Horrible error message for skipped headers in the database (Issue #2781)
Heh. It means that rpm did a signature and/or digest verification on this header from the rpmdb, and it failed. Just the fact that rpm does something like that on common access is something people find surprising. And the message being the way it is, it seems like some catastrophic internal failure instead. This all was added long before my time, the idea presumably being that rpm will detect database file corruption, including attempts to tamper with the database. Which seems like a nice security feature on the outset, but in practise it fails in so many ways that it's more like tragicomic. I've never seen it come anywhere near of catching an actual database corruption, the only thing it *has* caught is bugs in the signature code of rpm and more recently, use of outdated crypto in packages. And now with rpm-sequoia, other anomalies in signatures that *still* don't mean the database is corrupted in any way :laughing: -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2781#issuecomment-1831449278 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 4.19.1 bugfix update (PR #2791)
We forgot the corresponding ticket again :laughing: but done now: #2793 -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2791#issuecomment-1831416533 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 4.19.1 bugfix update (Issue #2793)
Time for the first bugfix update of 4.19, we have a bunch of annoying little issues here and there. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2793 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
