Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Existing package not found (Issue #3132)
`rpm -i` **=** _installation invocation_ which implies availability. `rpm -i` **!=** _installed query_ thus **!=** `rpm -q`. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3132#issuecomment-2143430123 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] Existing package not found (Issue #3132)
### Describe the bug Existing package not found ### To reproduce ``` $ sudo rpm -vv -i rubygem-bundler D: == rubygem-bundler error: open of rubygem-bundler failed: No such file or directory D: found 0 source and 0 binary packages D: Exit status: 1 ``` ### Expected behaviour Proceed to install existing package ``` $ dnf -q list rubygem-bundler Available Packages rubygem-bundler.noarch 2.5.9-7.fc40 updates ``` ### Environment - OS / distribution: Fedora 40 - RPM version: 4.19.1.1 -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3132 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] Is there a move away from the XZ Utils component in progress? (Discussion #3021)
Hello. In light of the fiasco caused by the discovery of a backdoor in the
component _xz_ in a known version range, is there at this time a consensus on
compression for future releases within the RPM/DNF component developer teams,
in order to consider moving away from **XZ Utils**, e.g. in favor of the _zstd_
**(Zstandard**) component?
Components pertinent for the context that currently require it:
```
$ dnf -q rq --installed --alldeps --whatrequires xz-libs --qf '%{name} v.
%{version}' \
| grep -E 'rpm|dnf|^libdnf|^libsolv'
deltarpm v. 3.6.3
libsolv v. 0.7.28
rpm-libs v. 4.19.1.1
```
P.S. _xz-libs_ component provides _/usr/lib64/liblzma.so*_.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/3021
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] Failure to report the package that requires the specified package (Issue #2439)
**v.** 4.18.1 | Hello. `rpm` fails to report the package that requires the specified package, while the existence of the package it is required by is attested by `dnf` . ``` $ rpm -q --whatrequires libdecor no package requires libdecor $ dnf rq --installed --whatrequires libdecor SDL2-0:2.26.3-1.fc38.x86_64 $ dnf --installed list libdecor | tail -1 libdecor.x86_64 0.1.1-2.fc38 @anaconda ``` -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2439 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] `-e|--erase` option | Explain what sentences `Failed dependencies` and `(...) if (...)` attempt to express (Issue #2428)
``` $ rpm -e --test libdecor error: Failed dependencies: (libdecor-0.so.0()(64bit) if libwayland-client) is needed by (installed) SDL2-2.26.3-1.fc38.x86_64 ``` **v. 4.18.1** | Hello. The above output's formulation makes it highly uneasy to interpret correctly, so i had to investigate to figure out whether it exits a pertinent definition. And yet it could be found in a document linked in the RPM official site as follows: ``` # rpm -e --test bother removing these packages would break dependencies: bother >= 3.1 is needed by blather-7.9-1 ``` - "`Removing these packages would break dependencies`" | That current "`Failed dependencies`" can hardly mean that. What could have been worth changing a well descriptive, self-explicit and non-coded sentence for an obscure, non-self-explicit and coded sentence. - "`bother >= 3.1 is needed by (...)`" | That space "``" preceding "`bother >= 3.1 is needed by (...)`", and still in place in latest version, accidentally suggests a missing value despite it appears that nothing is missing. It brought confusion; as such it should be avoided and thus that useless space removed. - "`(libdecor-0.so.0()(64bit) if libwayland-client)`" | That i can hardly interpret as a sentence making sense. What is that `if` meant to express here? -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2428 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] Queried tag fields not exhibited. Specified package name reported in output (Issue #2411)
correction | additions of headers representing tags are possible. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2411#issuecomment-1470183107 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] GPG key interpreted as PGP key (Issue #2410)
Along with that unconventional issue, the user is probably left with an
unknown: _How to determine how or by who the Red Hat GPG/DSA key was imported?_
Could it be me that imported a such package?
```
$ rpm -qa --scripts gpg-pubkey* --qf '%{version}-%{release} %{packager}\n'
5323552a-6112bcdc Fedora (37)
ba3c3a2c-5eb88cc6 https://packagecloud.io/shiftkey/desktop
(https://packagecloud.io/docs#gpg_signing)
```
I understand that so-called _fake_ package is created in order to satisfy a
non-critical dependency. Then it would be expected to have as output here a
package it is required by. However it is not so. That's confusing.
```
$ rpm -q --whatrequires gpg-pubkey-5323552a-6112bcdc
no package requires gpg-pubkey-5323552a-6112bcdc
```
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2410#issuecomment-1458295913
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] Queried tag fields not exhibited. Specified package name reported in output (Issue #2411)
Package specified reported in output
Hello. Noticeable issues:
- Queried **tag fields are not exhibited** along with each reported package
name.
- The **specified package name is reported**. Nonetheless in that context,
queried tag fields are exhibited.
```
$ rpm -q --qf %{version} libxcrypt-compat
4.4.33
$ rpm -q --conflicts --obsoletes --requires --recommends --suggests
--supplements --qf '%{name} %{version} %{conflicts} %{obsoletes} %{requires}
%{recommends} %{suggests} %{supplements} %{enhances}' libxcrypt-compat
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.25)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.36)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit)
libxcrypt(x86-64) = 4.4.33-4.fc37
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadIsZstd) <= 5.4.18-1
rtld(GNU_HASH)
libxcrypt-compat 4.4.33 (none) (none) libc.so.6()(64bit) (none) (none) (none)
(none)
```
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2411
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] GPG key interpreted as PGP key (Issue #2410)
Closed #2410 as completed. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2410#event-8666192273 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] GPG key interpreted as PGP key (Issue #2410)
Certainly; thus no issue in the traditional sense. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2410#issuecomment-1454761223 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] GPG key interpreted as PGP key (Issue #2410)
Hello. A **non-manually** created fake RPM package is reported as follows ``` $ rpm -qi gpg-pubkey-5323552a-6112bcdc | awk 'NF' | sed -n '1,17p;$p' Name: gpg-pubkey Version : 5323552a Release : 6112bcdc Architecture: (none) Install Date: Sat Nov 5 11:14:03 2022 Group : Public Keys Size: 0 License : pubkey Signature : (none) Source RPM : (none) Build Date : Tue Aug 10 20:52:28 2021 Build Host : localhost Packager: Fedora (37) Summary : Fedora (37) public key Description : -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- Version: rpm-4.18.0 -END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- ``` Despite the mention _gpg_ as part of the package name and what it is suggesting to us and indicating to the running OS, it is interpreted as _PGP_. What could cause that misinterpretation? -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2410 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 dedicated option to query fake installed RPM packages with GPG keys associated with them (Issue #2404)
Fake package can be identifiable by the prefix _gpg-pubkey-_ in its name; that's a knowledge assumed unknown from the user nor was assumed needed the knowledge of the definition of a fake package. Yet it is unusual for the vast majority of users (be they beginners or even advanced) to be put in situation of investigating what a fake package is. I came myself to read about fake package by accident. It was though implicit in the report that `rpm -qa` could be considered in its role by solely reporting by default non-fake installed packages. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2404#issuecomment-1452236725 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 dedicated option to query fake installed RPM packages with GPG keys associated with them (Issue #2404)
Fake package can be identifiable by the prefix _gpg-pubkey-_ in its name; that's a knowledge assumed unknown from the user nor was assumed needed the knowledge of the definition of a fake package. The **title** could not be more explicit in this regard. Yet it is unusual for the vast majority of users (be they beginners or even advanced) to be put in situation of investigating what a fake package is. It was though implicit in the report that `rpm -qa` could be considered in its role by solely reporting by default non-fake installed packages. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2404#issuecomment-1452226855 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] Provide dedicated option to query fake installed RPM packages with GPG keys associated with them (Issue #2404)
Hello. Fake RPM packages with GPG keys associated with them are taken in account while querying all installed packages. ``` $ rpm -qa | grep '^gpg-pubkey-' | wc -l 2 ``` This ability to count such packages, which is useful, would be more to its advantage if queried on-demand and thus served by a dedicated option. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2404 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] Non-adequate 'curl' command defined in the rpm configuration (Issue #2384)
**rpm v.**: 4.18.0-1.fc37.x86_64 Hello. Steps to reproduce; to be applied to a **non-installed** package, here `libvirt-client` for instance. Ensure that a correct value for`--repo` is set according to the OS you are working with. `URL0=https://nic.funet.fi/pub/Linux/INSTALL/fedora/linux/releases/$(rpm -E %fedora)/Everything/$(uname -i)/os/Packages/l/$(dnf -q rq --repo=fedora libvirt-client).rpm` An adequate curl command to handle `URL0` is `curl -O $URL0`. Then it leads to display what is queried accordingly. However as indicated by the following output, a non-adequate curl command was defined by default in the rpm configuration. ``` $ rpm -vvqip $URL0 curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404 error: open of https://nic.funet.fi/pub/Linux/INSTALL/fedora/linux/releases/37/Everything/x86_64/os/Packages/l/libvirt-client-0:8.6.0-3.fc37.x86_64.rpm failed: No such file or directory D: Exit status: 1 ``` -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2384 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] Opening of package attested available by 'dnf' failing (Issue #2381)
How i could miss the presence of that option? Then unlike what i wrote, "_Option missing from RPM(8), 09 June 2002_", it was present. It would be worth to have an explicit description such as one that takes in account your statement "_rpm -qp queries a local .rpm file_". Would the following formulations be valid? - "_Query a non-installed package_ `PACKAGE_FILE.`" instead of "_Query an (uninstalled) package `PACKAGE_FILE`."_ - "_The `PACKAGE_FILE` must be available either locally in the system or in remote repository. When hosted in remote repository, it may be specified as an ftp or http style URL_" instead of "_The `PACKAGE_FILE` may be specified as an ftp or http style URL._". -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2381#issuecomment-1419326088 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] Opening of package attested available by 'dnf' failing (Issue #2381)
How i could miss the presence of that option? Then unlike what i wrote, "_Option missing from RPM(8), 09 June 2002_", it was present. It would be worth to have an explicit description such as one that takes in account your statement "_rpm -qp queries a local .rpm file_". Would the following formulations be valid? - _Query a non-installed package PACKAGE_FILE._ instead of _Query an (uninstalled) package PACKAGE_FILE._ - _The PACKAGE_FILE must be available either locally in the system or in remote repository. When hosted in remote repository, it may be specified as an ftp or http style URL_ instead of _ The PACKAGE_FILE may be specified as an ftp or http style URL_. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2381#issuecomment-1419242338 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] Opening of package attested available by 'dnf' failing (Issue #2381)
``` $ rpm -q rpm rpm-4.18.0-1.fc37.x86_64 ``` Attestation of availability of a package: with `dnf` ``` $ dnf -q rq --repo=fedora libvirt-client libvirt-client-0:8.6.0-3.fc37.x86_64 ``` Hello. Opening of package failing. ``` $ rpm -vv -qip `dnf -q rq --repo=fedora libvirt-client` error: open of libvirt-client-0:8.6.0-3.fc37.x86_64 failed: No such file or directory D: Exit status: 1 ``` Mention `-p ` included [here](http://ftp.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-query-parts.html). Option missing from RPM(8), 09 June 2002. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2381 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] Query format | Values intended to be queried by tag 'epoch' not queried when invoked by tag 'evr' (Issue #2364)
So that is all what it was about; **deliberate inconsistency.** Choosing to print sometimes _epoch_ values, with tag _epoch_, and sometimes not to print them, with tags _evr_ and _nevra_, would not be expected from developers. Having such a fantasy in your code must have pleased you so far since you showed interest to keep it. After all, that makes the motive for suddenly closing enterely different, and it was indeed worth being closed as there was nothing that could have been done here in such a context. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2364#issuecomment-1411760695 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] Query format | Values intended to be queried by tag 'epoch' not queried when invoked by tag 'evr' (Issue #2364)
There cannot be better model for illustrating a bad use of convention, since
such a convention could not be determined invariably as a convention.
**Proof-case**
Is assumed:
- a **non-null** _epoch_ value exits for an installed package
- user not aware of the existence of a **non-null** _epoch_ value for an
installed package
- **non-null** _epoch_ values not reported by `rpm -q --qf %{evr} `
nor any other mention reported
Then the very failure of reporting anything could not be determined either as a
consequence of a convention or as an issue.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2364#issuecomment-1403563410
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] Query format | Values intended to be queried by tag 'epoch' not queried when invoked by tag 'evr' (Issue #2364)
There cannot be better model for illustrating a bad use of convention, since
such a convention could not be determined invariably as a convention.
**Proof-case**
Is assumed:
- a **non-null** _epoch_ value exits for an installed package
- user not aware of the exitence of a **non-null** _epoch_ value for an
installed package
- **non-null** _epoch_ values not reported by `rpm -q --qf %{evr} `
nor any other mention reported
Then the very failure of reporting anything could not be determined either as a
consequence of a convention or as an issue.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2364#issuecomment-1403562269
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] Query format | Values intended to be queried by tag 'epoch' not queried when invoked by tag 'evr' (Issue #2364)
"_That package does not HAVE an epoch_"
Wasn't it explicit from my output resulting `rpm -q --qf %{epoch} rpm`?
"_That package does not HAVE an epoch, so it's not reported._"
Well, not reported! Was there something that prevented you from reading a
_(none)_ from my output resulting `rpm -q --qf %{epoch} rpm`? Do you read it at
last? It seems obvious to me that in the present context, a coherent flow would
have to lead to produce as follows:
```
$ rpm -q --qf %{evr} rpm
(none):4.18.0-1.fc37
```
And you however, you did manage to close. Can anyone find any coherence in a
such action that could benefit the present project?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2364#issuecomment-1403465268
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] Query format | Values intended to be queried by tag 'epoch' not queried when invoked by tag 'evr' (Issue #2364)
"_That package does not HAVE an epoch_"
Wasn't it explicit from my output resulting `rpm -q --qf %{epoch} rpm`?
"_That package does not HAVE an epoch, so it's not reported._"
Well, not reported! Was there something that prevented you from reading a
_(none)_ from my output resulting `rpm -q --qf %{epoch} rpm`? Do you read it at
last? It seems obvious to me that in the present context, a coherent flow would
have to lead to produce as follows:
```
$ rpm -q --qf %{evr} rpm
(none):4.18.0-1.fc37
```
An you however, you did manage to close. Can anyone find any coherence in such
action that could benefit the present project?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2364#issuecomment-1403461303
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] Query format | Values intended to be queried by tag 'epoch' not queried when invoked by tag 'evr' (Issue #2364)
Issue valid with tag _nevra_. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2364#issuecomment-1402245979 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] Query format | Values intended to be queried by tag 'epoch' not queried when invoked by tag 'evr' (Issue #2364)
Hello. Tag _evr_ fails to query the values intended to be queried by tag
_epoch_.
```
$ rpm -q --qf %{evr} rpm
4.18.0-1.fc37
```
Though the underlying function for tag _epoch_ behaves as intended.
```
$ rpm -q --qf %{epoch} rpm
(none)
```
Though _0_ instead of _(none)_ could be a bit more adequate mention.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2364
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] Link for "Fedora RPM Guide" | Page not found (Issue #2363)
Hello. [Here](https://rpm.org/documentation.html), the page referred in the link for _Fedora RPM Guide_ is [reported](https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora_Draft_Documentation/0.1/html/RPM_Guide/index.html) not found. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2363 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] Option '--qf' applies only to parameter attached to option '-q', not to each output row (#600)
Indeed. I had figured out the supported fields list using ’rpm --querytags’. Yet I fail to discover a way to print each tag description; Do you have a suggestion for that? -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/600#issuecomment-439897946___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Option '--qf' applies only to parameter attached to option '-q', not to each output row (#600)
Command option '_--qf_' applies **only** to **parameter attached** to option
'-_q_' (here _rpm_), not to each output row as expected. (Possible bug)
Actual result:
```
$ rpm -qR rpm --qf '%{NAME} – %{DESCRIPTION}'
/usr/bin/bash
(...)
rpm – The RPM Package Manager (RPM) (...)
(...) a description, etc. [_@l_~]$
```
Expected result: specified '--qf' **fields** (here _NAME_, _DESCRIPTION_) to be
applied to **each** row of an output resulting from '_rpm -qR rpm_'.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/600___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
