Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] `%triggerin -- %{name} < %{version}-%{release}` is always triggered on upgrade (#209)
Case `%triggerin -- %{name} < 1.0-2.new`:
RPM triggers `%triggerin -- %{name} < 1.0-2.new`. It is according to the
description in the documentation [1] (_The %triggerin script is also run when
your package_ (`baz-1.0-2.new`) _is installed or upgraded, should the target
package_ (`baz-1.0-1.old`) _be already installed._)
Case `%triggerin -- %{name}`:
In this case more natural would be running the triggerin scriptlet only once.
Note that if `baz-1-3.new
` is the same as `baz-1-2.new` (the only difference is the release number),
then after upgrading from `baz-1-2.new` to `baz-1-3.new` the %triggerin is run
three times.
I think that this should be improved to call %triggerin in all cases maximally
once.
[1] Fedora documentation (but it holds generally):
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora_Draft_Documentation/0.1/html/RPM_Guide/ch10s02.html
--
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/209#issuecomment-536463178___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add the marker to the appropriate expression error messages (#869)
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/869 -- Commit Summary -- * Add the marker to the appropriate expression error messages -- File Changes -- M rpmio/expression.c (15) M tests/rpmmacro.at (2) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/869.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/869.diff -- 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/pull/869 ___ 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 an error message when rpm fails to open a pipe for shell expansion (#862)
Commit message is corrected according to @pmatilai's comment. -- 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/pull/862#issuecomment-535395613___ 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 an error message when rpm fails to open a pipe for shell expansion (#862)
@pavlinamv pushed 1 commit. 75ec68392ece1006f1543bd556f64199257b6b32 Add an error message when rpm fails to open a pipe for shell expansion -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/862/files/e2677384cde95e69e14979ccac8936874c376652..75ec68392ece1006f1543bd556f64199257b6b32 ___ 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 an error message when rpm fails to open a pipe for shell expansion (#862)
@pavlinamv pushed 1 commit. e2677384cde95e69e14979ccac8936874c376652 Add an error message when rpm fails to open a pipe for shell expansion -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/862/files/d7a7479113e2e2ebf6a34d02a4aa07594915df8d..e2677384cde95e69e14979ccac8936874c376652 ___ 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 an error message when rpm fails to open a pipe for shell expansion (#862)
Removed unnecessary "mb->error = 1;" line. -- 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/pull/862#issuecomment-535370536___ 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 an error message when rpm fails to open a pipe for shell expansion (#862)
Changed (added the command it's trying to execute and strerror(errno)). -- 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/pull/862#issuecomment-534990143___ 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 an error message when rpm fails to open a pipe for shell expansion (#862)
@pavlinamv pushed 1 commit. 0226f7c190326c6ab1d7a82f4143fe7e7928192a Add an error message when rpm fails to open a pipe for shell expansion -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/862/files/769b72b03bc31c7df111fb5e7d45e75cb0834beb..0226f7c190326c6ab1d7a82f4143fe7e7928192a ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add an error message when rpm fails to open a pipe for shell expansion (#862)
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/862 -- Commit Summary -- * Add an error message when rpm fails to open a pipe for shell expansion -- File Changes -- M rpmio/macro.c (1) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/862.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/862.diff -- 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/pull/862 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Codify built-in macro argument acceptance (#853)
The PR looks good to me. -- 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/pull/853#issuecomment-534511744___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Correct description of %verbose and %getconfdir in the macro manual (#856)
Pushed. -- 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/pull/856#issuecomment-534511549___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Correct description of %verbose and %getconfdir in the macro manual (#856)
@pavlinamv pushed 1 commit. 9ae7eb4858f381cad3925c96a0ec1b4d7d9f36cc Correct description of %verbose and %getconfdir in the macro manual -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/856/files/857558f100343a971af19c720dea71749f53456b..9ae7eb4858f381cad3925c96a0ec1b4d7d9f36cc ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Correct description of %verbose and %getconfdir in the macro manual (#856)
Changed according to the comment. -- 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/pull/856#issuecomment-534508114___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Correct description of %verbose and %getconfdir in the macro manual (#856)
I looked into rpm/doc/manual/macros to check 0 and 1 added into the builtinmacros[] in PR #853. Values added in PR #853 are correct, but description of macros %verbose and %getconfdir in manual is confusing. So that is why I created this PR. You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/856 -- Commit Summary -- * Correct description of %verbose and %getconfdir in the macro manual -- File Changes -- M doc/manual/macros (5) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/856.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/856.diff -- 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/pull/856 ___ 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 'string' into query format extensions in man-pages (#837)
@pavlinamv pushed 1 commit. e9d4397003b99f0636bbaabb6a9b151145680a1e Add 'string' into query format extensions in man-pages -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/837/files/c1edbd6dc001cae0e174ff1133295badb893f972..e9d4397003b99f0636bbaabb6a9b151145680a1e ___ 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 'string' into query format extensions in man-pages (#837)
Mentioning ":string" in that part of man page, will not cause any problems. But if ":string" is not there, it looks like that it is not supported. -- 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/pull/837#issuecomment-533447809___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Support new %[ ] expression expansion syntax (#846)
pavlinamv commented on this pull request. > @@ -1349,6 +1386,13 @@ expandMacro(MacroBuf mb, const char *src, size_t slen) doShellEscape(mb, s, (se - 1 - s)); s = se; continue; + case '[': /* %[...] expression expansion */ + if (mb->macro_trace) + printMacro(mb, s, se); + s++;/* skip ( */ ``` s++;/* skip ( */ ``` -> ``` s++;/* skip [ */ ``` -- 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/pull/846#pullrequestreview-290481295___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Support new %[ ] expression expansion syntax (#846)
Cool. It would be great to add a testcase. -- 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/pull/846#issuecomment-533026052___ 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 ternary operator support to expression parser (#838)
@mlschroe: Thank you. The PR looks good to me. @pmatilai After the mentioned example there is a list of operators that can be used in a condition after ``` %if ``` -- 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/pull/838#issuecomment-532644399___ 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 ternary operator support to expression parser (#838)
Could you change file
```
rpm/doc/manual/spec
```
in section "Conditionals" the text after example:
```
%if 0%{?fedora} > 10 || 0%{?rhel} > 7
```
according of the PR?
--
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/pull/838#issuecomment-532630700___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Do not allow to divide by 0 in the expression evaluation (#833)
@pavlinamv pushed 1 commit. 8e919739e766840626d17b0891bdc27ac6be776e Prevent dividing by 0 in the expression evaluation -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/833/files/79055aa02f143734ba5e7838a14960932b9442e8..8e919739e766840626d17b0891bdc27ac6be776e ___ 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 ternary operator support to expression parser (#838)
Thank you. It solves the problem. -- 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/pull/838#issuecomment-532561398___ 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 'string' into query format extensions in man-pages (#837)
Yes, there is no need to use ":string". But it is supported. -- 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/pull/837#issuecomment-532153072___ 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 ternary operator support to expression parser (#838)
I think that adding ternary operator support to the expression parser is useful
and it will not cause problems in the parsing of the existing expressions.
There is one thing that can be improved -cases like:
```
--eval '%{expr: 1 ?}'
--eval '%{expr: 0 ? 3 : }'
```
returns an error, but without any message. It can be improved.
--
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/pull/838#issuecomment-532151451___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] expression expansion (#834)
@mlschroe: I like this idea. I checked Fedora spec files and there was no conflict with "%[... ]". -- 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/834#issuecomment-531788382___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Cannot leave comments after %endif (#829)
3. agree with @pmatilai, changelog entries can be without comments. -- 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/829#issuecomment-531786938___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add 'string' into query format extensions in man-pages (#837)
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/837 -- Commit Summary -- * Add string into query format extensions in man-pages -- File Changes -- M doc/rpm.8 (3) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/837.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/837.diff -- 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/pull/837 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Do not allow to divide by 0 in the expression evaluation (#833)
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/833 -- Commit Summary -- * Do not allow to divide by 0 in the expression evaluation -- File Changes -- M rpmio/expression.c (4) M tests/rpmmacro.at (2) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/833.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/833.diff -- 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/pull/833 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Improve description of conditionals + comments in spec documentation (#830)
The comments are incorporated in the new version. Thank you for the review. -- 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/pull/830#issuecomment-529876894___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Improve description of conditionals + comments in spec documentation (#830)
@pavlinamv pushed 2 commits. db00406d78149cfaa0e78fea9426d5642bc6a95e Improve description of conditionals in spec documentation c150103aae26475d92ee26d6427a13f9f21890ad Add description of comments in spec documentation -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/830/files/cdec9833c0d43651ca49873f22d042716eaa8629..c150103aae26475d92ee26d6427a13f9f21890ad ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Cannot leave comments after %endif (#829)
> The constructive solution to the problem would be supporting spec #-comments
> at arbitrary positions, just like the shell does.
Supporting spec #-comments at arbitrary positions can potentially cause some
problems. That is why I looked into spec files and search for occurrences of
#. There are several types of interesting lines:
1/ **#** used in define (in quotes or before backslash, ...)
```
%define coolkey_module "CoolKey PKCS #11 Module"
%global auto_register_macro_post() # create it if it doesn't already exist \
```
2/ **#** used in a script that does not denote a comment
```
sed -i -e '/^#!/ c #!%{__perl}' bin/podspell
%{_bindir}/echo -e "\e[101m -=#=- Tests disabled -=#=- \e[0m"
```
3/ **#** used in a changelog:
```
Ticket #321 - krbExtraData is being null modified and replicated on each ssh
login
```
--
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/829#issuecomment-529856455___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Correct and update Query formats documentation (#827)
>>Or just leave them as historical reference for future generations to gape >> at... > I like this option. :) Changed. I leave the original names. -- 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/pull/827#issuecomment-529469822___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Correct and update Query formats documentation (#827)
@pavlinamv pushed 1 commit. 8a1f9ec0f420ba4a5eec64db52c5d86ff6162c03 Correct and update Query formats documentation -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/827/files/209faf3a124341c3e26ba811759a09ec89490603..8a1f9ec0f420ba4a5eec64db52c5d86ff6162c03 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Rip the marker support for multiline %{expr:...} error messages (#828)
Corrected according to the review. -- 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/pull/828#issuecomment-52945___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Rip the marker support for multiline %{expr:...} error messages (#828)
@pavlinamv pushed 1 commit. 218633033acea714edbbdb6b21a8dba8aa3d39e8 Disable marker on multiline expression error messages -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/828/files/b2260fbae4087f55615219376906d066db7341ee..218633033acea714edbbdb6b21a8dba8aa3d39e8 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Correct and update Query formats documentation (#827)
Moreover to the described corrections (according to the review) I add an example of example of a query expression. -- 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/pull/827#issuecomment-529451544___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Correct and update Query formats documentation (#827)
@pavlinamv pushed 1 commit. 209faf3a124341c3e26ba811759a09ec89490603 Correct and update Query formats documentation -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/827/files/f7c7f469966081328932a6320c22e54643e59952..209faf3a124341c3e26ba811759a09ec89490603 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Improve description of conditionals + comments in spec documentation (#830)
- Improve description of conditionals in spec documentation - Add description of comments in spec documentation You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/830 -- Commit Summary -- * Improve description of conditionals in spec documentation * Add description of comments in spec documentation -- File Changes -- M doc/manual/spec (67) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/830.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/830.diff -- 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/pull/830 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Cannot leave comments after %endif (#829)
>From Fedora documentation [1]: "_To include comments in the spec file, use a #
>character at the start of the line._"
So the text "# with foo" in line
```%else # with foo```
is not a valid comment. If you need to use a comment near %else, you can write
e.g.:
```
%if %{with foo}
...
%else
# with foo
```
[1]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora_Draft_Documentation/0.1/html/Packagers_Guide/chap-Packagers_Guide-Spec_File_Reference-Comments.html
--
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/829#issuecomment-527839796___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Triple operator for conditional shortcut (#115)
I do not see any problem in the syntax that @pmatilai proposed in his previous
comment:
```%{()?:}```
There are two similar options that are closer to the currently proposed triple
condition operator syntax (#746):
```%{{}?:}```
```%{{}::}```
Using these syntax the example from the previous @mlschroe comment looks:
```%{(0%?_include_minidebuginfo)?"mini:true":"mini:false"}```
```%{{0%?_include_minidebuginfo}?"mini:true":"mini:false"}```
```%{{0%?_include_minidebuginfo}:"mini:true":"mini:false"}```
Syntax:
```%{expr: 0%?_include_minidebuginfo ? "mini:true" : "mini:false" }```
can cause a small problem in deciding which ? divides the parts of the macro.
But it can be solved - the first ? can be in {}:
```%{expr:0%{?_include_minidebuginfo}? "mini:true" : "mini:false"}```
--
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/115#issuecomment-527806699___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Rip the marker support for multiline %{expr:...} error messages (#828)
Corrected -- 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/pull/828#issuecomment-527410044___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Rip the marker support for multiline %{expr:...} error messages (#828)
@pavlinamv pushed 1 commit. b2260fbae4087f55615219376906d066db7341ee Disable marker on multiline expression error messages -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/828/files/a4e4aa041761d5eb36a486d1f058989c3a864f59..b2260fbae4087f55615219376906d066db7341ee ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Rip the marker support for multiline %{expr:...} error messages (#828)
If the expression after %{expr: is mutiline like:
%{expr: 0 || 0 ||
0 || 0 |o| 0 ||
0 || 0 || 0 }
then it is better not to support marker pointing to the exact
place of the error.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/828
-- Commit Summary --
* Rip the marker support for multiline %{expr:...} error messages
-- File Changes --
M rpmio/expression.c (8)
-- Patch Links --
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/828.patch
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/828.diff
--
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/pull/828
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFC: Limit build parallelism by available memory too, add tunables (#804) (#821)
> Yeah, known. Missing/wrong arguments to built-in macros are wildly > inconsistent in how they behave, some emit errors, some just fail silently > etc. Evidently better way is to emit an error. -- 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/pull/821#issuecomment-526562551___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Correct and update Query formats documentation (#827)
- in a majority of examples in manual the text after the --queryformat
argument is in double quotes - thus it does not look good to wrote
that A query format is passed to RPM after the --queryformat
argument, and normally should be enclosed in single quotes.
- in case of:
rpm -qa -i --queryformat %{NAME} %{SIZE}\n
-i is not ignored, so this is omitted in the text.
- language correction
- added name of file with the list of all formatting tags,
- package dev is not reachable now, so replaced by nss,
all tags are now written in capital letters,
%{FILEVERIFYFLAGS:hex} looks better then %{FILEVERIFYFLAGS}
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/827
-- Commit Summary --
* Correct and update Query formats documentation
-- File Changes --
M doc/manual/queryformat (23)
-- Patch Links --
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/827.patch
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/827.diff
--
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/pull/827
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFC: Limit build parallelism by available memory too, add tunables (#804) (#821)
I tested this PR on my laptop.
- The expansion of macro %{getmem:virt}" finishes with an error. It is because
getmem returns 0. This is caused by the fact that function getmem_virt returns
SIZE_MAX. After dividing by 1024^2 it is still to high to fit into return_type
of getmem (unsigned int).
- If there is a wrong parameter after '%{getmem:' , then no warning or error is
emitted
- Why you use a new type of built-in macro synatx %{getmem:} instead of
something close to the existing built-in macros like %getmem_avail?
--
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/pull/821#issuecomment-526549042___
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 builtin macro %undefine_all (#820)
> Please, how does it break the stack semantics? I am asking because I think that it is easy to implement such a builtin macro. E.g. popMacro() can be changed such that it returns 1 if an macro was deleted and 0 if no macro was deleted. After that it will be easy to call popMacro() in some function similar to doUndefine() until popMacro() returns 0. -- 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/820#issuecomment-523944629___ 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 builtin macro %undefine_all (#820)
Please, how it breaks the stack semantics? -- 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/820#issuecomment-523881821___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add builtin macro %undefine_all (#820)
A builtin macro ```%undefine macro_name``` removes the last defined _'macro_name'_ from defined macros. But it still leaves all older definitions of the macro _'macro_name'_. So as @pmatilai wrote in #115 - "macros stack so undefining doesn't guarantee said macro actually goes away". Thus I think that it will be usefull to have a builtin macro that undefines all defined macros with the particular name. So after using it, no macro with the chosen name remains. I am not sure regarding the name of the builtin macro. -- 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/820___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Triple operator for conditional shortcut (#115)
> While we're thinking about extending the conditional macro syntax, here's > another thing to consider: > The current ? test is only for (non-)existence of macro, which is extremely > limiting. We could easily make the spec %if expression parser available to > macro engine, which would give a whole new level of power to macros. Please, what it the expected be gain from it? -- 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/115#issuecomment-523790987___ 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 %{expr:...} macro for parsing expressions (#817)
It is definitely better.
I tried a multiline expression:
```
rpm --eval '%{expr: 0 || 0 ||
0 || 0 |o| 0}'
```
and **'^'** does not point to the expected position:
```
+error: syntax error while parsing ||: 0 || 0 ||
+ 0 || 0 |o| 0
+error:^
```
--
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/pull/817#issuecomment-523428755___
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 %{expr:...} macro for parsing expressions (#817)
> The error messages are simply the same as you get from spec %if conditionals,
> there are no messages added / changed in this PR. That's not to say the
> messages couldn't maybe be improved, but any change needs to account for the
> fact that they're shared between two quite different contexts.
Not entirely. If there is a problem in spec %if conditional, then two error
messages are emitted e.g.:
```
error: syntax error while parsing ==
error: /data/SPECS/iftest.spec:22: bad %if condition: =
```
But if the same wrong conditional is used after _%{expr_ (e.g. %{expr:=}) only
the first error message is emitted:
```
error: syntax error while parsing ==
```
> There was an actual bug wrt errors in that expression errors did not raise a
> macro-level error. Fixed now.
Yes this is corrected now.
--
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/pull/817#issuecomment-523323551___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Prefer '[] && []' to '[ -a ]' and '[] || []' to '[ -o ]' in tests (#810)
The commit message is changed according to the review. -- 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/pull/810#issuecomment-523303087___ 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 segfault regression on empty script or description at end of spec (#816)
The alignment of the commit message is broken otherwise the patch looks perfect. -- 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/pull/816#issuecomment-522030455___ 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 %{expr:...} macro for parsing expressions (#817)
Functionality is OK, but error messages can be improved. I tried macros:
%{expr:0 || b} %{expr:4 &|| 0} %{expr:6 + 9 - o -=iu}
in a spec file and error messages were:
error: types must match
error: syntax error while parsing &&
error: types must match
--
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/pull/817#issuecomment-522017572___
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 segfault regression on empty script or description at end of spec (#816)
The patch is correct. The only thing that I propose to change is to is to refer to the particular commit behind the regression. -- 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/pull/816#issuecomment-521986396___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Triple operator for conditional shortcut (#115)
> Another thing is that this syntax makes it impossible to have colons (':') in
> the output (eg '%{!?foo::}'), which is a limitation the original syntax
> doesn't have'. It obviously has it's own set of limitations and quirks...
Not impossible, but not straightforward. For ':' in the output you can use
%define / %global:
rpm --define "text1 :" --eval '%{!?{foo}:%{text1}:%{text2}}'
or you can use %expand:
rpm --eval '%{!?{foo}:%{expand::}:%{expand::}}
--
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/115#issuecomment-521608946___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Prefer '[] && []' to '[ -a ]' and '[] || []' to '[ -o ]' in tests (#810)
It corrects warnings [SC2166] spotted by covscan: warning: Prefer [ p ] && [ q ] as [ p -a q ] is not well defined. [SC2166] warning: Prefer [ p ] || [ q ] as [ p -o q ] is not well defined. [SC2166] Motivated by last the comment in #802. This should fix all [sc2166] warnings spotted by covscan on RPM version 4.14.2. You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/810 -- Commit Summary -- * Prefer '[] && []' to '[ -a ]' and '[] || []' to '[ -o ]' in tests -- File Changes -- M scripts/brp-compress (2) M scripts/brp-java-gcjcompile (4) M scripts/brp-python-bytecompile (12) M scripts/brp-python-hardlink (2) M scripts/brp-strip (2) M scripts/brp-strip-comment-note (2) M scripts/brp-strip-shared (2) M scripts/brp-strip-static-archive (2) M scripts/check-buildroot (2) M scripts/check-rpaths (2) M scripts/find-debuginfo.sh (6) M scripts/find-lang.sh (6) M scripts/gendiff (2) M scripts/rpm2cpio.sh (2) M scripts/tgpg (2) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/810.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/810.diff -- 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/pull/810 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Support triple operator for conditional shortcut (#115) (#746)
Support for extra spaces is ripped out. -- 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/pull/746#issuecomment-518617194___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Support triple operator for conditional shortcut (#115) (#746)
> And how do you're supposed to know which spaces before and after the 0/1 are
> intentional or not? This must expand literally to either " 0 " or " 1".
According to the specification of triple operator - all spaces
- after '%{?!' or '%{?',
- before and after ':' that divides the operator and
- before the last '}'
till the first nonspace char must been omitted. This can be described in the
commit message explicitly.
Packagers tend to use spaces before ':' in the current condition operator, even
if "courtesy"
spaces are not supported. In the current case spaces usually do not change the
meaning of the spec file line and improve readability and alignment.
--
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/pull/746#issuecomment-518247611___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Take changelog timezone in account (RhBug 1715412) (#739)
>@pavlinamv So then, how does date in GNU Coreutils do it? rpm task: _input_: time in an arbitrary time zone, the time zone description _result_: the corresponding time in UTC. Command ```date``` _prints_ or _sets_ the system date and time. Neither _printing_, nor _setting_ is so complex (or the same as) as the rpm task. If date is used for _printing_ of the system date and time then it uses strftime() from time.h. This function can be used for printing of time zone name or abbreviation that is stored in TZ. It can not be used for setting a different time zone than is in TZ and time zone abbreviations can not be in used TZ. If date is used for _setting_ then input time can be in a different time zone (than described in TZ) only if the timezone is UTC. Thus it can not be used for setting time zone from an _arbitrary_ time zone abbreviation too. -- 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/pull/739#issuecomment-516006774___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Take changelog timezone in account (RhBug 1715412) (#739)
>There is no reason to break support for this, @Conan-Kudo, @ignatenkobrain: The current situation is: rpm accepts arbitrary text as a time zone description in extended date format. If the time zone description is not "correct" rpm (silently) change it to UTC instead of the given time zone description (reason of RhBug 1715412). In more detail: rpm uses the C standard library time.h (function mktime()) for solving tasks regarding time zones. Before using mktime() it is necessary to set the particular name of timezone into 'TZ' environment variable. TZ variable can be set using several formats [1]. None of them is the time zone abbreviation like EDT or CET or CEST. If the TZ contains text in: - the proper format mktime() converts the input structure according to TZ, - otherwise it converts the input structure according to UTC without any warning/info. I discussed the situation with Florian Weimer (he is familiar with time.h). He wrote that the time zone abbreviations are not valid time zone identifiers as far as tzdata or glibc's tzset function are concerned. He recommends to change the format to encode UTC offsets explicitly. That is why I proposed the current PR. I am not happy with this the proposed solution, but I do not see a better one. [1] https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/TZ-Variable.html -- 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/pull/739#issuecomment-515937136___ 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 [ ] and && to avoid sub processes in find-debuginfo.sh (RhBug:172… (#802)
The commit message is changed. -- 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/pull/802#issuecomment-515872259___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Use [ ] and && to avoid sub processes in find-debuginfo.sh (RhBug:172… (#802)
…0590) Thanks to Florian Festi for spotting this and proposing the solution. You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/802 -- Commit Summary -- * Use [ ] and && to avoid sub processes in find-debuginfo.sh (RhBug:1720590) -- File Changes -- M scripts/find-debuginfo.sh (2) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/802.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/802.diff -- 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/pull/802 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Test %dnl such that %dnl line contents influences its expansion (#792)
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/792 -- Commit Summary -- * Test %dnl such that its contents influences its expansion -- File Changes -- M tests/data/macros.testfile (6) M tests/rpmmacro.at (15) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/792.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/792.diff -- 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/pull/792 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Supporting %patch -T option (#788)
_The --set-utc (-Z) option causes patch to set a patched file’s modification and access times to the timestamps given in context diff headers._ => behavior of diff file without date header _patch normally refrains from setting a file’s timestamps if the file’s original last-modified timestamp does not match the time given in the diff header, of if the file’s contents do not exactly match the patch._ => behavior of diff file with date header See https://www.gnu.org/software/diffutils/manual/html_node/Patching-Timestamps.html#Patching-Timestamps -- 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/788#issuecomment-511004847___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add support for 'patch -Z' (#790)
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/790 -- Commit Summary -- * Add support for 'patch -Z' -- File Changes -- M build/parsePrep.c (15) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/790.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/790.diff -- 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/pull/790 ___ 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 %cnl (continue next line) marker (#787)
I am sorry, but I do not know any way how to do it. -- 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/787#issuecomment-510415579___ 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 %cnl (continue next line) marker (#787)
You can use %{shrink:...} this way:
```%global godocs docs examples code-of-conduct.md %{shrink:\```
``` }README.md```
"godocs" will be defined:
```xdocs examples code-of-conduct.md README.md```
--
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/787#issuecomment-510366448___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Describe conditionally expanded macros in manual (#786)
Thank you very much. It was mistake. Corrected in the new version. -- 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/pull/786#issuecomment-510350694___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Unreadable directory causes difficult to debug failure (#776)
Closed #776. -- 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/776#event-2469575345___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Unreadable directory causes difficult to debug failure (#776)
Fixed in commit 7a227533d1342dccc5b3717554a35dbe2baa9832 -- 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/776#issuecomment-509665930___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Support triple operator for conditional shortcut (#115) (#746)
> The exact syntax is subject to endless bikeshedding of course, but one thing
> that strikes me as just wrong are the surrounding spaces everywhere. There
> are no "courtesy spaces" for readability anywhere in rpm macros, I dont think
> this should be any different.
Here are 2 relevant examples from the current spec files (the most frequently
used):
```%global with_lua %{?_without_lua: 0} %{?!_without_lua: 1}```
```%{?gitdate:%{gitdate}}%{?!gitdate:%{version}}```
Without "courtesy spaces" the whole triple conditional macro looks:
```%global with_lua %{?{_without_lua}:0:1}```
```%{?{gitdate}:%{gitdate}:%{version}}```
But with spaces it looks better:
```%global with_lua %{?{_without_lua} : 0 : 1}```
```%{?{gitdate} : %{gitdate} : %{version}}```
Note that inside conditionally expanded macros packagers tend to use spaces
after ':' even if there are not supported. Thus it looks that packagers prefer
to use spaces that help to have the macro readable.
> This also makes me wonder if it's really worth the added complexity, it's
> merely syntactic sugar afterall.
It is a syntactic sugar, but it will help to improve packager experience with
spec files.
> Any particular reason for this specific syntax over the others discussed in
> the ticket?
I asked several packagers and this was the preferred syntax. FYI remaining
possibilities are
```%{? {_without_lua} : 0 ! 1 }```
```%{? {_without_lua} ? 0 ! 1 }```
```%{? {_without_lua} ? 0 : 1 }```
```%{?: _without_lua : 0 : 1 }```
```%{? _without_lua ? 0 : 1 }```
> Oh and to make it clear, this is strictly 4.16 material, we don't want
> changes this drastic at this point in 4.15 cycle, so there's all the time in
> the world for review and further discussion.
I have a deadline - 4th October.
--
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/pull/746#issuecomment-509658688___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Describe conditionally expanded macros in manual (#786)
It is good to have conditionally expanded macros documented in manual before
implementing the triple operator for conditional shortcut (#115). Especially
because I did not find any documentation describing %{?builtin_macro:value} or
the special case %{?load:value}. (See last comment in closed PR
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/702.)
--
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/pull/786#issuecomment-509600959___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Describe conditionally expanded macros in manual (#786)
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/786 -- Commit Summary -- * Describe conditionally expanded macros in manual -- File Changes -- M doc/manual/macros (43) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/786.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/786.diff -- 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/pull/786 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Print newline after "failed to load macro file" error is emitted (#784)
E.g. command
```[tester]$ rpm --eval "%{load:xxx}"```
before the patch returns
```error: failed to load macro file xxx[tester]$```
--
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/pull/784#issuecomment-509121123___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Print newline after "failed to load macro file" error is emitted (#784)
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/784 -- Commit Summary -- * Print newline after "failed to load macro file" error is emitted -- File Changes -- M rpmio/macro.c (2) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/784.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/784.diff -- 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/pull/784 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Raise an error if reading a file during rpmbuild fails (#776) (#783)
In case of #776 the added rpmbuild error looks: error: Can't read content of file: /home/tester/reps/776/zdroj/776/tests/testing/build/BUILDROOT/h-1.0-1.x86_64/etc/foo/bar You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/783 -- Commit Summary -- * Raise an error if reading a file during rpmbuild fails (#776) -- File Changes -- M build/files.c (2) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/783.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/783.diff -- 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/pull/783 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Parse multiline conditional and %include parameters correctly (#775) (#778)
Trailing '\' after multiline conditionals or %include will be trimmed. After the patch lines like: %if 1 && ( 2 || \ 3 ) %endif will be parsed correctly. The other lines stay unchanged. A test is added. You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/778 -- Commit Summary -- * Parse multiline conditional and %include parameters correctly (#775) -- File Changes -- M build/parseSpec.c (25) M tests/Makefile.am (1) A tests/data/SPECS/ifmultiline.spec (28) M tests/rpmmacro.at (12) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/778.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/778.diff -- 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/pull/778 ___ 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 cannot parse conditional: error: unmatched ( (#775)
Thank you -- 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/775#issuecomment-506709813___ 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 cannot parse conditional: error: unmatched ( (#775)
Please, should the second %if look like this (I added \ at the end of the first line)? %if 1 && ( 2 || \\ 3 ) %endif -- 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/775#issuecomment-506703279___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Take changelog timezone in account (RhBug 1715412) (#739)
pavlinamv commented on this pull request.
> @@ -178,13 +179,17 @@ static int dateToTimet(const char * datestr, time_t *
> secs, int * date_words)
if (*secs == -1) goto exit;
+if (tzname[1][0] == 0)
+ rpmlog(RPMLOG_WARNING, _("time zone in %%changelog not in tz database:
%s\n"), datestr);
In the new version I changed the current warning, to be close to yours. But it
still give an additional information that the time zone ID must be contained in
the tz database (thus it can not be e.g. time zone abbreviation like CEST). So
it additionally helps to indicate how to correct the problem.
--
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/pull/739#discussion_r296542117___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Take changelog timezone in account (RhBug 1715412) (#739)
pavlinamv commented on this pull request. > @@ -44,7 +44,8 @@ static int dateToTimet(const char * datestr, time_t * secs, > int * date_words) struct tm time, ntime; const char * const * idx; char *p, *pe, *q, *date, *tz; -char tz_name[10]; /* name of timezone (if extended format is used) */ +char *tz_name = NULL; /* TZ database name (if extended format is used) */ I used "TZ database name" because I read it in several sources (e.g https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tz_database_time_zones or some others). So it looks correct for me. -- 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/pull/739#discussion_r296541883___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Take changelog timezone in account (RhBug 1715412) (#739)
pavlinamv commented on this pull request.
> @@ -178,13 +179,17 @@ static int dateToTimet(const char * datestr, time_t *
> secs, int * date_words)
if (*secs == -1) goto exit;
+if (tzname[1][0] == 0)
+ rpmlog(RPMLOG_WARNING, _("bogus TZ database name in %%changelog:
%s\n"), datestr);
Corrected in the new version.
--
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/pull/739#discussion_r293757994___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Take changelog timezone in account (RhBug 1715412) (#739)
Warning instead of info is emitted (in the latest version). -- 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/pull/739#issuecomment-501624116___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Take changelog timezone in account (RhBug 1715412) (#739)
Corrected in the latest version. -- 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/pull/739#issuecomment-501619925___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Support triple operator for conditional shortcut (#115) (#746)
%{? { macro_name } : true : false }
%{? { macro_name } : true }
%{?! { macro_name } : false : true }
%{?! { macro_name } : false }
More detailed description of the notation:
* Between the first chars "%{?" resp. "%{!?" or "%{?! there can not be a space.
* On the other hand around {condition} and :, there can but not need to be a
space.
* In {condition}, there can be a space before or after macro_name.
So e.g. the following conditions are similar (from rpm point of view):
%{?{macro}:true:false}
%{? { macro } : true : false }
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/746
-- Commit Summary --
* Make chkexist variable in macro.c more general
* Create a separate variable for storing parts of a macro
* Support triple operator for conditional shortcut
-- File Changes --
M rpmio/macro.c (187)
M tests/rpmmacro.at (30)
-- Patch Links --
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/746.patch
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/746.diff
--
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/pull/746
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Take changelog timezone in account (RhBug 1715412) (#739)
Panu's comments incorporated. Moreover I think about the problem again. The current implementation does not need further changes, but it needs to correct comments and add an info if the description of time zone is not correct. o the first commit in the PR is omitted and commit "Emit info if the TZ database name in changelog is not correct" is added. -- 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/pull/739#issuecomment-500183451___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Take changelog timezone in account (RhBug 1715412) (#739)
pavlinamv commented on this pull request. > @@ -30,10 +30,12 @@ static int sameDate(const struct tm *ot, const struct tm > *nt) ot->tm_wday == nt->tm_wday); } +#define TZ_MAX_LENGTH 80 Thank you. In the new version dynamic allocation is used. -- 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/pull/739#discussion_r291067663___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Take changelog timezone in account (RhBug 1715412) (#739)
Tests were added. Moreover they already help to show, that exit status 0 is returned when changelog order fails. Thus I add an additional commit that corrects this behaviour (regression). -- 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/pull/739#issuecomment-499212394___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Take changelog timezone in account (RhBug 1715412) (#739)
@pavlinamv pushed 2 commits. 1b44c113b06574e24ae5cd1e92aa2ae132975081 Return non-zero exit status if changelog order fails e4dc76e450dd0277fe5f15d4b74df3935dc2ae58 Test effects of time zone in chanelog timestamp -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/739/files/6a0e067a67cb13e69a3c7b465325e678f74068b0..e4dc76e450dd0277fe5f15d4b74df3935dc2ae58 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Take changelog timezone in account (RhBug 1715412) (#739)
When building RPMs that have %changelog sections with changelog entries with full timestamps, RPM did not take the time zone into account. Now the timezone description is taken into account using function tzset(). It handles correctly timezone descriptions like: "Europe/London", "GMT-5", or "NZST-12:00:00NZDT-13:00:00,M10.1.0,M3.3.0" but it is not able to work with time zone descriptions that do not contain all information regarding the DST like e.g. "NZST". You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/739 -- Commit Summary -- * Include time zone in changelog time calculation (RhBug:1715412) * Enable using longer time zones names/abbreviations in changelogs -- File Changes -- M build/parseChangelog.c (22) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/739.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/739.diff -- 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/pull/739 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix bogus if-condition in find-debuginfo.sh (#735) (#737)
Introduced in commit 1da9e83, spotted by covscan. You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/737 -- Commit Summary -- * Fix bogus if-condition in find-debuginfo.sh (#735) -- File Changes -- M scripts/find-debuginfo.sh (2) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/737.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/737.diff -- 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/pull/737 ___ 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 %elif (#710)
Corrected the commit message of the first commit. -- 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/pull/710#issuecomment-495102226___ 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 %elif (#710)
pavlinamv commented on this pull request.
> rl->lastConditional = lineType;
spec->readStack = rl;
spec->line[0] = '\0';
+} else if (lineType->id & (LINE_ELIF | LINE_ELIFARCH | LINE_ELIFOS)) {
It is changed in the new version.
--
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/pull/710#discussion_r286490094___
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 %elif (#710)
Panu's comments are incorporated. -- 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/pull/710#issuecomment-494773665___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Implement %elif (#710)
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/710 -- Commit Summary -- * Use already detected line type to identify %if lines * Consolidate %if condition parsing to one place * Make "Bad %if condition" error message more general and informative * Supported operators: %elif, %elifarch, %elifos. * Add tests for %elif, %elifos, %elifarch -- File Changes -- M build/parseSpec.c (46) M build/rpmbuild_internal.h (7) M build/spec.c (1) M tests/Makefile.am (1) A tests/data/SPECS/eliftest.spec (116) M tests/rpmmacro.at (105) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/710.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/710.diff -- 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/pull/710 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Warn if %else is after %else (#649)
Rebase + fixes are done. -- 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/pull/649#issuecomment-493749504___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add documentation for %getncpus macro (#707)
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/707 -- Commit Summary -- * Add documentation for %getncpus macro -- File Changes -- M doc/manual/macros (1) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/707.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/707.diff -- 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/pull/707 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Warn if %else is after %else (#649)
Commit message is corrected. -- 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/pull/649#issuecomment-492949023___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
