Re: rawhide %{_buildrootdir} not expanded

On 6/3/24 15:55, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 6/3/24 15:22, Eike Rathke wrote: Hi, what did recently change in rawhide that the %{_buildrootdir} macro isn't expanded as in + mkdir '%{_buildrootdir}/bin' mkdir: cannot create directory ‘%{_buildrootdir}/bin’: No such file or directory + : + cp

Re: rawhide %{_buildrootdir} not expanded

On 6/3/24 15:22, Eike Rathke wrote: Hi, what did recently change in rawhide that the %{_buildrootdir} macro isn't expanded as in + mkdir '%{_buildrootdir}/bin' mkdir: cannot create directory ‘%{_buildrootdir}/bin’: No such file or directory + : + cp

Re: Heads-up: rpm 4.20 alpha in rawhide + rough waters

On 5/29/24 18:09, Miroslav Suchý wrote: Dne 29. 05. 24 v 2:31 odp. Panu Matilainen napsal(a): Folks, rpm 4.20 alpha landed in rawhide today 4.19.91 == 4.20 alpha? Because I do not see 4.20 in Koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=319 Yes, that's the one. cmake

Heads-up: rpm 4.20 alpha in rawhide + rough waters

Folks, rpm 4.20 alpha landed in rawhide today, and with the sheer amount of change that went into the bowels of the build code, this process is being rougher than usual. Apologies for the disruption and the late heads-up. Please file bugs with low bar to entry if you suspect an rpmbuild

Re: GenericError: srpm mismatch for [debuginfo file]

On 5/29/24 14:59, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 01:46:43PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 29. 05. 24 13:38, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=118234666 It failed right at the end with this mysterious error: GenericError: srpm

Re: Debugging fun (wrt C modernization change)

On 5/17/24 22:42, Owen Taylor wrote: On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 6:50 AM Panu Matilainen <mailto:pmati...@redhat.com>> wrote: Patch and source numbers start from zero, that goes for automatically numbered patches too. So there's an off by one in the application, and t

Re: Debugging fun (wrt C modernization change)

On 5/17/24 15:53, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: Michael J Gruber wrote: %patchlist and %auto* should just go away, or at least banned from Fedora by a git hook rejecting such specfiles. We also have unnumbered patch source definition lines, don't we? IIRC, unnumbered Source: or Patch: just

Re: Debugging fun (wrt C modernization change)

On 5/17/24 11:32, Michael J Gruber wrote: Kevin Kofler via devel venit, vidit, dixit 2024-05-16 22:39:00: Panu Matilainen wrote: Patch and source numbers start from zero, that goes for automatically numbered patches too. So there's an off by one in the application, and the latter %autopatch

Re: rich deps result in packages being uninstalled from buildroot

On 5/16/24 16:10, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 16. 05. 24 v 14:28 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a): On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 01:14:16PM +0200, Petr Pisar wrote: Proper solution is actually minimazing content of the minimal build root Most of the packages in the buildroot are libraries, pulled

Re: Enabling RPM based sysuser handling

On 5/14/24 13:39, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 01:37:11PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: I outlined the migration process last year in https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/NEFOV236FJYS2RED2SEOV5YHDFLDX7DK

Debugging fun (wrt C modernization change)

Yesterday, we ran into an issue where some of rpm upstream testcases are suddenly failing on one system. The difference to everybody elses working tests turned out to be Fedora 40, and was easily reproduced elsewhere on F40 then. On a closer look, the failing tests were all complaining

Re: Mass Package Change: Turn deprecated %patchN syntax into %patch -PN

On 5/13/24 17:08, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 13. 05. 24 v 15:22 Panu Matilainen napsal(a): On 5/13/24 16:09, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 13. 05. 24 v 11:39 Florian Festi napsal(a): %patch otoh (now) is a regular (though internally implemented) macro that is expanded with other macros and though can

Re: Mass Package Change: Turn deprecated %patchN syntax into %patch -PN

On 5/13/24 16:09, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 13. 05. 24 v 11:39 Florian Festi napsal(a): %patch otoh (now) is a regular (though internally implemented) macro that is expanded with other macros and though can be used in other macros and expressions. Do I read correctly that we can now use

Re: Enabling RPM based sysuser handling

On 5/13/24 13:24, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 01:28:07PM +0200, Florian Festi wrote: Hi everyone! RPM 4.19 added automatic sysuser handling [1]. In Fedora 39 this feature was not enabled right away [2] as it requires some care to properly transition to it. Also going back

Re: Enabling RPM based sysuser handling

On 5/13/24 13:07, Florian Festi wrote: On 5/11/24 12:56, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 01:28:07PM +0200, Florian Festi wrote: Anyone interested in picking this up? I remember quite a few people being exited about this when it was announced with the rpm-4.19 Change.

Re: Three steps we could take to make supply chain attacks a bit harder

On 4/1/24 14:46, Neal Gompa wrote: On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 7:38 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Sun, Mar 31, 2024 at 11:20:17PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: On Sun, 2024-03-31 at 22:13 -0700, Carlos Rodriguez-Fernandez wrote: Adam, Is there a way already to achieve test isolation

Re: F40 Change Proposal: Optimized Binaries for the AMD64 Architecture (System-Wide)

On 1/19/24 18:58, Robert Marcano via devel wrote: On 12/28/23 1:25 PM, Robert Marcano wrote: On 12/28/23 12:58 PM, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Aoife Moloney said: Systemd will be modified to insert the additional directories into the `$PATH` environment variable (affecting all

Re: F40 Change Proposal: F40 Change Proposal: Unify /usr/bin and /usr/sbin (System-Wide)

On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 7:54 PM Aoife Moloney wrote: Wiki -> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Unify_bin_and_sbin I agree unifying the *programs* to a single directory makes sense. But I fail to see anything good come out of bringing all those system daemon executables into every

Re: rpmbuild core dumps

On 1/2/24 11:49, Florian Weimer wrote: * Sam Varshavchik: Stephen Smoogen writes: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/ 2826>https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2826 And thanks for opening a bug. I will watch to see what happens. I'm genuinely

Re: DNF5: Checking signatures of packages installed out of a repository?

On 11/1/23 17:09, Christopher wrote: On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 5:53 AM Paul Howarth wrote: Maybe not using dnf, but you can check it using rpm directly: $ wget mypackage.rpm $ rpm --checksig mypackage.rpm Yeah, that's why DNF is more convenient for this... the whole point of using DNF to

Re: Specify koji build machine mem req via. spec file

On 10/5/23 12:41, Kalev Lember wrote: On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 10:07 AM Miroslav Suchý > wrote: Dne 04. 10. 23 v 11:43 Martin Stransky napsal(a): > Hello guys, > > Is there's a way how to set requested amount of ram for koji builders? > >

Re: Intention to tighten RPM crypto-policy back

On 9/27/23 20:37, Alexander Sosedkin wrote: On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 11:19 AM Alexander Sosedkin wrote: Hello, 6 months ago, there's been a F38 blocker: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2960 Long story short: RPM has moved to sequoia, sequoia has started respecting crypto-policies, Google repos

Re: An update on RHEL moving to issues.redhat.com

On 9/15/23 20:27, Colin Walters wrote: One thing I find amusing about this list (which like some others is kind of a long-running soap opera that happens to sometimes produce software as a side effect) is that many times, I can see just two bits of information: - The subject of the email -

Re: An update on RHEL moving to issues.redhat.com

On 9/14/23 15:50, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 2:42 PM Colin Walters wrote: On Wed, Sep 13, 2023, at 1:44 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 09:20:09AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: IIRC it was a condition of that proposal that we wind up on a hosted version

Re: rawhide build errors on i686

On 7/6/23 01:24, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Wed, Jul 05, 2023 at 01:47:05PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 10:01 AM Paul Howarth wrote: Whatever this is, it's intermittent and it's still happening. I'm getting koschei reports about failed builds with this symptom every day,

Re: Towards enabling rpm sysusers integration

On 6/28/23 17:15, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Di, 27.06.23 12:04, Panu Matilainen (pmati...@redhat.com) wrote: On 6/22/23 19:55, Steve Grubb wrote: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Adopting_sysusers.d_format I would caution against this whole proposal. Not that I'm against

Re: Is there a chance to phase out `/lib64` directory?

On 6/27/23 15:04, Neal Gompa wrote: On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 6:37 AM Panu Matilainen wrote: On 6/27/23 13:30, Kalev Lember wrote: On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 11:02 AM Vít Ondruch mailto:vondr...@redhat.com>> wrote: I don't think that GCC is always the best example to

Re: Is there a chance to phase out `/lib64` directory?

On 6/27/23 13:30, Kalev Lember wrote: On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 11:02 AM Vít Ondruch > wrote: I don't think that GCC is always the best example to follow. Nevertheless, wouldn't it be worth of phasing out the /lib64? I don't know what is the history

Re: Towards enabling rpm sysusers integration

On 6/22/23 19:55, Steve Grubb wrote: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Adopting_sysusers.d_format I would caution against this whole proposal. Not that I'm against it, but just saying be careful doing it. People often forget about our security concerns. Currently, shadow-utils has about

Re: Changes to build environment

On 6/22/23 20:56, Steve Grubb wrote: Hello, I have switched to F38 and find a couple items annoying. I have a workflow that checks things I develop out of github, rolls it up into an rpm, builds it, and runs the results through annocheck. If there is a warning I'd like to investigate, I cd

Re: Towards enabling rpm sysusers integration

On 6/23/23 21:20, Michal Domonkos wrote: On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 01:18:27PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: Now that the initial hurdle of getting rpm 4.19 into rawhide is over, it's time to start looking towards enabling the sysusers integration: https://rpm-software-management.github.io/rpm

Re: Towards enabling rpm sysusers integration

On 6/22/23 18:01, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 01:18:27PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: Hey all, Now that the initial hurdle of getting rpm 4.19 into rawhide is over, it's time to start looking towards enabling the sysusers integration: https://rpm-software

Re: Towards enabling rpm sysusers integration

On 6/22/23 19:55, Steve Grubb wrote: Hello, On Thursday, June 22, 2023 11:01:28 AM EDT Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: 2. systemd provides users and groups that are actually owned by the setup package. As rpm is now turning non-root file ownership into dependencies, systemd could end up

Towards enabling rpm sysusers integration

Hey all, Now that the initial hurdle of getting rpm 4.19 into rawhide is over, it's time to start looking towards enabling the sysusers integration: https://rpm-software-management.github.io/rpm/manual/users_and_groups.html We (as in rpm-team) are not pushing for doing all this in Fedora 39,

Re: What's the error in this build?

On 6/22/23 11:07, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=102443065 I don't see what the error is ... Rich. Towards the end: DEBUG util.py:539: Executing command: ['/usr/bin/systemd-nspawn', '-q', '-M', '03701d048e03484c80696e05b2d9f2fe', '-D',

Re: Fedora Copr builders updated to Fedora 38

On 6/14/23 11:02, Pavel Raiskup wrote: On úterý 13. června 2023 16:57:42 CEST Neal H. Walfield wrote: On Thu, 08 Jun 2023 21:37:09 +0200, Ondřej Budai wrote: RPM Sequoia's crypto policies can be configured, so you should be able to re-enable SHA-1. However, this would be a global change, not

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Build JDKs once, repack everywhere (System-Wide Change)

On 6/1/23 15:43, Robert Marcano via devel wrote: On 6/1/23 8:33 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 08:28:18AM -0400, Robert Marcano via devel wrote: On 6/1/23 3:51 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 05:27:47PM +0200, Jiri Vanek wrote: This was heavily

Re: Status of the forge macros?

On 5/24/23 18:26, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 11:13:15AM -0400, Ben Beasley wrote: In your example, the forge macros simplify the spec file only because a snapshot is involved; but the forge macros put the snapshot info in the Release field, which is still

Re: Please test the new version cpio-2.14

On 5/15/23 16:03, Lukas Javorsky wrote: Hi, I've created an MR [1] for the new cpio-2.14 release. If your package is using cpio, or you use cpio could you please provide any feedback on the new build (if it doesn't break your component)? I CCied the RPM maintainers because that's a very

Re: RPM Sequoia: A Sequoia-based backend for the RPM Package Manager

On 4/27/23 20:55, Robert Relyea wrote: On 4/27/23 3:51 AM, Neal H. Walfield wrote: Hi all, A year and a half ago, I began working with Panu on using Sequoia as RPM's OpenPGP parser. I wrote up our journey from the initial analysis, to adding the code to RPM, and to getting it into Fedora 38

Re: It’s time to transform the Fedora devel list into something new

On 4/21/23 23:38, Ben Cotton wrote: On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 4:05 PM Maxwell G wrote: What evidence shows that the group is ever shrinking? I often see Self Introduction posts and new people interacting with project. I suppose that whether they continue interacting afterwards is another

Re: It’s time to transform the Fedora devel list into something new

On 4/21/23 22:07, Matthew Miller wrote: On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 11:54:09AM -0400, JT wrote: So I'm interested by what you bring up here. Have you run into situations where someone wanted to contribute to development but was unwilling to use a mailing list? With a community as big as Fedora

Re: It’s time to transform the Fedora devel list into something new

On 4/21/23 02:21, Simo Sorce wrote: Hi Matthew, you say: "We're missing people", and I think, "who?". And who are you going to miss if you move to discourse? I will be candid, I tried to use forums since the old phpBB times, it never works for me. I have no time to go roaming over forums except

Re: Recommended way to disable parallel build

On 4/18/23 12:24, Florian Weimer wrote: What's the best way to disable to disable parallel (make) builds? This? %undefine _smp_build_ncpus It seems it will set RPM_BUILD_NCPUS to the empty string, though. No, don't do that. It depends on where you want to do it. From a spec (typically for

Re: %patchN deprecated?

On 3/31/23 18:49, Ron Olson wrote: One thing to note is that the new format doesn’t work with EPEL releases; I had to revert to the %patchN style for them. The following bit from https://rpm-software-management.github.io/rpm/manual/spec.html was already quoted in this thread, but:

Re: %patchN deprecated?

On 3/29/23 18:58, Todd Zullinger wrote: Florian Festi wrote: On 3/29/23 10:31, Michael J Gruber wrote: Has `%patchN` been deprecated in favour of `%patch N`? Yes, see %patch section on https://rpm-software-management.github.io/rpm/manual/spec.html Quoting that: %patch is used to

Re: crypto-policies

On 3/27/23 12:40, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 11:23 AM Kamil Paral wrote: On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 8:20 AM Neal H. Walfield wrote: Panu wrote https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2170878#c126 : To me the key points here are 1) there's a lot of obsolete/broken

Re: Feedback wanted for a proposed improvement to RPM's ELF dependency generator

On 2/21/23 14:01, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 9:40 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 10:56:30AM -0800, Gordon Messmer wrote: On 2023-02-20 10:01, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: Does it have to be something which looks so much like it might be a version

Re: Mystery fedpkg srpm failure

On 12/2/22 11:14, Florian Weimer wrote: * Aleksei Bavshin: On 12/1/22 23:18, Aleksei Bavshin wrote: On 12/1/22 22:28, Florian Weimer wrote: I don't see what spec file aspect is causing this failure: $ fedpkg clone -a cups-bjnp Cloning into 'cups-bjnp'... remote: Enumerating objects: 278,

Re: Help understanding Fedora CI failure wrt RPM Sequoia

On 11/9/22 11:12, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 11/9/22 10:08, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 11/8/22 21:45, Adam Williamson wrote: On Tue, 2022-11-08 at 08:11 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: On Tue, 2022-11-08 at 13:32 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: But I don't know the slightest thing about ansible

Re: Help understanding Fedora CI failure wrt RPM Sequoia

On 11/9/22 10:08, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 11/8/22 21:45, Adam Williamson wrote: On Tue, 2022-11-08 at 08:11 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: On Tue, 2022-11-08 at 13:32 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: But I don't know the slightest thing about ansible, beyond a very rough idea of what kind

Re: Help understanding Fedora CI failure wrt RPM Sequoia

On 11/8/22 21:45, Adam Williamson wrote: On Tue, 2022-11-08 at 08:11 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: On Tue, 2022-11-08 at 13:32 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: But I don't know the slightest thing about ansible, beyond a very rough idea of what kind of tool it is. Just understanding what exactly

Re: Help understanding Fedora CI failure wrt RPM Sequoia

On 11/8/22 13:05, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 08. 11. 22 11:13, Panu Matilainen wrote: Hey, Thought I'd try to get on with the times and do the Sequoia change via a PR instead of just pushing as we've traditionally done. So far so good, but it throws up an error which I have no idea how to debug

Help understanding Fedora CI failure wrt RPM Sequoia

Hey, Thought I'd try to get on with the times and do the Sequoia change via a PR instead of just pushing as we've traditionally done. So far so good, but it throws up an error which I have no idea how to debug: https://artifacts.dev.testing-farm.io/700d486d-d409-44fe-b7c3-01634243558e/ >

Re: F38 proposal: RPM Sequoia (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 10/24/22 23:23, Petr Menšík wrote: Hi, maybe it was already answered. Not long ago Thunderbird switched from using installed GPG to its own implementation inside. I think I have found the library part and it seems to be in C++, which should be much more easier to integrate than rust

Re: F38 proposal: RPM Sequoia (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 10/20/22 12:03, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 10. 10. 22 16:32, Ben Cotton wrote: For the last 20 years or so, RPM has used a home-grown OpenPGP parser for dealing with keys and signatures. That parser is rather infamous for its limitations and flaws, and especially in recent years has proven a

Re: F38 proposal: RPM Sequoia (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 10/13/22 15:14, Neal Gompa wrote: On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 4:24 AM Panu Matilainen wrote: On 10/13/22 10:53, Neal Gompa wrote: On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 3:29 AM Panu Matilainen wrote: On 10/13/22 07:18, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: For the last 20 years or so, RPM has used a home-grown

Re: F38 proposal: RPM Sequoia (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 10/13/22 17:31, Neal Gompa wrote: On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 9:58 AM Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: Neal Gompa wrote: No, because when you do things like mirror repositories (especially for private mirrors), that signature is the only way to verify the integrity. HTTPS is only transport

Re: F38 proposal: RPM Sequoia (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 10/13/22 19:35, Demi Marie Obenour wrote: On 10/13/22 04:23, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 10/13/22 10:53, Neal Gompa wrote: On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 3:29 AM Panu Matilainen wrote: On 10/13/22 07:18, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: For the last 20 years or so, RPM has used a home-grown OpenPGP

Re: F38 proposal: RPM Sequoia (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 10/13/22 10:53, Neal Gompa wrote: On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 3:29 AM Panu Matilainen wrote: On 10/13/22 07:18, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: For the last 20 years or so, RPM has used a home-grown OpenPGP parser for dealing with keys and signatures. That parser is rather infamous for its

Re: F39 proposal: Replace DNF with DNF5 (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 10/12/22 17:47, Stephen Smoogen wrote: On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 at 10:32, Kevin P. Fleming > wrote: On 10/12/22 08:59, Stephen Smoogen wrote: > Maybe call it the Fedora Update Manager 'FUM' ? Unless we're going to call it RUM when it makes its way

Re: F38 proposal: RPM Sequoia (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 10/13/22 07:18, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: For the last 20 years or so, RPM has used a home-grown OpenPGP parser for dealing with keys and signatures. That parser is rather infamous for its limitations and flaws, and especially in recent years has proven a significant burden to RPM

Re: DNF5 Blockers

On 10/11/22 15:17, Stephen Smoogen wrote: On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 at 07:54, Panu Matilainen <mailto:pmati...@redhat.com>> wrote: On 10/10/22 10:15, Jaroslav Mracek wrote: > Please can you be more specific which kind of functionality is required for particular

Re: DNF5 Blockers

On 10/10/22 10:15, Jaroslav Mracek wrote: Please can you be more specific which kind of functionality is required for particular command? Why is it important to know what user case you want to resolve it? Commands has multiple options and some of them could be unused. Specially repoquery has

Re: When is a file dependency appropriate?

On 10/6/22 11:55, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 06. 10. 22 v 9:18 Otto Liljalaakso napsal(a): Miro Hrončok kirjoitti 6.10.2022 klo 2.33: On 06. 10. 22 1:21, Otto Liljalaakso wrote: Recently, I have run into some cases where file dependencies like Requires: /usr/bin/foo are used. In a recent

Re: Explicit dependency on systemd-rpm-macros now required?

On 9/16/22 15:22, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 11:02:22AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 10:53 AM Smith, Stewart via devel wrote: On Sep 14, 2022, at 4:17 AM, Tom Hughes via devel wrote: On 14/09/2022 12:11, Florian Weimer wrote: I see

Re: F38 proposal: Strong crypto settings: phase 3, forewarning 2/2 (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 9/15/22 00:59, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: Alexander Sosedkin wrote: That's a reason why my initial thread [1] has been named "Landing a larger-than-release change (distrusting SHA-1 signatures)": flipping the switch is the easy part, unfortunately. IMHO, a change that breaks so many

Re: rpm with sequoia pgp

On 9/6/22 23:10, Simo Sorce wrote: On Tue, 2022-09-06 at 11:09 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 9/2/22 17:31, Neal H. Walfield wrote: Hi all, rpm 4.18 is on the horizon and includes a new OpenPGP backend based on Sequoia PGP. https://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.18.0 https://sequoia

Re: rpm with sequoia pgp

On 9/2/22 17:31, Neal H. Walfield wrote: Hi all, rpm 4.18 is on the horizon and includes a new OpenPGP backend based on Sequoia PGP. https://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.18.0 https://sequoia-pgp.org/ Thanks to Fabio Valentini (decathorpe) for packaging not only rpm-sequoia, but all of the

Re: fedora-review of m3u8 fails

On 8/9/22 15:37, Martin Gansser wrote: Hi, fedora-review of m3u8 fails with the following error message: Building target platforms: x86_64 Building for target x86_64 setting SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH=1659916800 Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.g2rRRB + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD

Re: F37 Change Proposal: Firefox Langpacks Subpackage (System-Wide Change)

On 6/29/22 21:26, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: On 29/06/2022 19:00, Vipul Siddharth wrote: Firefox langpacks, which have been bundled in the Fedora firefox base package until now, will be moved to a firefox-langpacks subpackage. +1. It might be better to split it even more:

Re: Archive value is out of time_t range

On 6/6/22 13:29, Petr Pisar wrote: V Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 12:07:18PM +0200, Miroslav Lichvar napsal(a): On Thu, Jun 02, 2022 at 05:46:05PM +0200, Petr Pisar wrote: $ gcc -m32 -D_TIME_BITS=64 -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 main.c $ ./a.out sizeof(time_t)=8 I recommend you to file a bug against tar in

Re: F37 proposal: RPM Macros for Build Flags (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 6/3/22 13:43, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 11:25 AM Vít Ondruch wrote: BTW isn't the `_flag_` prefix too generic? And also, the initial underscore implies that this is internal macro which should ideally not be used. So should it be rather removed or not? I agree that

Re: How much free space in /var is required for upgrades?

On 5/16/22 13:39, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 5/13/22 21:54, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: So I went to do a dnf system-upgrade from F35 to F36 on a test machine, as part of my usual testing.  In the middle of the process, it appears that /var filled up and that left the system in an unfortunate

Re: How much free space in /var is required for upgrades?

On 5/16/22 15:06, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 6:39 AM Panu Matilainen wrote: On 5/13/22 21:54, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: So I went to do a dnf system-upgrade from F35 to F36 on a test machine, as part of my usual testing. In the middle of the process, it appears

Re: How much free space in /var is required for upgrades?

On 5/13/22 21:54, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: So I went to do a dnf system-upgrade from F35 to F36 on a test machine, as part of my usual testing. In the middle of the process, it appears that /var filled up and that left the system in an unfortunate state. Surprisingly (to me) it did boot with

Re: F37 Change: RPM 4.18 (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 4/27/22 19:09, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 27. 04. 22 17:53, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 5:08 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: On 27. 04. 22 10:36, Joe Orton wrote: On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 12:47:25PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 12:24 PM Ben Cotton

Re: F37 Change: RPM 4.18 (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 4/26/22 12:53, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 11:50 AM Panu Matilainen wrote: On 4/7/22 19:13, Ben Cotton wrote: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RPM-4.18 == Summary == Update RPM to the [https://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.18.0 4.18] release. FWIW

Re: F37 Change: RPM 4.18 (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 4/7/22 19:13, Ben Cotton wrote: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RPM-4.18 == Summary == Update RPM to the [https://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.18.0 4.18] release. FWIW, this is in rawhide now. Submitted yesterday already but some bodhi/koji delay caused it to only go live today AFAICS.

Re: verifying signature for a package

On 4/17/22 13:26, Maxwell G via devel wrote: Apr 16, 2022 8:01:27 PM Globe Trotter via devel : Source1:    %{source0}.sig Does this still fail if you use the full path? It looks like `%{source0}` isn't getting expanded properly. Macros are case-sensitive. It's %{SOURCE0}. - Panu

Re: F37 Change: RPM 4.18 (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 4/8/22 14:17, Neal Gompa wrote: On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 6:34 AM Panu Matilainen wrote: On 4/8/22 12:16, Petr Pisar wrote: V Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 12:13:42PM -0400, Ben Cotton napsal(a): https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RPM-4.18 == Summary == Update RPM to the [https://rpm.org/wiki

Re: F37 Change: RPM 4.18 (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 4/8/22 12:16, Petr Pisar wrote: V Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 12:13:42PM -0400, Ben Cotton napsal(a): https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RPM-4.18 == Summary == Update RPM to the [https://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.18.0 4.18] release. [...] * New `%conf` spec section for build configuration

Re: F37 Change: RPM 4.18 (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 4/7/22 20:14, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 12:13:42PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RPM-4.18 * New interactive shell for working with macros (`rpmspec --shell`) and embedded Lua (`rpmlua`) That sounds cool. Can this be used

Re: F37 Change: RPM 4.18 (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 4/7/22 19:47, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 12:24 PM Ben Cotton wrote: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RPM-4.18 == Summary == Update RPM to the [https://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.18.0 4.18] release. == Owner == * Name: [[User:pmatilai|Panu Matilainen]] * Email

Re: F36 - Errors/Warnings with `dnf update`

On 3/31/22 14:10, Daniel Walsh wrote: On 3/31/22 02:35, Carmelo Sarta wrote: Hello there! I've never seen this error before `error: Plugin selinux: hook fsm_file_prepare failed` but I would try `dnf reinstall container-selinux` and maybe `dnf reinstall podman` There seems to be an error

Re: FESCo wants to know what you use i686 packages for

On 3/17/22 18:14, Carlos "casep" Sepulveda wrote: On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 at 13:55, David Cantrell > wrote: If you use i686 packages for something now, please respond to this thread. steam / wine Ditto. Not very often perhaps but that's the primary case.

Re: RPM question: How to get the package VR from a dependency generator

On 2/28/22 16:32, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 04:26:02PM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 2/28/22 16:12, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 01:46:38PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: I'm writing a simple provides generator. The documentation is a bit

Re: RPM question: How to get the package VR from a dependency generator

On 2/28/22 16:12, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 01:46:38PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: I'm writing a simple provides generator. The documentation is a bit light on detail: https://rpm-software-management.github.io/rpm/manual/dependency_generators.html How do I

Re: F37 Change: Curl-minimal as default (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 2/24/22 16:37, Neal Gompa wrote: On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 8:58 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 02:28:08PM +0100, Kamil Dudka wrote: On Thursday, February 24, 2022 1:35:38 PM CET Richard W.M. Jones wrote: Did you discuss modularising curl itself upstream? It was

Re: F36 Change: Authselect: Move State Files to /etc (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 1/20/22 06:16, Chris Murphy wrote: Deleting /var/lib/net-snmp/snmpd.conf means making the agent look like a new system, with new IDs, a renumbered interface table, and loss of SNMPv3 users. You're not going to wipe /var to do a reset casually - the idea would be, this hardware isn't coming

Re: /opt [WAS: Re: New top-level dir]

On 1/12/22 11:53, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 11:24:49AM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 1/12/22 11:05, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 02:53:52PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: Should /usr be independently portable

Re: /opt [WAS: Re: New top-level dir]

On 1/12/22 11:05, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 02:53:52PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: Should /usr be independently portable? And is that with a version matched /opt, or can there be mix and match revisions of /usr and /opt? We have three similar locations: /usr

Re: New top-level dir: /state [WAS: Re: F36 Change: Relocate RPM database to /usr (System-Wide Change] proposal)

On 1/12/22 10:45, Chris Murphy wrote: On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 2:00 AM Panu Matilainen wrote: The problem with /usr/something is that the rpmdb is not specific to /usr contents at all, and unlike any other content in there, so putting it there just *feels so wrong*. That's what /state

Re: New top-level dir: /state [WAS: Re: F36 Change: Relocate RPM database to /usr (System-Wide Change] proposal)

On 1/11/22 17:18, Colin Walters wrote: On Tue, Jan 11, 2022, at 4:00 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote: The point was though, that the rpmdb is not at all the only data of this kind and so having a dedicated home makes sense. You mentioned dnf/yum/PackageKit data; there's two kinds of that. One

Re: New top-level dir: /state [WAS: Re: F36 Change: Relocate RPM database to /usr (System-Wide Change] proposal)

On 1/10/22 23:53, Chris Murphy wrote: On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 9:20 AM David Cantrell wrote: On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 10:01:57AM -0500, Ben Cotton wrote: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RelocateRPMToUsr == Summary == Currently, the RPM databases is located in `/var`. Let's move it to

Re: F36 Change: DIGLIM (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 1/4/22 10:41, Roberto Sassu via devel wrote: Hi everyone in the FESCo meeting yesterday, Zbigniew asked what is the relationship between this feature and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FsVerityRPM. I try to explain here. Both features aim at providing reference values, i.e. values

Re: F36 Change: Relocate RPM database to /usr (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 1/3/22 22:55, Chris Murphy wrote: Does anyone know what /var/lib/rpm-state/gconf is used for? Owning package is GConf2-3.2.6-31.fc35.x86_64 On my Fedora 35 Workstation installation, it's empty. So no obvious conflict with the change proposal, but I'd like to make sure it's not something that

Re: F36 Change: Relocate RPM database to /usr (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 1/3/22 15:36, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Mo, 03.01.22 14:15, Florian Weimer (fwei...@redhat.com) wrote: * Lennart Poettering: Can you provide an example for such feature requests? i.e. where the rpmdb should be writable even though /usr is assumed to be immutable? Maybe if RPM is used

Re: F36 Change: Relocate RPM database to /usr (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 12/29/21 17:01, Ben Cotton wrote: Upstream RPM accept the change, but institutionally don't like the loss or weakening of a [http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-ecosystem/2021-December/000781.html very well known location] for the database, and

Re: F36 Change: Relocate RPM database to /usr (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 1/3/22 14:57, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Mo, 03.01.22 11:57, Panu Matilainen (pmati...@redhat.com) wrote: On 12/30/21 09:02, Chris Murphy wrote: On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 8:19 AM Tom Hughes via devel wrote: I don't see how this is FHS compliant, which in turn would make it non-compliant

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >