Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

On 08/05/2015 10:02 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote: > As a test balloon, I've now added file triggers to gdk-pixbuf2-2.31.5 > -2.fc24, and librsvg2-2.40.9-3.fc24 now relies on them to get its > pixbuf loader registered. > > Let me know if you see any problems with those updates that might be > caused

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

On Wed, 2015-07-29 at 09:49 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Dne 28.7.2015 v 18:15 Matthias Clasen napsal(a): > > On Tue, 2015-07-28 at 14:49 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > > > Just out of curiosity, do you have already any candidates for > > > File > > > Triggers? I suppose "/sbin/ldconfig" is one

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 02:16:57PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > On Saturday, 25 July 2015 at 13:31, Remi Collet wrote: > > Le 25/07/2015 13:20, Florian Festi a écrit : > > > On 07/25/2015 11:18 AM, Remi Collet wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for catching that! > > > > > >> Do you want

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

On Saturday, 25 July 2015 at 13:31, Remi Collet wrote: > Le 25/07/2015 13:20, Florian Festi a écrit : > > On 07/25/2015 11:18 AM, Remi Collet wrote: > > > > Thanks for catching that! > > > >> Do you want me to file a bug ? > > > > Yes, please! > > FYI https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

Michael Schroeder wrote: > And there's IF and THEN/ELSE. IF is a postfix op, like in perl > and ruby: > > Requires: a IF b There's no ELSE part in this variant? > THEN/ELSE is the infix one: > > Requires: b THEN a > Requires: b ? a > Requires: b THEN a ELSE c > Requires: b ? a : c "THEN" witho

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

Neal Gompa wrote: > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 5:37 AM, Florian Festi > wrote: > > Also we still need to settle to a final syntax for the operators > > [1]. Unfortunately there is no consensus among the other packaging > > formats what to use. Right now rpm accepts 3 different styles: > > * AND OR I

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

Florian Festi wrote: > Also we still need to settle to a final syntax for the operators [1]. > Unfortunately there is no consensus among the other packaging formats > what to use. Right now rpm accepts 3 different styles: > * AND OR IF ELSE > * & | ? : > * && || ? : > But the final release will

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 09:08:07 + (UTC) Petr Pisar wrote: > On 2015-07-24, Florian Festi wrote: > > The freshly released rpm-4.12.90 aka rpm-4.13.0-alpha is going to > > hit rawhide soon. The two major new features are: > > > Will you rebuild all librpm.so.3's reverse dependencies? I've already

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 11:08:52AM +0200, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote: > I think that C-style operators (&, &&) are better than verbose > COBOL-style ones because they are consistent with relation operators (>, > >= and so on) already used by rpm. Secondly, they don't introduce > conflict with existing

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

On 07/29/2015 11:08 AM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote: > From C-style operators I would prefer single-character ones for two reasons: > > 1) Two-character operators may suggest short-circuit evaluation - > "Requires: foo || bar" can be misunderstood as "require foo, or bar if > and only if foo is not ava

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote: > From C-style operators I would prefer single-character ones for two reasons: > > 1) Two-character operators may suggest short-circuit evaluation - > "Requires: foo || bar" can be misunderstood as "require foo, or bar if > and only if foo i

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote: > On 07/28/2015 11:37 AM, Florian Festi wrote: >> >> Also we still need to settle to a final syntax for the operators [1]. >> Unfortunately there is no consensus among the other packaging formats >> what to use. Right now rpm accepts 3 diff

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

On 07/28/2015 11:37 AM, Florian Festi wrote: > On 07/28/2015 09:43 AM, Lubos Kardos wrote: >> Support in rpm is not enough but libsolv supports rich deps since the version >> 0.6.9 too thus rich deps work also in hawkey and dnf if the version 0.6.9 or >> a newer version of libsolv is installed. >

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

On 2015-07-24, Florian Festi wrote: > The freshly released rpm-4.12.90 aka rpm-4.13.0-alpha is going to hit > rawhide soon. The two major new features are: > Will you rebuild all librpm.so.3's reverse dependencies? I've already rebuild Perl packages, but there some remaining: # dnf -q --enablerep

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

On 2015-07-28, Michael Schroeder wrote: > And there's IF and THEN/ELSE. IF is a postfix op, like in perl > and ruby: > > Requires: a IF b > > THEN/ELSE is the infix one: > > Requires: b THEN a > Requires: b ? a > Requires: b THEN a ELSE c > Requires: b ? a : c > When I read the documentation I won

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

Dne 28.7.2015 v 18:15 Matthias Clasen napsal(a): > On Tue, 2015-07-28 at 14:49 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > >> Just out of curiosity, do you have already any candidates for File >> Triggers? I suppose "/sbin/ldconfig" is one of them. Do you plan to >> have some F24 feature to get rid of these? > H

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

On Tue, 2015-07-28 at 14:49 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Just out of curiosity, do you have already any candidates for File > Triggers? I suppose "/sbin/ldconfig" is one of them. Do you plan to > have some F24 feature to get rid of these? Here is a list of candidates: https://fedoraproject.org/

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

On 07/28/2015 02:49 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Just out of curiosity, do you have already any candidates for File > Triggers? I suppose "/sbin/ldconfig" is one of them. Do you plan to have > some F24 feature to get rid of these? Well, we do not yet have concrete plans with which scriptlets to start.

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 07:37:05AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 5:37 AM, Florian Festi wrote: > > Unfortunately there is no consensus among the other packaging formats > > what to use. Right now rpm accepts 3 different styles: > > * AND OR IF ELSE > > * & | ? : > > * && ||

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

Dne 28.7.2015 v 13:37 Neal Gompa napsal(a): > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 5:37 AM, Florian Festi >wrote: > > On 07/28/2015 09:43 AM, Lubos Kardos wrote: > > Support in rpm is not enough but libsolv supports rich deps > since the version > > 0.6.9 too thus rich

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 5:37 AM, Florian Festi wrote: > On 07/28/2015 09:43 AM, Lubos Kardos wrote: > > Support in rpm is not enough but libsolv supports rich deps since the > version > > 0.6.9 too thus rich deps work also in hawkey and dnf if the version > 0.6.9 or > > a newer version of libsolv

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

On 07/28/2015 09:43 AM, Lubos Kardos wrote: > Support in rpm is not enough but libsolv supports rich deps since the version > 0.6.9 too thus rich deps work also in hawkey and dnf if the version 0.6.9 or > a newer version of libsolv is installed. Right now only AND and OR is supported by libsolv. I

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

oject.org > Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 5:36:45 PM > Subject: Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide > > Dne 24.7.2015 v 15:49 Florian Festi napsal(a): > > * Boolean (aka rich) dependencies to support more complicated relation > > between packages > > Is this suppo

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

Dne 24.7.2015 v 15:49 Florian Festi napsal(a): > * Boolean (aka rich) dependencies to support more complicated relation > between packages Is this supported by dnf/hawkey/libsolv already or just RPM support is enough? Vít -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedora

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

On 07/27/2015 04:55 PM, Lubos Kardos wrote: > The current behavior is right. Your install script insert files into buildroot > and these files are not listed in %files section. > > Correctly you should replace this: > > %files > %doc AUTHORS COPYING NEWS README > ... > > with this: > > %files >

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

rom: "Frantisek Kluknavsky" > To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 3:55:53 PM > Subject: Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide > > On 07/25/2015 11:18 AM, Remi Collet wrote: > > Le 24/07/2015 15:49, Florian Festi a écrit : > >> The freshly r

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

On 07/25/2015 11:18 AM, Remi Collet wrote: Le 24/07/2015 15:49, Florian Festi a écrit : The freshly released rpm-4.12.90 aka rpm-4.13.0-alpha is going to hit rawhide soon. The two major new features are: * Boolean (aka rich) dependencies to support more complicated relation between packages

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

On 07/25/2015 11:18 AM, Remi Collet wrote: > %doc imagick-3.1.2/{CREDITS,TODO,INSTALL} To give a bit more context: Globs with braces have not been supported in rpm's %files section ever. But https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728959 caused all kind of docs file being added to the packag

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

We fixed this problem in rawhide in rpm-4.12.90-2.fc24 Lubos - Original Message - > From: "Remi Collet" > To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2015 11:18:05 AM > Subject: Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide > > Le 24/07/2015

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

On 07/26/2015 08:18 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:31:45 +0200 > Remi Collet wrote: > >> Le 25/07/2015 13:20, Florian Festi a écrit : >>> On 07/25/2015 11:18 AM, Remi Collet wrote: >>> >>> Thanks for catching that! >>> Do you want me to file a bug ? >>> >>> Yes, please! >> >

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:31:45 +0200 Remi Collet wrote: > Le 25/07/2015 13:20, Florian Festi a écrit : > > On 07/25/2015 11:18 AM, Remi Collet wrote: > > > > Thanks for catching that! > > > >> Do you want me to file a bug ? > > > > Yes, please! > > FYI https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?i

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

Le 25/07/2015 13:20, Florian Festi a écrit : > On 07/25/2015 11:18 AM, Remi Collet wrote: > > Thanks for catching that! > >> Do you want me to file a bug ? > > Yes, please! FYI https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246743 Remi -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

On 07/25/2015 11:18 AM, Remi Collet wrote: > Le 24/07/2015 15:49, Florian Festi a écrit : >> The freshly released rpm-4.12.90 aka rpm-4.13.0-alpha is going to hit >> rawhide soon. The two major new features are: >> >> * Boolean (aka rich) dependencies to support more complicated relation >> betwee

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

Le 24/07/2015 15:49, Florian Festi a écrit : > The freshly released rpm-4.12.90 aka rpm-4.13.0-alpha is going to hit > rawhide soon. The two major new features are: > > * Boolean (aka rich) dependencies to support more complicated relation > between packages > * File Triggers - run scripts if fi

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Florian Festi wrote: > See the draft release notes for details: http://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.13.0 > Terminate builds on empty files (?_empty_manifest_terminate_build) That should probably read "on empty manifest files". Anyway, one effect of this is that empt

[HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

The freshly released rpm-4.12.90 aka rpm-4.13.0-alpha is going to hit rawhide soon. The two major new features are: * Boolean (aka rich) dependencies to support more complicated relation between packages * File Triggers - run scripts if files get installed in given paths - possibly to replace mo