On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 09:43:35AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 10:36:58AM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > On 4/1/20 8:40 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > >
> > >This is _only_ going into Rawhide / F33? It looks like the change to
> > >the new OCaml dependency
On 4/2/20 3:45 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 02. 04. 20 v 13:52 Björn 'besser82' Esser napsal(a):
rubygem-scruffy.spec:7: bad %if condition: (prerelease)
Is this construct really forbidden?
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-scruffy/c/ecdb3b762fef08eae8055d30dc9dfc2255e3c275
It's
Dne 02. 04. 20 v 13:52 Björn 'besser82' Esser napsal(a):
> rubygem-scruffy.spec:7: bad %if condition: (prerelease)
Is this construct really forbidden?
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-scruffy/c/ecdb3b762fef08eae8055d30dc9dfc2255e3c275
Anyway, the whole conditional should have been
Am Mittwoch, den 01.04.2020, 14:36 +0300 schrieb Panu Matilainen:
> On 3/31/20 8:24 PM, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 6:43 AM Panu Matilainen > > wrote:
> >
> > > Based on rpm-specs-latest.tar.xz from this morning, there are
> > > thirtysome
> > > packages relying on this
On 4/2/20 11:43 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 10:36:58AM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On 4/1/20 8:40 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
This is _only_ going into Rawhide / F33? It looks like the change to
the new OCaml dependency generator will require a complete rebuild
On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 10:36:58AM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 4/1/20 8:40 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >
> >This is _only_ going into Rawhide / F33? It looks like the change to
> >the new OCaml dependency generator will require a complete rebuild of
> >all OCaml packages.
> >
>
On 4/1/20 5:08 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 01. 04. 20 9:11, Panu Matilainen wrote:
Besides meta-packages, another potential use-case for meta (whether
Requires or weak dependencies) is those just-in-case dependencies
across sub-packages to ensure nobody runs weird combinations even
though
On 4/1/20 8:40 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
This is _only_ going into Rawhide / F33? It looks like the change to
the new OCaml dependency generator will require a complete rebuild of
all OCaml packages.
This is _only_ going into Rawhide / F33? It looks like the change to
the new OCaml dependency generator will require a complete rebuild of
all OCaml packages.
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/commit/a6fe37c39b39acbcbd014dd1e6d5653ff84254a1
On 01. 04. 20 9:11, Panu Matilainen wrote:
Besides meta-packages, another potential use-case for meta (whether Requires or
weak dependencies) is those just-in-case dependencies across sub-packages to
ensure nobody runs weird combinations even though sonames might permit it. Often
they are in
On 4/1/20 4:24 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 3:11 AM Panu Matilainen wrote:
On 3/31/20 3:34 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 8:10 AM Panu Matilainen wrote:
It's that time of year again... as our RPM change proposals passed with
flying colors in
On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 3:11 AM Panu Matilainen wrote:
>
> On 3/31/20 3:34 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 8:10 AM Panu Matilainen wrote:
> >>
> >> It's that time of year again... as our RPM change proposals passed with
> >> flying colors in yesterdays meeting, I'll hope
On 3/31/20 8:24 PM, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 6:43 AM Panu Matilainen wrote:
Based on rpm-specs-latest.tar.xz from this morning, there are thirtysome
packages relying on this behavior, which will need fixing to be
buildable with 4.16.
Is there a list of those thirty
On 4/1/20 10:32 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Dne 31. 03. 20 v 8:26 Panu Matilainen napsal(a):
# rpmdb --rebuilddb
I always wanted to ask: how the rebuilddb works? The man page states that rpmdb
rebuilds db from package headers. Where
are those headers stored?
The database rebuild indeed just
Dne 31. 03. 20 v 8:26 Panu Matilainen napsal(a):
> # rpmdb --rebuilddb
I always wanted to ask: how the rebuilddb works? The man page states that rpmdb
rebuilds db from package headers. Where
are those headers stored?
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Associate Manager ABRT/Copr, #brno,
On 3/31/20 3:34 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 8:10 AM Panu Matilainen wrote:
It's that time of year again... as our RPM change proposals passed with
flying colors in yesterdays meeting, I'll hope to land RPM 4.16 alpha in
rawhide later today or tomorrow by latest.
On 3/31/20 7:45 PM, Björn Persson wrote:
Panu Matilainen wrote:
new expression features (in
spec %if and macros) including but not limited to ternary operator (eg
%[1==0?"yes":"no"])
For dependencies I'm told that the syntax is
if else . So the syntax for
conditional expressions is
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 6:43 AM Panu Matilainen wrote:
> Based on rpm-specs-latest.tar.xz from this morning, there are thirtysome
> packages relying on this behavior, which will need fixing to be
> buildable with 4.16.
Is there a list of those thirty something packages
somewhere so that those
Panu Matilainen wrote:
> new expression features (in
> spec %if and macros) including but not limited to ternary operator (eg
> %[1==0?"yes":"no"])
For dependencies I'm told that the syntax is
if else . So the syntax for
conditional expressions is different in different contexts within the
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 8:10 AM Panu Matilainen wrote:
>
> It's that time of year again... as our RPM change proposals passed with
> flying colors in yesterdays meeting, I'll hope to land RPM 4.16 alpha in
> rawhide later today or tomorrow by latest.
>
Since Panu left it out of his announcement,
20 matches
Mail list logo
