The recent developments in what used to be the freenode IRC network
force us to look for a new home for our IRC channels. As a result we -
as so many other projects - are moving to the Libera.chat network.
Discussion about the RPM tool and project itself can continue in the
#rpm channel there.
Ok, to translate this to a more generalized feature:
Something needs to create those package declarations during build. For
rust this may be done after %prep but the right time is probably after
%install (or after %check). This way everything there is to be known
about the build is on disk
On 5/14/19 5:18 PM, Stefano Simonelli wrote:
> HI everyone,
>
> during the creation of a RPM in the .spec file -
>
> is there a way to print a message if the RPM installation fails for some
> reasons, for example not able to solve the dependencies ?
Well, rpm (and all other tools dealing with
On 06/29/2018 01:09 PM, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
> Ok, I've put together an initial proposal at https://fedoraproject.org/
> wiki/Changes/Zchunk_Metadata.
In case you need another argument why this is important:
Fedora is still growing at a linear or may be slightly above linear
rate. So the amount
Hi!
For quite a while it has become apparent that there are many scripts,
macro files and other rpm related pieces that all the different
distributions maintain on their own. We have been trying to get some of
this merged upstream but there is only so much that can be done there.
Some things are
Hi!
We are currently pondering about #417 [1]. For adding a %optional file
attribute that would allow adding file to to %files sections that may
not be built under some circumstances (e.g. some architectures).
It is already perfectly legal to have files not listed explicitly if
they are within a
On 10/18/2016 05:23 PM, Pat Riehecky wrote:
> Can a link to http://rpm.org/wiki/PackagerDocs/BooleanDependencies be
> added to
> http://www.rpm.org/wiki/PackagerDocs/Dependencies ?
Good point. Done!
Florian
--
Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com/, Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
Commercial
On 04/11/2016 08:30 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>> I would shoot for idea where the bla.macros would just sit in git and
>> the packages would specify as sources the macros ie.:
>> Source99: https://github.com/rpm/rpm-macros/archive/python.macros
Yes. This is about what I had in mind
Hi!
Looking at the pull requests #37 and #38 [1] for a while I came to the
conclusion that RPM macros are quite a mess. But I could not really come
up with a way to get things cleaned up without breaking existing packages.
In general it is clear that distros and possibly even single packages
On 09/01/2015 02:20 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Florian Festi <ffe...@redhat.com
> <mailto:ffe...@redhat.com>>wrote:
>
> My thought after the discussion so far:
>
> May be no one really cares about the syntax.
> Still a l
My thought after the discussion so far:
May be no one really cares about the syntax.
Still a lot of educating to do before rich deps go into production.
On 08/25/2015 02:11 PM, Florian Festi wrote:
> IF Operator
Guess we stay with (. IF . ELSE .) - even some people are more famil
On 08/26/2015 02:58 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 26.8.2015 v 14:00 Florian Festi napsal(a):
On 08/26/2015 10:47 AM, Florian Festi wrote:
Right now libsolv does not distinguish between different orders of the
operands. But we have already discussed making the OR operator
preferring the left most
12 matches
Mail list logo
