Re: [Rpm-ecosystem] Why should Copr build service parse %name from spec file for dist-git import

Dne 28.8.2017 v 17:46 Pavel Raiskup napsal(a): Option #2 -> import into python-blah.git (since %name expands to python-blah) This option is currently used everywhere. The question is why? Is it just easier? Or are we just afraid to enforce spec file name rule? Mirek

Re: [Rpm-ecosystem] Why should Copr build service parse %name from spec file for dist-git import

Reposting original message as Pavel is not approved member of this mailing list. Dne 28.8.2017 v 17:46 Pavel Raiskup napsal(a): Hi all! In Copr project, we try to solve interesting question which is worth asking wide and experienced audience. Copr service maintains it's own dist-git server;

[Rpm-ecosystem] RPM Packaging Guide

Hi, our documentation team started: https://github.com/redhat-developer/rpm-packaging-guide/ The result is visible at: http://rpm-guide.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ Ideally, this should be documentation which will replace oldish rpm-max. And more comprehensive than [1]. If there is something

[Rpm-ecosystem] possible signature types

Hi, I am working on updating documentation about signing a packages using rpmsign. In the old documentation there is: > The "Generating signature" message appears in both the binary and source > packaging sections. The number following the message indicates that the > signature added was

[Rpm-ecosystem] Documenting %autopatch

Is anywhere documented %autopatch? I only found a small mention in http://rpm.org/user_doc/autosetup.html Can someone either enhance the autosetup.html page or send me some draft of paragraph which I can use for: https://github.com/redhat-developer/rpm-packaging-guide It will be used at the

[Rpm-ecosystem] Two signatures?

In past, there was possible to add two or more signatures to rpm package. At least according to http://ftp.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-pgp-signing-packages.html But when I checked current rpmsign, it seems that --addsign actually replace the previous signature. Is this correct? Or is there way to

[Rpm-ecosystem] Two signatures?

In past, there was possible to add two or more signatures to rpm package. At least according to http://ftp.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-pgp-signing-packages.html But when I checked current rpmsign, it seems that --addsign actually replace the previous signature. Is this correct? Or is there way to

Re: [Rpm-ecosystem] Required version of rpm?

Dne 29.6.2018 v 16:45 Jeff Johnson napsal(a): > And -- as I said before -- rpmlib() dependencies and their versions are the > wrong approach to what you are attempting. Do you have any other idea how to solve this? > There is no additional benefit to checking rpmlib() dependencies first, or as

Re: [Rpm-ecosystem] What is the recommended procedure for building Fedora packages on EL7?

Dne 29.6.2018 v 21:28 Jeff Johnson napsal(a): > Examining EL7 bugzilla shows feature requests to backport weak dependencies > and post-uninstall file triggers, two other incompatibilities between the > versions of rpm in Fedora and EL7. The weak deps backport is just about parsing. No one is

[Rpm-ecosystem] Required version of rpm?

Recently packagers stared using rich deps in Fedora and I (as Mock maintainer) am hitting more issues like this: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/mock/issues/202 I.e. F28 package redhat-rpm-config has: Requires: (annobin if gcc) And when you try to install this by rpm from EL7 you

Re: [Rpm-ecosystem] Required version of rpm?

Dne 26.6.2018 v 14:57 Panu Matilainen napsal(a): > On 06/26/2018 02:15 PM, Miroslav Suchý wrote: >> Dne 26.6.2018 v 12:17 Neal Gompa napsal(a): >>> rpmlib() dependencies are virtual, they aren't provided by anything, >>> but are processed during the transaction and verif

Re: [Rpm-ecosystem] Required version of rpm?

Dne 26.6.2018 v 12:17 Neal Gompa napsal(a): > rpmlib() dependencies are virtual, they aren't provided by anything, > but are processed during the transaction and verified. 1) So the number in rpmlib(RichDependencies) means what version of rpm I should have. Right? 2) The version of rpm I need

Re: [Rpm-ecosystem] What is the recommended procedure for building Fedora packages on EL7?

Dne 3.7.2018 v 03:18 Jeff Johnson napsal(a): > I would be very surprised if a backport to EL7 was permitted. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1508538 It is already in RHEL 7.6. However, as I stated, it is just for *reading* the tags. It does not mean any change to rpmbuild. >

Re: [Rpm-ecosystem] A proof-of-concept for delta'ing repodata

Dne 13.2.2018 v 10:52 Igor Gnatenko napsal(a): > I've come up with a method of splitting repodata into chunks that can > be downloaded and combined with chunks that are already on the local > system to create a byte-for-byte copy of the compressed repodata. > Tools and scripts are at: >

Re: [Rpm-ecosystem] Required version of rpm?

Dne 27.6.2018 v 19:56 Jeff Johnson napsal(a): > The core problem is that the depsolver used by mock must be using > bindings/libraries that implement rich dependencies, as well as metadata > parsers that can represent rich dependencies. Mock itself does not have any depsolving library or such

Re: [Rpm-ecosystem] Required version of rpm?

Dne 26.6.2018 v 15:57 Panu Matilainen napsal(a): > > Nope. From my previous email: "the version in rpmlib() dependencies is sorta > backwards to what people generally expect." > - but it's the range, not the version that appears backwards. > > This is the way all rpmlib() dependencies have

[Rpm-ecosystem] RPM Spec Wizard

Hi. I want to point out that the RPM SPEC Wizard   https://xsuchy.github.io/rpm-spec-wizard/# has got a nice front page. Finally. Thank to Jakub K. And I updated links to the documentation. Therefore I think it is about time to be proud of it and tell user about it. The ideal user of this

[Rpm-ecosystem] Python module for RPM SPEC files

Hi. Nikola Forro from my team has created a python module to handle rpm spec files https://github.com/packit/specfile It preserves macros if possible. See this stunning 10min demo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzMfBPdFXZY The package is available in