On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Michael Schroeder m...@suse.de wrote:
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:42:24AM -0400, Honza ??ilhan wrote:
createrepo, DeltaRPM does not makes sense to me to be there. They are
obsoleted and
don't have a maintainers as you have said.
Hey, I'm the
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Florian Festi wrote:
> 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
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Colin Walters <walt...@verbum.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016, at 12:54 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
>> Well, if you keep altering all the interfaces, especially the public
>> ones used by PackageKit and DNF, then there will
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
> This moves those macros under the maintenance of the rpm team.
> I guess this could work for a few projects, let's say perl and python,
> but I don't see how this can scale (to perl, python, java, js, lisp,
One important aspect that would make reproducible builds more
trustworthy in the RPM world would be some capability to indicate
checksums for sources and patches so that rpmbuild can verify them.
Debian already does this in the Debian Source Control (dsc) file, as
seen by this example[1]. Without
Hello all,
Some weeks ago, I encountered some interesting situations regarding
how to deal with mass package upgrades, especially in the case of
distribution renames and ensuring that packages remain in lockstep
with the release installed. Distributions such as Fedora and Mageia
usually solved it
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 7:14 AM, Panu Matilainen
wrote:
>
> Stunned silence on rpm-maint, forwarding to rpm-ecosystem in hopes of a
> larger and livelier audience...
>
> - Panu -
>
>
> Forwarded Message
> Subject: [Rpm-maint] Fixing macro scoping
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 7:35 AM, Panu Matilainen
<pmati...@laiskiainen.org> wrote:
> On 02/03/2017 02:22 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> [...snip...]
>>
>>
>> Sorry if I sound stupid about this, but I've read this email at least
>> four times now, and I'm sti
On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Ivan Zakharyaschev <i...@altlinux.org> wrote:
> Hello!
>
> On Sat, 3 Sep 2016, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
>> I saw you guys listed as the most recent ones to change the rpm
>> package in ALT Linux, and I was wondering if you guys had cont
On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Ivan Zakharyaschev <i...@altlinux.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 4 Sep 2016, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Ivan Zakharyaschev <i...@altlinux.org>
>> wrote:
>
>
>>>> package in ALT Linu
On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Ivan Zakharyaschev <i...@altlinux.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 4 Sep 2016, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
>>>>> The first thing to do on this way was to rebase many ALT's features[1]
>>>>> onto
>>>>> rpm(-install)-4.13
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 8:07 AM, Florian Festi wrote:
> Changing the way + is treated in version compare is really a bad idea.
> So this feature would need a new char that is currently not permitted in
> versions. Candidates include: #, ^, @, §, $, ?
Why is changing '+' in
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 4:24 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> Hi,
>
> during process of getting tilde approved in Fedora Packaging
> Guidelines we realized that we need some special handling for
> separator (most probably) "+".
>
> Some examples (left is what expected, right is
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 2:02 AM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> Attaching patch to what I came up.
>
> If everything looks good, I will write same for libsolv.
>
Looks good to me, though where's the logic for the rpmlib() tag for
the behavior change?
--
真実はいつも一つ!/ Always,
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 8:44 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 1 December 2017 at 08:52, Jaroslav Mracek wrote:
>> I would prefer to apply patches to PackageKit and so on, if you will agree?
>
> Sure, as long as there are tarball releases we can depend on in
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 6:48 AM, Daniel Mach wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> My name is Daniel Mach and I'm leading the DNF team.
>
>
> TL;DR:
>
> The DNF team wants to take libdnf over and re-start development, which would
> possibly include using C++ (only to limited and reasonable
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 6:02 PM, Baho Utot wrote:
> When building on a raspberry-pi 2:
>
> tar xvf rpm-4.14.0.tar.bz2
> cd rpm-4.14.0
> tar ../db-4.5.20.tar.gz
> ln -s db-4.5.10 db
> ./autogen.sh --noconfigure
> ./configure --with-crypto=openssl --without-lua
> make
>
>
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Daniel Mach <dm...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Neal Gompa <ngomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 6:48 AM, Daniel Mach <dm...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > Hi everyone,
>
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Daniel Mach <dm...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Colin Walters <walt...@verbum.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017, at 07:43 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
>> > * Using C++ makes glib2 usage mostl
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 5:57 AM Jeff Johnson wrote:
> > On Apr 27, 2018, at 4:34 AM, Panu Matilainen
wrote:
> >
> > On 04/27/2018 06:47 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote
> >>
> >> Seems... similar.
> >> JJ> Talk to whomever decided that there was a need to
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 9:16 AM Pat Riehecky wrote:
>
> On 06/12/2018 05:52 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > I wish we had a canonical location for these things that everyone
> > could reference...:(
>
> Agreed!
>
> Would it make sense to put them under doc in
>
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 9:24 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 9:16 AM Pat Riehecky wrote:
> >
> > On 06/12/2018 05:52 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > I wish we had a canonical location for these things that everyone
> > > could reference...:(
&
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:57 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
> Dne 25.6.2018 v 13:04 Igor Gnatenko napsal(a):
> > rpmlib(RichDependencies) <= 4.12.0-1
>
> But on my F28:
>
> $ LC_ALL=C rpm -q --whatprovides 'rpmlib(RichDependencies)'
> no package provides rpmlib(RichDependencies)
>
rpmlib()
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 1:28 PM Colin Walters wrote:
> Let's talk about
https://github.com/varlink/documentation/wiki/Adding-varlink-to-DNF
> It relates a lot to the libdnf efforts and higher level design. And this
discussion is also
> probably generally interesting for
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 7:09 PM Pascal Terjan wrote:
>
> On 7 August 2018 at 09:50, Michael Schroeder wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 04:36:07PM +, Zbigniew J??drzejewski-Szmek
> > wrote:
> >> this mail is a continuation of an FPC [1] and a FESCo [2] tickets.
> >>
> >> A proposal was made
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:27 PM Jonathan Dieter wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2018-07-11 at 07:55 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 7:30 AM Michael Schroeder wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 12:23:47PM +0100, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
> >
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 7:18 AM Michael Schroeder wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 09:32:13PM +0100, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
> > I had originally planned to do something along these lines (I think I
> > used primary-zck rather than primary@zchunk), but realized that this
> > pushed the "choose
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:32 PM, Jonathan Dieter <jdie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-04-16 at 09:00 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Jonathan Dieter <jdie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I've also added zchunk support to createrepo_
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 3:05 PM, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-04-17 at 17:39 +0200, Michal Novotny wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 4:20 PM, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2018-04-17 at 09:08 +0200, Michal Novotny wrote:
>> > > Hello Jonathan,
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
> It's been a number of weeks since my last update, so I thought I'd let
> everyone know where things are at.
>
> I've spent most of these last few weeks reworking zchunk's API to make
> it easier to use and more in line
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 7:02 AM, Florian Festi wrote:
> 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
>
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 8:26 AM, Martin Sehnoutka <msehn...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 03/26/2018 01:38 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 7:22 AM, Matěj Cepl <mc...@cepl.eu> wrote:
>>> On 2018-03-26, 10:52 GMT, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>&g
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 7:22 AM, Matěj Cepl wrote:
> On 2018-03-26, 10:52 GMT, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> On 03/22/2018 01:40 PM, Daniel Mach wrote:
>>> Please read more details on our blog:
>>> https://rpm-software-management.github.io/announcement/2018/03/22/dnf-3-announcement/
>>
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 1:29 PM, Dmitry V. Levin <l...@altlinux.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 01:08:15PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 6:43 AM, Florian Festi <ffe...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > Hi!
>> >
>> > We ar
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 6:43 AM, Florian Festi wrote:
> 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).
>
>
On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 5:58 PM, Baho Utot <baho-u...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 3/18/2018 10:25 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 10:20 AM, Baho Utot <baho-u...@columbus.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I am
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 2:28 PM Pat Riehecky wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/18/19 11:14 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > It's on my TODO to collect all the schema documents for rpm-md and
> > host them in one place. My plan is to get that all in one place and
> > set up someth
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 2:46 PM Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>
> In the Fedora packaging guidelines we have the following section on
> replacing a directory with a non-directory, and replacing a symlink with
> a directory:
>
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 10:49 AM Pat Riehecky wrote:
>
> I've been doing a fair bit of mapping back and forth from binary rpms to
> source rpms. And I had a question:
>
> Would it make sense for a source rpm to have a generated 'Provides:' for
> any %package defined within the spec?
>
> For
Hey all,
As I had alluded to in the pull request adding the SQLite rpmdb
backend[1], I have been doing some work every once in a while for the
past few years on rpm for macOS.
A point of frustration has been having a working bdb package, and
maintaining bdb is functionally impossible for me, as
On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 8:00 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> Hey all,
>
> Nearly four years and *754 commits* since rpmlint 1.10, we are
> releasing rpmlint 2.0.0!
>
Oh whoops, I forgot to include the release URL:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpmlint/releases/tag/2.0
rtin Liska, Kristyna
Streitova, Dirk Mueller, Miroslav Suchý, Ondřej Súkup, thisisshub, and
Miro Hrončok as top contributors to make this release happen!
Full author list with number of commits:
309 Tomáš Chvátal
197 Martin Liska
47 Dirk Mueller
26 Kristyna Streitova
24 Neal Gomp
On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 3:24 PM Mark Wielaard wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> rpm debugedit has grown from a quick hack that simply listed/replaced
> some files/strings to an almost full blown DWARF reader/writer. It is
> now also used outside rpm(build). Debian packages it separately and
> Flatpak
On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 6:59 PM Mark Wielaard wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> rpm-ecosystem@lists.rpm.org wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 09:23:58PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > The main obstacle is that tools/debugedit.c currently depends on rpm:
> >
> > $ git grep -h rpm tools/debugedit.c
> > #include
On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 10:19 PM Mark Wielaard wrote:
>
> Hi Neal,
>
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 09:13:04PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 6:59 PM Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > > rpm-ecosystem@lists.rpm.org wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Feb 19,
On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 1:57 PM Mark Wielaard wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 10:49:03AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > [...]
> >> I'm also not comfortable with the idea of having a part of RPM itself
> >> broken ou
On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 3:10 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 03. 12. 21 20:53, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > We had an incident today [1] that opae-devel has auto-generated provides
> > like libcrypto.so.1.1()(64bit), generated for the bundled copy of openssl
> >
On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 9:05 AM Panu Matilainen wrote:
>
> On 12/7/21 06:00, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > Hi RPM and DNF folks,
> >
> > I have a draft change proposal for review and comment, i.e. it's not yet
> > set to be published to Fedora devel@. It's a bit thin, but I expect to
> > fill in more
(Adding the correct Daniel Mach email address, he moved from Red Hat
to SUSE last month...)
On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 10:11 AM Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 5:01 AM Jaroslav Mracek wrote:
> >
> > Hello Chris,
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 5:01 AM Chris Murphy wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi
49 matches
Mail list logo