Seems okay, do a rebase for all checks to pass, hopefully this should be
sufficient for it to be merged. @pmatilai , anything else holding this one off?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Shouldn't the time have come to review this again for finally merging this one
after more than a half year now?
With rpm 4.14 out, it should be the right time to merge this one now, no? :)
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view
This one too has been left without any movement on for way too long despite all
issues raised has been adressed...
I notice that the existing upstream brp- has been macroized, creating conflicts
with this PR and requiring it to be adapted to this change.
Again, I don't have that great
Reopened #190.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/190#event-1481746956___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Closed #190.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/190#event-1481746644___
Rpm-maint mailing list
@Conan-Kudo could you take care of reopening this one?
I'm currently
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> + snprintf(archmarker, sizeof(archmarker), "(%s%s-%s)", elf_machine,
> elf_endian, elf_bitsize);
+ break;
+case EM_X86_64:
+ /* This handling for x32 makes me weep inside... */
+ if (ehdr->e_ident[EI_CLASS] == ELFCLASS32) {
+
Conan-Kudo commented on this pull request.
> + snprintf(archmarker, sizeof(archmarker), "(%s%s-%s)", elf_machine,
> elf_endian, elf_bitsize);
+ break;
+case EM_X86_64:
+ /* This handling for x32 makes me weep inside... */
+ if (ehdr->e_ident[EI_CLASS] == ELFCLASS32) {
pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> + snprintf(archmarker, sizeof(archmarker), "(%s%s-%s)", elf_machine,
> elf_endian, elf_bitsize);
+ break;
+case EM_X86_64:
+ /* This handling for x32 makes me weep inside... */
+ if (ehdr->e_ident[EI_CLASS] == ELFCLASS32) {
+
(from memory)
I think I fixed this problem 4-5 years ago in RPM5 (like rpm-5.4.15? I forget).
The MD5 tag length (and RPM_BIN_TYPE in general) includes padding (if present)
to the next tag.
The bug only shows up if the next tag needs to be aligned.
The real fix wasn't hard, but was rather
Closed #346 via 5ac4305bdd2701f70cae81195b5518b339967b76.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Closed #351.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/351#event-1480557163___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Sorry but NAK, we're not going to add OS2 support since it's not something we
can even try to promise to keep, see eg #345 (comment) for rationale.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Sorry but NAK, we're not going to add OS2 support since it's not something we
can even try to promise to keep, see eg
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/345#issuecomment-366686531
for rationale.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to
Closed #349.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/349#event-1480556434___
Rpm-maint mailing list
The right thing to do is actually not have rpm mess with -fPIC and friends at
all, these are up to distro/platform policies etc. Done in commit
d7dfd0dc0c6ad7fc067a1d0e292a74e134b0720c so this PR is not needed at all. And
by doing the right thing we actually end up reducing the need for those
Closed #350.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/350#event-1480549359___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Closed #345.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/345#event-1480502056___
Rpm-maint mailing list
After discussing this with others from a wider perspective:
Sorry but no. This is a POSIX mandated function and even if this particular one
would be easy to work around in one way or another, the next one(s) that we
introduce might not be, in fact are not likely to be. If we let this door open
See https://github.com/openSUSE/libsolv/pull/255 for the background.
I think rpm should not overwrite the count with the entry length (line 1107 in
header.c). I don't know if everything still works if the line is removed.
Please investigate ;)
--
You are receiving this because you are
Not a big fan of duplicate names but...
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/397#issuecomment-33821___
Rpm-maint
Merged #397.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/397#event-1480372165___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Closed #396.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/396#event-1480365026___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Thanks for the fixes!
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/394#issuecomment-31550___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Merged #394.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/394#event-1480356200___
Rpm-maint mailing list
25 matches
Mail list logo
