Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Make %{buildsubdir} usable without being a side effect of %setup. (#860)

nwnk approved this pull request. > @@ -329,8 +333,8 @@ static int doSetupMacro(rpmSpec spec, const char *line) /* if necessary, create and cd into the proper dir */ if (createDir) { - buf = rpmExpand("%{__mkdir_p} ", spec->buildSubdir, "\n", - "cd '", spec

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Make %{buildsubdir} usable without being a side effect of %setup. (#860)

@vathpela pushed 1 commit. 43c0982a97a5c600f00b8108ef1765bc15ee563f Make %{buildsubdir} usable without being a side effect of %setup. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/860/files/57b69b312

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Make %{buildsubdir} usable without being a side effect of %setup. (#860)

> Other than the typo this looks good to me. > > `Reviewed-by: Adam Jackson ` Yeah, that's what I get for doing make check and then going "oh that looks dangerous, but it's an easy fix" while re-reading the patch before pushing. Anyway, new version that passes pushed. -- You are receiving t

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Support uncompressed/reconstructed payloads (#861)

#163 / commit 91aa078 added `RPMTAG_PAYLOADDIGEST` and `RPMTAG_PAYLOADDIGESTALGO`, so RPM now verifies the integrity of the payload. But there are tools (e.g. `deltarpm`) that reconstruct RPM payloads from individual parts. Given an RPM header and the individual file contents, the original (unc

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Make %{buildsubdir} usable without being a side effect of %setup. (#860)

Other than the typo this looks good to me. `Reviewed-by: Adam Jackson ` -- 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/860#issuecomment-534619869__

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Make %setup use %{__tar_opts} to set tar options. (#859)

`Reviewed-by: Adam Jackson ` -- 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/859#issuecomment-534613072___ Rpm-maint mailing list

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Make %{buildsubdir} usable without being a side effect of %setup. (#860)

This patch makes a couple of related changes: - lets you set %{_buildsubdir} as a global to expose it everywhere, rather than just specific parts of %prep (%setup and %patch*) - lets you choose what path is used independently of the unpack options in %setup - allows you to use a different %{_bu

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Make %setup use %{__tar_opts} to set tar options. (#859)

This patch adds __tar_opts and __tar_opts_verbose macros, which can be overriden to change the default tar behavior when called from %setup while building packages. Signed-off-by: Peter Jones You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Make copyNextLineFromOFI() aware of the new %[] syntax (#858)

That's the third loop of that form in the code... You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/858 -- Commit Summary -- * Make copyNextLineFromOFI() aware of the new %[] syntax -- File Changes -- M build/parseSpec.c

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add a %cnl (continue next line) marker (#787)

Here's another solution: ``` %global godocs docs examples code-of-conduct.md %dnl\ README.md ``` This uses the new %dnl macro to eat away the newline generated by the trailing `\`. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on Git

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Logical op improvements (#855)

Okay then, thanks for the patches! -- 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/855#issuecomment-534517798___ Rpm-maint mailin

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Logical op improvements (#855)

Merged #855 into master. -- 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/855#event-2657706957___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Ternary op discussions (#852)

Closed #852 via #855. -- 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/852#event-2657706960___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Ternary op discussions (#852)

Kinda funny, I'm not familiar with that form at all. Not that it means much, except that maybe I'm not the best judge here :) I can certainly live without ```?``` and ```?:```, for the latter I know gcc supports it but I don't recall ever using it. So it's not exactly of life-support importanc

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Logical op improvements (#855)

(I've got no plans for another commit currently.) -- 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/855#issuecomment-534516042___ R

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Codify built-in macro argument acceptance (#853)

Merged #853 into master. -- 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/853#event-2657687248___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Correct description of %verbose and %getconfdir in the macro manual (#856)

Merged #856 into master. -- 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/856#event-2657674654___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Correct description of %verbose and %getconfdir in the macro manual (#856)

pmatilai approved this pull request. Fine now, thanks. -- 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/856#pullrequestreview-292348903

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Ternary op discussions (#852)

With the referenced pull request you can use && and || for alternate/default: `%foo && %bar` is `%bar` if `%foo` is true, otherwise `0` `%foo || %bar` is `%foo` if `%foo` is true, otherwise `%bar` I think people are somewhat more used to this than the degenerate `?` and `?!` forms that aren't us

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Codify built-in macro argument acceptance (#853)

The PR looks good to me. -- 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/853#issuecomment-534511744___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Correct description of %verbose and %getconfdir in the macro manual (#856)

Pushed. -- 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/856#issuecomment-534511549___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Correct description of %verbose and %getconfdir in the macro manual (#856)

@pavlinamv pushed 1 commit. 9ae7eb4858f381cad3925c96a0ec1b4d7d9f36cc Correct description of %verbose and %getconfdir in the macro manual -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/856/files/857558

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Correct description of %verbose and %getconfdir in the macro manual (#856)

Forgot to push? -- 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/856#issuecomment-534509060___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@li

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Correct description of %verbose and %getconfdir in the macro manual (#856)

Changed according to the comment. -- 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/856#issuecomment-534508114___ Rpm-maint mailing

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Remove "support" for loading keyring from filesystem (#857)

This is basically an abandoned and forgotten development path from 11 years ago that arguably should've been removed long ago, and one that has potential security implications and doesn't play well with existing API users who rely on gpg-pubkey headers being in the rpmdb (RhBug:1393586) You can vie

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Correct description of %verbose and %getconfdir in the macro manual (#856)

Good spotting, but please move them to the appropriate groups as well: the first group of macros takes no argument, so %getconfdir belongs there, and %{verbose:...} belongs to the group that does. The grouping is pretty arbitrary of course, %define/%undefine/%global are in the middle of differe

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Correct description of %verbose and %getconfdir in the macro manual (#856)

I looked into rpm/doc/manual/macros to check 0 and 1 added into the builtinmacros[] in PR #853. Values added in PR #853 are correct, but description of macros %verbose and %getconfdir in manual is confusing. So that is why I created this PR. You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Logical op improvements (#855)

Makes the code nicer while enhancing it, what's not to like. One thing I forgot to mention in some of the earlier patches is that I certainly don't see any need to add those empty comments above functions as the common style in that function is. It's not a showstopper by any means but I'd basic

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Ternary op discussions (#852)

As for 3), I think both variants would be kinda nice to have. In particular, people are used to ```%foo ? %bar``` from macros, and might be even a bit surprised if that doesn't work. And default value case of ```%foo ?: %bar``` is quite a common pattern, so why not? -- You are receiving this b

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Codify built-in macro argument acceptance (#853)

After poking around a bit, I ended up dropping the argument length checking entirely: it's not an *error* to echo an empty string, and similarly it is not an *error* to ask for dirname of an empty string. And so on - seems better left alone in reality. On-disk filenames cannot be empty so thos

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Logical op improvements (#855)

This commits change the handling of the logical operators. It allows to use strings as condition and also changes || and && to return the last evaluated term like in perl/python/ruby. Fixes #852 You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-m