Its rarely the case that the user may set global ``core.excludesfile``,
``git add .`` may not add all the files as expect.
It will fail to build if the excluded files are patch-needed.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
@dmnks pushed 2 commits.
88d650776bfc93bf4fd863a7081aeb889bd04bf1 GPG: Switch back to pipe(7) for
signing
a58d462040774da53f91d8388b3bdd0b86916c25 GPG: refactor: exit label
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
@dmnks pushed 2 commits.
838c9c6dbdc974563e4f8d7301638991ed247950 GPG: Switch back to pipe(7) for
signing
927790f8808488626993f33c88d97ca1755d4c3d GPG: refactor: exit label
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
@dmnks pushed 2 commits.
ab87b1ef439f7bc74302cf4e36720711d2ae93f5 GPG: Switch back to pipe(7) for
signing
940b93a130654f4d7bb0a94cacda395c26d7c7e2 GPG: refactor: exit label
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
@dmnks pushed 1 commit.
2d0b1f6c07dce3885d7d2761c6e1c98aa22b83b0 GPG: refactor: exit label
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
@dmnks commented on this pull request.
> if (fnamedPipe)
Fclose(fnamedPipe);
-if (pid)
- waitpid(pid, , 0);
+if (gpgPid)
+ waitpid(gpgPid, , 0);
Hopefully resolved in the second commit :)
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this
@dmnks pushed 2 commits.
f1df9c9bd2f7e9955932a63930c008e97440c9e8 GPG: Switch back to pipe(7) for
signing
285d1823ca30f4a19bf7058b248d2dfba428a11b GPG: refactor: exit label
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
@pombredanne Convince @spotrh for Fedora, here it doesn't really matter. If a
distro uses SPDX, then it'll use that, otherwise it'll use whatever standard
they've been using.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Merged #1235 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/1235#event-3392226804___
Rpm-maint mailing list
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/1235#issuecomment-636722464___
Rpm-maint mailing list
@pmatilai fixed and rebased.
--
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/1235#issuecomment-636714949___
Rpm-maint mailing
I'm getting this on Fedora 32:
> rpmbuild.c: In function ‘getTarSpec’:
rpmbuild.c:342:22: error: unused variable ‘res’ [-Werror=unused-variable]
342 | int gotspec = 0, res;
| ^~~
cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
Other than that, looks good I think.
--
Ok, good. For now I think we need to concentrate on the fundamental problem of
architecture dependency. While most architectures today use 4K pages, being
common doesn't make it arch independent, and then there are architectures where
this is configurable (eg aarch64). A noarch package cannot
My 2 cents if you start listing several licenses in the spec license field
would be to consider using SPDX license expressions
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
14 matches
Mail list logo
