> As I've said over and over, we will never accept such a large lump of a
> commit in a single go. This is all far better split up into individual
> commits in #1612. Why are you filing duplicates of your own work?
>
> PLEASE STOP THIS.
#1612 is for non-security improvements, while this is for
@pmatilai I must say that the error as well as your answer puzzles me. Just
FTR, this is the origin of the question mark:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/c/8e2921fd5a3125b7ce2487bb449b2e6db40cc3c0
IOW the question mark was always guarding the existence of the `load`
macro/builtin.
If
@weblate pushed 2 commits.
814b79bee6bc23370d26b65582f3be22f1cc3427 Translated using Weblate (Finnish)
5aee921a54d5b78065c46eb47efd47f8853baf9b Translated using Weblate (Turkish)
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
> Sorry could you tell me what's wrong in the following code?
I was able to implement the own exists macro like this. I expect `rpmlint`
skips the load. But `rpmlint` still checks the load macro printing parsing
error. Now what we need to fix is rpmlint.
```
%global exists_file %{lua:
Merged #1676 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/1676#event-4695505452___
Rpm-maint mailing list
to avoid gh-pages taking them as Liquid tags
See https://shopify.dev/docs/themes/liquid/reference/tags for details.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1676
-- Commit Summary --
* Insert space between the { and
> Sorry, I've meant that ranges/slices include start but not the end. I.e. 1:3
> is 1, 2. Unlike %autopatch -m 1 -M 3 which is 1, 2, 3.
Oh, *that*. Yeah I ran into it in Python, caused some head-scratching before
realizing that's how it's supposed to work. So we'd confuse somebody no matter
Sorry, I've meant that ranges/slices include start but not the end. I.e. `1:3`
is 1, 2. Unlike `%autopatch -m 1 -M 3` which is 1, 2, 3.
> Hmm, but then we can nowadays have macros opt out of option processing.
Yes, but that way, no backports would be possible.
--
You are receiving this
@pmatilai I am seeing `doc/manual/lua.md` and https://rpm.org/user_doc/lua.html
. Sorry could you tell me what's wrong in the following code?
```
%load_if_exists(path) %{lua:
if posix.access(arg.path, "r") then
print("Loading " .. arg.path .. "..")
load(arg.path)
end
}
Hmm, but then we *can* nowadays have macros opt out of option processing.
Already forgotten that... (f9516434dd70cf0d5125e9e997b2c278b4fb4bf2)
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Um? Maybe "range" in Python has some special meaning I'm not aware of, I guess
in Python lingo what I meant is slice syntax.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Note that Python ranges don't include the ending number. If you use them please
keep the semantics to avoid confusion for Pythonistas.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
That's a good point, it'd require "escaping" with `--` and that gets ugly.
Python-style `:5` as a range syntax wouldn't have that problem, but I wonder if
that clashes with something else in turn...
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email
@pmatilai ok thanks I will try it!
--
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/1669#issuecomment-833461866___
Rpm-maint
I wonder if `-5` would not be recognized as an option
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Well you can program whatever logic you want if you use %{lua:..}
This behavior isn't changing back.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Closed #1669.
--
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/1669#event-4694612288___
Rpm-maint mailing list
As I've said over and over, we will never accept such a large lump of a commit
in a single go. This is all far better split up into individual commits in
#1612. Why are you filing duplicates of your own work?
PLEASE STOP THIS.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this
Closed #1675.
--
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/1675#event-4694587660___
Rpm-maint mailing list
So... it all ends up being rather cumbersome because -m and -M are a cumbersome
way of specifying ranges, but now we're kinda stuck with them. Me thinks it'd
make a whole lot more sense to have ranges expressable in `-5`, `50-70` `100-`
style (multiple) arguments, in addition to individual
This would just replace one line of boilerplate with another. Lets rather add a
brp-script which removes the .la files *by default*, and then the handful of
packages that actually do want to ship those files can simply disable the brp
policy.
--
You are receiving this because you are
@dmach @Conan-Kudo
--
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/1675#issuecomment-833173816___
Rpm-maint mailing list
@DemiMarie pushed 1 commit.
d38ce7925b7df42c9ed9b9f1371a9c6511809c6c rpmkeys: exit non-zero on I/O errors
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
@DemiMarie pushed 2 commits.
ddd5f3e5c1ab21cb482bb74609bf550553608318 Simplify OpenSSL crypto code
55aa16e51e53e8863c7f60a784381f1b5adf5451 Avoid double frees if
EVP_PKEY_assign_RSA fails
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
@DemiMarie pushed 2 commits.
2551154637c22b83842be6af4cc1d3c7f36e2680 Check that padding is zeroed and
regions are consistent
001488dff66e2f8aa15d903d3bfe0fd07bc9d4cc hdrblobVerifyInfo(): reject trailing
junk
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on
@DemiMarie pushed 1 commit.
828096679886cab4d428e1481a5c8f30bd23a7c1 Avoid undefined shifts
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
Closed #1589.
--
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/1589#event-4692398672___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Closed #1627.
--
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/1627#event-4692391232___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Closing in favor of #1675.
--
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/1627#issuecomment-833169284___
Rpm-maint mailing list
- signatures of the wrong type were accepted
- signatures were allowed to contain multiple packets
- numerous out-of-bounds reads
- undefined pointer arithmetic
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1675
-- Commit
30 matches
Mail list logo
