Hey @pmatilai, wondering how does this CI upgrading from Fedora 32 to Fedora 35
go, any updates?
(we are working on rpmsign fsverity support which will depend on at least
Fedora 35)
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on
@DemiMarie commented on this pull request.
> + if (sigalg->setmpi(sigalg, i, p))
+ break;
What if I made a good quality PR that fixed the problem, either directly or on
to your branch? #1705 got NAK’d on the grounds that it added “another struct
pgpDigParams direct access when
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> + if (sigalg->setmpi(sigalg, i, p))
+ break;
I don't really even disagree - *optimally* we should check for it someplace.
It's just that the check doesn't really fit anywhere nicely and meanwhile
arguing over a relatively petty issue
@DemiMarie commented on this pull request.
> + if (sigalg->setmpi(sigalg, i, p))
+ break;
> The signature type information is there to tell the reader how to hash the
> material for correct results. We ignore the byte _anyhow_ for the package
> hashing purposes because it's
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> + if (sigalg->setmpi(sigalg, i, p))
+ break;
Yes, you've repeated this quite a few times now.
The signature type information is there to tell the reader how to has the
material for correct results. We ignore the byte *anyhow* for the
@mlschroe commented on this pull request.
> + 0x99,
+ (pkt->blen >> 8),
+ (pkt->blen ),
That may be, but it's what the spec says. It's not a security problem because
the complete package is hashed anyway. V5 keys hash the complete length, not
just the lowest
Closed #1694 via #1778.
--
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/1694#event-5462968026___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Going forward, we should probably look into replacing this silly rpmCharCheck()
thing with regular expressions...
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Merged #1778 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/1778#event-5462968021___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Merged #1787 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/1787#event-5462956619___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Closed #1230 via #1787.
--
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/1230#event-5462956635___
Rpm-maint mailing list
@ffesti commented on this pull request.
> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
#undef HTDATATYPE
#define ALLOWED_CHARS_NAME ".-_+%{}"
+#define ALLOWED_FIRSTCHARS_NAME "_%{}"
OK, so this is not by accident but to not blow up for unexpanded macros that
may just not be available at that point in time.
--
@ffesti pushed 1 commit.
a5e67695d970c964089470001f7fad1d99354fac Require package names to be valid
provides
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
#undef HTDATATYPE
#define ALLOWED_CHARS_NAME ".-_+%{}"
+#define ALLOWED_FIRSTCHARS_NAME "_%{}"
Took a bit of digging, but here's the case for unexpanded macros in the names
etc:
Thank you all for your feedback, I'll prepare another iteration soon with all
the comments here.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@fepitre commented on this pull request.
> +
+printf 'Installed-Build-Depends:\n' >> "$BUILDINFO"
+rpm -qa --queryformat '%{epoch}:%{name}-%{version}-%{release}.%{arch}\n' \
+| LC_ALL=C sort -t: -k2 \
+| sed -e 's/^(none)://; /\.(none)$/d; s/^/ /' >> "$BUILDINFO"
+
+printf
16 matches
Mail list logo
