I also used gdb for tracking and found that the return para value(time) of
`dateToTimet` did not change under different time zone settings.
```
if (dateToTimet(date, , _words)) {
...
```
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
1. rpmbuild -bb test.spec
```
Name: test
Epoch: 1
Version: 1.0
Release: 3
Group: Testing
License: GPL
Summary: Simple rpm demonstration.
Source0: hello-1.0.tar.gz
%description
Simple rpm demonstration.
%prep
%build
%install
touch %{buildroot}/test-1
%files
/test-1
%changelog
* Fri May 20
> The two AT_XFAIL_IF macro tests are problematic because they try to test
> behavior that is actually undefined, and so there is no particular output
> that _is_ expected.
I think there should be a specific output of `--eval. '%undefine xxx'.` , it
should be `..`. Now the output is `. `,
@ferdnyc commented on this pull request.
> @@ -71,57 +71,57 @@ to perform useful operations. The current list is
%getconfdir expand to rpm "home" directory (typically /usr/lib/rpm)
%dnldiscard to next line (without expanding)
%verboseexpand to 1
I've updated the PR without the ellipsis change, it should be ready to go now.
Though if we do get info on generating the website content, I'll happily test
whether my changes fix the fencing issue with `\`.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@DemiMarie pushed 3 commits.
01c32b20550ca866869d574e73c45dc6ddf125e5 Avoid type confusion when verifying
signatures
8afe572424b6b6a3526de6373f2b1b51044274b1 Check packet types of signatures and
public keys
d9f6fcb91fdb82b07afdaf1b6e82533755f627c3 Reject multiple PGPTAG_PUBLIC_KEY
packets
The two AT_XFAIL_IF macro tests are problematic because they try to test
behavior that is actually undefined, and so there is no particular output that
*is* expected.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
I'll review, but you'll want to rebase to clear the unrelated test-suite
failure first.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2242#issuecomment-1298571369
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Yes it happens a lot, in one highly specific corner. Which is often best served
by having that specific corner handle it because it has its own wrinkles that
do not apply elsewhere, like version comparing the name here.
In principle, Debian versioning isn't *that* different from rpm. If 'sort
Other than the ellipsis stuff, this is certainly welcome: the macro doc started
life once upon time in doxygen notation, since converted to something between
raw ascii and markdown. It shows.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> +…where `` is a legal macro name and `` is the body of the macro.
+Multiline macros can be defined by shell-like line continuation, ie ``\``
@ffesti may have a better clue. On a related note, we should have docs/README
explaining how to test-render
@ferdnyc commented on this pull request.
> @@ -71,57 +71,57 @@ to perform useful operations. The current list is
%getconfdir expand to rpm "home" directory (typically /usr/lib/rpm)
%dnldiscard to next line (without expanding)
%verboseexpand to 1
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> @@ -71,57 +71,57 @@ to perform useful operations. The current list is
%getconfdir expand to rpm "home" directory (typically /usr/lib/rpm)
%dnldiscard to next line (without expanding)
%verboseexpand to 1
Is it possible to open the FIFO file in non-blocking mode when it is detected?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2195#issuecomment-1298178199
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
Closed #2252 as completed.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2252#event-7710865792
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
This is a duplicate of #2195, but thanks for the reproducer!
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2252#issuecomment-1298143483
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
Sorry but no, we're not going to reorganize the entire source tree, break
everybodys patches and years/decades of finger memory just because of this.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2250#issuecomment-1298138586
You are
Closed #2250 as completed.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2250#event-7710852869
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
1. rpmbuild -ba test-fsmMkfifo.spec
```
[root@localhost SPECS]# cat test-fsmMkfifo.spec
Name: hello
Version: 1.0
Release: 1
Group: Testing
License: GPL
Summary: Simple rpm demonstration.
Source0: hello-1.0.tar.gz
%description
Simple rpm demonstration.
%prep
%build
%install
mkfifo
The %autosetup number is indeed total packages using it, whether they currently
have patches or not (because that's a situation that can and does change
release by release). This ticket is about %prep though, lets keep the %patch
discussion in #2209 (the compat info is already there btw)
--
20 matches
Mail list logo
