@DemiMarie commented on this pull request.
> +It accepts a number of options. With the exception of `-P`, they are merely
+pass the option down to the `patch` command.
```suggestion
It accepts a number of options. With the exception of `-P`, they are merely
passed down to the `patch` command.
Related: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1754
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2355#issuecomment-1384170308
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
Oh, right, right. The reason I encountered this issue in the first place is
that my lower tree contained an rpmdb, in fact, which was just a result of a
`dnf --installroot` call that populated it earlier. Indeed, removing it
afterwards (before creating per-test overlays) is what needs to be
> Feel free to file an RFE on RHEL to have it considered.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2161293
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2209#issuecomment-1384139490
You are receiving this because you are
Indeed. This is related to #1580.
> > Edit: hmm, in the test-suite case it should already be "pure upper" I think?
>
> Not really - the filesystem tree used by a test case is our "lower". Copying
> the database manually (outside of the container) to the "upper" directory
> should do the trick,
Just for future reference and/or any confused onlookers - the "test cases" we
mentioned above are in fact a WIP that's not on master yet. For those, the
"make the database a pure upper" workaround does the job, however for the usual
podman/docker use case, the issue remains.
--
Reply to this
> Yup, I know smile It's just that the original copy-up (`touch ...`) trick
> (also used by `dnf-plugin-ovl`) doesn't help in this `rename()` case. I
> wonder if something changed in the overlayfs implementation recently or
> whether it was always the case. Anyway,
Heh, to reply to myself:
Of
> Yep, this is the same old, many reports exist in various places.
Yup, I know :smile: It's just that the original copy-up (`touch ...`) trick
(also used by `dnf-plugin-ovl`) doesn't help in this `rename()` case. I wonder
if something changed in the overlayfs implementation recently or whether
Yep, this is the same old, many reports exist in various places.
For the purposes of the test-suite, can we not make the rpmdb a "pure upper"
directory. Move the underlying directory away to start with and then put it in
place from the upper layer?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it
Note that the `touch /var/lib/sysimage/rpm/*`
([formerly](https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RelocateRPMToUsr)
`/var/lib/rpm/*` ), also discussed in
https://github.com/radiasoft/containers/issues/91), doesn't help.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@pmatilai: Yup. My comment was more directed towards @davide125: it would be
good to confirm that this is the bug that I think it is.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2351#issuecomment-1384030140
You are receiving this
Running `rpmdb --rebuilddb` in a Fedora 37 podman container results in the
following error:
```
error: failed to replace old database with new database!
error: replace files in /usr/lib/sysimage/rpm with files from
/usr/lib/sysimage/rpmrebuilddb.12 to recover
```
Investigating further with
Probably the sanest/most intuitive alternative would be just let people use { }
to indicate such blocks.
That actually already works:
> [pmatilai︎localhost rpm]$ rpm --define "foo { aa bb }" --eval %foo
aa bb
... but within on line onely :facepalm: Over multiple lines it fails with
"macro
This is a followup from https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160716
It appears that when `%{undefined ...}` or `%{defined ...}` is used in an
expression in a macro definition, it breaks parsing of options.
See e.g.
```
$ rpm --define '%xxx(r) %[ %{undefined yyy} ? "" : "" ]%{-r:the -r
Yup, the best way to get people off a bad habit is to offer something better
:smile:
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2353#discussioncomment-4696639
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Hello. I often written macros defined like this:
```rpm
%py_shebang_fix %{expand:\\\
if [ -z "%{?py_shebang_flags}" ]; then
shebang_flags="-k"
else
shebang_flags="-ka%{py_shebang_flags}"
fi
%{__python} -B %{_rpmconfigdir}/redhat/pathfix.py -pni %{__python}
$shebang_flags}
```
Feel free to file an RFE on RHEL to have it considered.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2209#issuecomment-1383931679
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
Seeing your PR and out of curiosity, is there chance to get this into RHEL?
That could help with adoption ...
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2209#issuecomment-1383915702
You are receiving this because you are
Yup, something to document, but other than that I have little sympathy towards
an implementation that knowingly and intentionally violates the standard.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2351#issuecomment-1383904894
You
@teythoon pointed out that GnuPG does not generate New format CTBs, so this was
likely not generated by GnuPG. This is typical behavior for gocrypt, which is
[documented as not being
Right, this basically looks like something to document in #2346.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2351#issuecomment-1383819581
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
Document %setup and %patch in the reference manual, even if briefly.
Convert our own %patch uses in the testsuite to modern syntaxes and officially
deprecate the stupid %patchN syntax so we may some day actually get rid of it.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
22 matches
Mail list logo
