@rhabacker pushed 2 commits.
b5117ae76f47c3629d56668c272808e066eeabe8 Keep original flag format when
creating the %-x** macro
0273daa43cba6cdd373269df92d8bab2d70693ad Adjust test case for macro '%-x**'
--
View it on GitHub:
@rhabacker pushed 1 commit.
fb9c9ffe57563ce3f5ddca570500108a795be262 Add test case for macro '%-x**'
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2449/files/22f16526824374413d50c008e6d4a2285949ac3b..fb9c9ffe57563ce3f5ddca570500108a795be262
You are receiving this
@rhabacker pushed 2 commits.
8b9dbeee09014bf2a6b01f22cb6ed3896bebbd5e Add macro '-x**' containing all
occurrences of the flag '-x'.
22f16526824374413d50c008e6d4a2285949ac3b Add test case for macro '%-x**'
--
View it on GitHub:
Fix #546
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2449
-- Commit Summary --
* Add macro -x** containing all occurrences of the flag
-x.
-- File Changes --
M docs/manual/macros.md (3)
M rpmio/macro.c (15)
This is actually expected behavior, --whatrequires means drastically different
things in rpm and dnf. Rpm only searches for literal requires of that
capability, whereas dnf resolves the argument into a package and everything it
provides.
For the above:
> [pmatilai︎localhost ~]$ rpm -q
Closed #2439 as completed.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2439#event-8827647552
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
> binary rpm files embed the .src.rpm header checksum, so suffer as well.
Ugh, I hadn't realized the src.rpm header md5 (another ugh) ends up in the
binary headers too. It only happens with -ba (iirc) so not all build-systems
exhibit that, but still.
This would be nice case for placing the
> This might be a dumb question
>
> > sizes are always 64bit ... RPMSIGTAG_LONGSIZE
>
> If "header + payload" signatures are going away, is there any reason to
> continue storing the combined "header + payload" size? In other words, can
> this not also be ditched?
It's actually a good
Thanks for clarification.
I saw this paragraph, but I understood it to mean that the minimal version only
refers to the last sentence and that it may only need adjustments.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Yes, a known limitation, this is duplicate of #546 but before just now it had a
strange summary which made it hard to discover (I only found it myself because
I knew it was there)
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Closed #2448 as completed.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2448#event-8825776547
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
>From said documentation, emphasis added:
> Parametric Lua macros receive their options and arguments as two local tables
> opt and arg, where opt holds processed option values keyed by the option
> character, and arg contains arguments numerically indexed. These tables are
> always present
Closed #2446 as completed.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2446#event-8825658874
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
Yep, it's unfortunate that the stripped cpio format wasn't handled back then.
Adding a new string for it now has a good chance of breaking something.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2447#issuecomment-1480924763
You are
Attempting to process multiple occurrences of an option with the same name with
the available rpm macros always returns the last occurrence of the specified
option, as the following example shows:
```sh
$ rpm --version
RPM version 4.14.3
$ rpm --define='%_macro(D:) %(echo " option -D:
15 matches
Mail list logo
