When processing input parameters, add necessary checks to ensure that pointer
parameters are not NULL
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2548
-- Commit Summary --
* Update digest.c
-- File Changes --
M
I don’t consider any sort of streaming unpacking to be viable with the v4 file
format. For it to be viable with v6, v6 would need to use some sort of Merkle
tree to allow incremental verification of the signature. One option would be
to pack a bunch of hashes (as binary, not hex) into a
Someone have been trying to construct rpm query format string to produce for
example `rpm -qa` packages names and versions as json? 樂
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2547
You are receiving this because you are
The more I think about it, the more I think it has to be rpm that is
responsible for installing files. Delegating that to a plugin creates a support
nightmare where we (as an upstream) no longer have the slightest clue what
might be going on in case of problems, and requiring every bug report
Merged #2546 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2546#event-9565421147
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
As a fix, something's bothering me about this (maybe a feeling that if this is
a problem then wouldn't there be a thousand other places with the same problem,
I dunno) but I don't see how it would actually hurt anything so...
BTW, please don't "optimize" the git commit messages. The first line
@dmnks , FA_PLUGIN and FA_CUSTOM have effectively the same problem as previous
versions of this patch had with RPMRC_PLUGIN_CONTENTS: there could be multiple
plugins wanting to claim it, whereas there can only ever be exactly one thing
to create a file. See
