There is a document introducing the immutable header regions
[here](https://rpm-software-management.github.io/rpm/manual/hregions.html), But
it's hard for someone who is unfamiliar with the history to understand, my
question how to understand the immutable header regions? How to make it
The really annoying part about this is that if it wasn't for the stupid
pgpIdentItem() function in librpmio, we could just hide a these two val->string
conversions into a private helpers someplace in librpm. Back when it was added,
pgpIdentItem() was a shortcut to avoid exposing a struct or a
I did some cleanup surrounding this today, managed to remove quite a bit of
related unused cruft that has been just sitting there for twenty years.
We're now annoyingly close to be able to bury the rpmpgpval.h table stuff into
the internal parser too. The only things needing that data now in
Yes, like I said, the warning is a piece of education from the upstream.
I see no reason why distros should make a special statement about this
whatsoever. If *you* feel so, then *you* go file a request about it. By all
means.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
The guideline is in Fedora at least as long as the Git history goes, which is 5
years. The warning landed in RPM ~3.5 years ago. So if the RPM was pushed into
Fedora by the RPM team, it would be just fair to make sure that the guidelines
are aligned with what RPM does.
In this case, RPM is
Yes - there's nothing in our API that exposes data through those structs. If
somebody has been basing their own parser by including that header then ..
they're just going to have to invent their own structs now...
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
You've removed types from the public API. Are you sure that is okay?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2717#issuecomment-1759452972
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
Merged #2717 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2717#event-10630492042
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
Sorry but I don't go around lecturing distros what they should or shouldn't do.
That's what the warning is for.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2419#issuecomment-1759440435
You are receiving this because you are
@nwalfield, just FYI
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2717#issuecomment-1759419029
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint
The RFCs are online accessible to everybody, no reason to carry all a copy
of an outdated draft in rpm.
Remove unused structs, and move used ones into the internal parser. Nothing
else needs this stuff, never has.
No functional changes.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request
Closed #2384 as completed.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2384#event-10629897956
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
This has nothing to do with curl or rpm, and everything to do with a filename
that doesn't exist:
```
libvirt-client-0:8.6.0-3.fc37.x86_64.rpm
^^
```
Rpm filenames don't carry epoch numbers, by old tradition.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Or this should be configurable and Fedora should be able to choose to configure
RPM in a way that it is consistent with their guidelines.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2419#issuecomment-1759344842
You are receiving
Then could you please do me a favor and propose update to Fedora packaging
guidelines? I won't do it myself, because I disagree with this and consider the
current guidelines to be correct. But they should be in line with what RPM
thinks if RPM changes its mind.
--
Reply to this email directly
Closed #2419 as completed.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2419#event-10629723475
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
Rpm chroot installations and the associated problems (yes, content pointing to
system locations with a non-trivial risk of breaking things badly) with
absolute links are not specific to Fedora in any way. The warning is there for
a reason and the way to avoid it is to convert to relative links,
No worries. I figured that after I looked at it, but then I had already looked
at it :D
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2716#issuecomment-1759253541
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Oh, I didn't tag you in because I figured this is just uninteresting
paper-shuffling type cleanup :sweat_smile:
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2716#issuecomment-1759229407
You are receiving this because you are
I reviewed the change and it looks reasonable to me.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2716#issuecomment-1759201594
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
Merged #2716 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2716#event-1062878
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
This is nowhere near sufficient to make rpmpgp_legacy buildable outside rpm but
this much is easy so why not.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2716#issuecomment-1759187015
You are receiving this because you are subscribed
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2716
-- Commit Summary --
* Refactor internal PGP parser pgpValStr() uses to use the public API
* Bury pgpValStr() inside rpmpgp.c now that we can
* Drop unneeded
Merged #2704 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2704#event-10628393339
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
Tweaked a little bit to make the legacy status more prominent in the naming.
Just another small step towards sawing this unwanted limb off :smile:
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2704#issuecomment-1759145173
You are
@pmatilai pushed 0 commits.
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2704/files/77c71398d93ede2bb636aca9f9038f78a52a54b7..c289eba9defacf550768c3cc5e64f17d72c7e6bc
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
@pmatilai pushed 3 commits.
c289eba9defacf550768c3cc5e64f17d72c7e6bc Move internal OpenPGP parser into a
subdirectory
9b24d952dda0d8a42a7b325937a94d4d92b56dec Refactor internal PGP parser
pgpValStr() uses to use the public API
77c71398d93ede2bb636aca9f9038f78a52a54b7 Bury pgpValStr() inside
@pmatilai pushed 1 commit.
9aa8abb10ab12ccb9cf93327533a9f1cf00e97b2 Move internal OpenPGP parser into a
subdirectory
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2704/files/43d8557c30c1cc5d4618128bee5c0079205ced31..9aa8abb10ab12ccb9cf93327533a9f1cf00e97b2
You are
Yes, correct.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2623#issuecomment-1758963263
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint mailing
29 matches
Mail list logo
