Fixed version pushed:
* Don't build local test files if we're in non-native mode (this fixes the
above issue)
* Drop the Buildah dependency (was trivial in the end)
* Rename to `mktree.oci`
* Remove the confusing `mktree.docker` symlink, use an env var instead
* Minor fixups that I've found
@dmnks pushed 13 commits.
37ad8e12a5d81293876edd742fc4a62b5e94be93 Refactor rpmtests wrapper
d516179bb1435f8dd971bdc26c2f3b77e2acca03 Add --shell command to rpmtests
wrapper
487ca4342ca2033062b8422c83da5d08e1e8af7c Use the new --shell command in
mktree.podman
It would be nice if we could also use this system to generate a
`%generate_buildrequires` section in addition to generating static
BuildRequires.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2620#issuecomment-1783160849
You are
It does probably make sense to pull the CMake macros into rpm so we can build
ourselves from what is provided by rpm itself...
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2620#issuecomment-1783016528
You are receiving this because
Closed #1870 as completed.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1870#event-10791621455
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
Fixed by https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2730
And no, don't ask for backports (see the part about sacrifices in the PR). This
will only be in rpm >= 4.20.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Even shorter, using bash arrays:
```
read -r -a SRC <<< "%{sources}"
cp -a ${SRC[@]:1} .
```
Technically it'd be possible to add min and max parameters to the %sources and
%patches macros similar to %autopatch, but the added complexity doesn't seem
warranted here because there are already
Hmm, of course this would be far more powerful if it supported arguments and
all, similar to eg bash aliases.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2722#issuecomment-1782663797
You are receiving this because you are subscribed
Also, if we ship any default autobuild macros at all, we'll need to include
something for cmake too. Shipping autotools macros but no cmake macros, in a
cmake project, would look a bit odd :sweat_smile:
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@pmatilai pushed 1 commit.
8ab9805b2275bfd0e1481b416b00d0fd35f846d6 Implement autobuild "template" system
(prototype)
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2620/files/e2b5b92efeecfde25f6a17437f70da9c0648cba1..8ab9805b2275bfd0e1481b416b00d0fd35f846d6
You are
@pmatilai pushed 1 commit.
e2b5b92efeecfde25f6a17437f70da9c0648cba1 Implement autobuild "template" system
(prototype)
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2620/files/2002ed7a4d06fda5fab3835165b50f4d216fc8d2..e2b5b92efeecfde25f6a17437f70da9c0648cba1
You are
Rebased on current master and updated the test-case to showcase a more
real-world use scenario with %build -a.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2620#issuecomment-1782577470
You are receiving this because you are subscribed
@pmatilai pushed 2 commits.
ed59d17c0599163c89e9b8afdb3a48940618437b Refactor the processing logic out of
parseGeneratedSpecs() for reuse
2002ed7a4d06fda5fab3835165b50f4d216fc8d2 Implement autobuild "template" system
(prototype)
--
View it on GitHub:
> If `local_generator.attr` file exists then `local_generator` created twice.
This is good point. Not sure if this is real problem though.
> Why not simply create an empty `local_generator.attr` file instead?
I have proposed this earlier in
It should be more obvious once I rebase the autobuild thing on top of this all.
But shortly, in the autobuild context, we have these __foo_build, __bar_build,
__zap_build etc macros defined for various different buildsystems. Those are
all usable in standalone format by calling the explicit
I am still a bit puzzled on what this can do that you can't do with a simple
macro definition. I mean I have a rough idea. But may be the docs should make
a bit more of an effort to explain what to use in which case.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Rebase on top of the other recent stuff.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2722#issuecomment-1782498197
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
@pmatilai pushed 4 commits.
3848c6054ffdc6859df9e0a328fb0d9d513b33ea Make macro name first character check
more obvious
cddb14c0a540ad32974a6e29b09d56448fa41b3d Validate the entire macro name in
validName()
8d326b07cf12b957da10e2dc50d14d9817fedd11 Add support for macro aliases
Merged #2728 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2728#event-10788604256
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> @@ -461,6 +461,13 @@ when name is omitted, the description refers to the main
> package.
Package build is divided into multiple separate steps, each executed
in a separate shell.
+Only one of each section can be present in a spec, but all build
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> @@ -461,6 +461,13 @@ when name is omitted, the description refers to the main
> package.
Package build is divided into multiple separate steps, each executed
in a separate shell.
+Only one of each section can be present in a spec, but all build
Thanks @ffesti, but I ended up rewriting that from scratch now that the `%prep`
exception is gone. It still isn't a great piece of literature exactly but
hopefully passable for a reference manual now.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@pmatilai pushed 1 commit.
3864c8996e1f4b60ee731fcd91c6f744455ebabd Implement prepend and append modes
for all build scriptlets
--
View it on GitHub:
Closed #2205 as completed via #2730.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2205#event-10788055422
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Merged #2730 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2730#event-10788055285
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
So... if we're going to do this then lets just get on with it, because this is
blocking or at least affecting so many other developments at this point. Like
noted, if this turns out to be an utter PR disaster (in the other meaning of
PR), it'll still be possible to add a different kind of hack
26 matches
Mail list logo
