@dralley commented on this pull request.
> @@ -56,6 +56,8 @@ contains an OpenPGP signature on the header + payload data.
> The PGP
tag is used for RSA signatures and the GPG tag is used for DSA
signatures.
+Note: the signature tags overlap with those of the main header.
Oh, and as per
htt
@dralley commented on this pull request.
> @@ -56,6 +56,8 @@ contains an OpenPGP signature on the header + payload data.
> The PGP
tag is used for RSA signatures and the GPG tag is used for DSA
signatures.
+Note: the signature tags overlap with those of the main header.
The precise meaning
@dralley commented on this pull request.
> +short archnum;
+char name[66];
+short osnum;
+short signature_type;
+char reserved[16];
+};
+```
+
+and is illustrated with one pulled from the rpm-2.1.2-1.i386.rpm
+package:
+
+```
+: ed ab ee db 03 00 00 00
+```
+
+The fir
@dralley commented on this pull request.
> +## Lead Format
+
+The Lead is stored as a C structure:
+
+```
+struct rpmlead {
+unsigned char magic[4];
+unsigned char major, minor;
+short type;
+short archnum;
+char name[66];
+short osnum;
+short signature_type;
+cha
@dralley commented on this pull request.
> +0048: 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 05
+```
+
+Bytes 76-77 ("00 01" above) form an int16 that indicates the OS the
+package was built for. In this case, 1 == Linux. The next 2 bytes
+(78-79) form an int16 that indicates the signature type. Th
@dralley commented on this pull request.
> +
+Field | Value
+|--
+tag | Must equal the Index Entry (ie 62 or 63)
+type| BIN
+offset | Size of the region entries in the Index
+count | 16
+
+The number of entries in the region (aka region index length) can thus be
+calcula
Understood, thanks! Feel free to close this once you're done with it.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2835#issuecomment-1901738765
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
I prefer handle https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2362 and
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1929
since I don't use it but I found many people that use _without (wrongly)
https://sourcegraph.com/search?q=context:global+r:src.fedoraproject.org+file:.*%5C.sp
> ```spec
> # Add handle --{with|without} check
> %__spec_check_pre \
> %{!?with_check:echo "%%check disabled."; exit 0} \
> %{___build_pre}
> ```
Actually this is not all. It needs to be added default value of the
%with_check. So wole solution has two additional lines.
```spec
#
> we can use : rpmbuild --without check
This can be added very easy by place in global macros single line modification
```spec
# Add handle --{with|without} check
%__spec_check_pre \
%{!?with_check:echo "%%check disabled."; exit 0} \
%{___build_pre}
```
Than you can place in spec f
@teknoraver commented on this pull request.
> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ target_link_libraries(rpmlua PRIVATE LUA::LUA)
target_link_libraries(rpmbuild PRIVATE librpmbuild)
target_link_libraries(rpmspec PRIVATE librpmbuild)
target_link_libraries(rpmdeps PRIVATE librpmbuild)
+target_link_libraries(rpmun
@Conan-Kudo approved this pull request.
Modulo note as @dmnks stated, it looks good to me.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2843#pullrequestreview-1833116074
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this threa
@teknoraver pushed 1 commit.
270555dfa40b2f4f4ecdb002275d6e956832041f add build directory auto path to
%autosetup
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2859/files/aed6cd0f9a69813c9b6f7937110eb4597620c91c..270555dfa40b2f4f4ecdb002275d6e956832041f
You are rece
The more I looked at this and the existing docs, the more clear it became that
the stuff needs more than a touch-up job to be credible.
I ended up rewriting much of bit of it, updating and preserving the v3 docs too
for historians and the like: #2861. That was quite the pile to chew out in a
da
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2861
-- Commit Summary --
* Use markdown formatting features for package format, fix links
* Split the lead and header structure to their own documents
* Fix some inaccura
@teknoraver commented on this pull request.
> @@ -509,6 +509,9 @@ can just create the directory. It accepts a number of
> options:
-n DIR set the name of build directory (default is `%{name}-%{version}`)
-T skip the default unpacking of the first source (used with
`
@Conan-Kudo requested changes on this pull request.
> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ target_link_libraries(rpmlua PRIVATE LUA::LUA)
target_link_libraries(rpmbuild PRIVATE librpmbuild)
target_link_libraries(rpmspec PRIVATE librpmbuild)
target_link_libraries(rpmdeps PRIVATE librpmbuild)
+target_link_librari
These two features (regular triggers and file triggers) have, or [will
have](https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2755), a lot in
common, so it makes sense to unify or even join those two documentation pages
into one, or at least use the same structure so that it's easy to see t
Implement RFE #2664
Add a `-p` flag to %setup which ensures that the sources will be extracted in
the root of the build directory.
It works by inspecting the archive and stripping the first path entry if the
archive has a top level directory alone in the root.
The archive inspection and path st
On a related note, it wouldn't hurt to ship the manual in html format in our
tarballs. I guess we'd need Mr Jekyll for that too.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2854#issuecomment-1900072519
You are receiving this because
Well, I always intended systemd-sysusers to be the native and default "backend"
of this feature because ... it is.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2857#issuecomment-1899950764
You are receiving this because you are subs
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
>
return 0;
}
const char * rpmugUname(uid_t uid)
{
-static uid_t lastUid = (uid_t) -1;
-static char * lastUname = NULL;
-
-if (uid == (uid_t) -1) {
- lastUid = (uid_t) -1;
Yup, and as an added bonus it now never contains an
22 matches
Mail list logo
