> Oh. Yes, I'm subscribed there, so by "other distro folks" I meant non-Fedora
> people
@pmatilai , is there anything I can do to move that conversation forward?
I've written a description of these changes in the form of a design proposal:
Awk is part of POSIX and thus should always be installed. Gawk is a GNU
implementation thats is typically installed by default on Linux but even
then, there should always be an awk symlink in $PATH.
This fixes the build on (non-Linux) systems that dont have Gawk.
Fixes: #2926
You can view,
Could there be added support for bare `%package`, without any argument or
option? Several reasons I can think of.
1) Having plain `%description` / `%files` without its `%package` counterpart is
asymmetric
2) Having bare `%package` somewhere in the .spec file could allow to use the
original
Just FTR, I keep asking because example like this:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nodejs20/blob/3391b85e233fb582fff9471c23788df5ad582d21/f/nodejs20.spec#_156-162
What could be nested here if the PR was accepted?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
> The situation wrt other sections is a bit more complicated. RPM itself does
> not really support indentation in most. Instead for most sections (scripts
> and scriptlets) it just does macro expansion and `#if` magic and then hands
> the result to some interpreter - or sticks it into a tag to
The situation wrt other sections is a bit more complicated. RPM itself does not
really support indentation in most. Instead for most sections (scripts and
scriptlets) it just does macro expansion and `#if` magic and then hands the
result to some interpreter - or sticks it into a tag to be
If the nesting for preamble was allowed, would be nestable also other sections,
such as `%describtion`, `%pre`, etc?
BTW this change would break at minimum Vim syntax highlighter.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
> Not sure why your personal taste would have any weight in this discussion
Maybe because you value community feedback?
> Neither does this change require proper nesting from anyone
Actually RPM requires proper nesting now (no nesting) and it is mostly fine.
Allowing nesting will open the
Had this nagging feeling about the -1/0/1 returns that it actually does make a
difference someplace that I'm not interested in chasing just now, so reverted
that part. It would've needed a commit message mention anyhow.
So, ignore all the rant above, this should now be rather straightforward.
@pmatilai pushed 1 commit.
7d0f5cf42af0b5528ff9ae07c7c0f365e44e51cb Fix dependency generators sometimes
dying with SIGPIPE
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2958/files/c9fdf43e5421e7a917488d78f7b6c743bf3bcfe1..7d0f5cf42af0b5528ff9ae07c7c0f365e44e51cb
I actually noticed the fork case initially and thought, who's going to care,
but apparently someone did :smile:
What I'm wondering now is that this later version changes the return code to be
-1 on all errors, whereas previously it emitted -1 for pre-generator errors and
1 for generator
Looks good to me now. Feel free to merge or wait for input from @mlschroe
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2958#issuecomment-1988359449
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
Thanks for the patch!
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2953#issuecomment-1988351150
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint
Merged #2953 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2953#event-12073028860
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
Merged #2954 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2954#event-12072989637
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
If the `fork()` fails the function returns without resetting the signal handler.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2958#issuecomment-1988314630
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
It would just be more consistent in my opinion, as everything (?) else works
indented in an if block.
For me it would be a relief if the parsing (of any human-readable file) was
consistent in this matter. There should always be a reason for an exception,
and to my knowledge this is not the
If a dependency generator dies while were still writing to its stdin, it
causes us to die rather randomly. Typically happens with fake dependency
generators that dont actually bother reading their input and/or write
anything back. This is almost certainly the ghost failure weve
occasionally
Not sure why your personal taste would have any weight in this discussion.
Neither does this change require proper nesting from anyone nor is white space
disallowed in these macro expressions (as one can easily check with `rpm -E`).
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
I am against this request. The .spec file is not exactly easy to parse and this
won't improve the situation. Also, it is kind of relieving that I don't have to
bother with "proper" nesting inside conditionals.
BTW what is the impact on the shorthand such as:
~~~
{?suse_version:Requires:
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> +without the parenthesis defaults to configuration. In other words,
+these two lines are exactly equivalent:
+
+```
+BuildOption: --enable-fu
+BuildOption(conf): --enable-fu
+```
+
+Passing these per-section options to the actual buildsystem of the
@pmatilai pushed 1 commit.
fc8379379d525fd069d586ce5f0c1d9b0a3a300c Drop manual macro invocation from the
buildsystem docs
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2956/files/302f90372bb2599b6ca3e65ff73241866d04cad0..fc8379379d525fd069d586ce5f0c1d9b0a3a300c
@ffesti pushed 1 commit.
835788b2a604e7ca7a8f32e8089b65a31bf8444a Allow whitespace before directives in
the Preamble
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2957/files/85c32073156470ccc568e3c4e9a3f897794d1c1f..835788b2a604e7ca7a8f32e8089b65a31bf8444a
You are
Update to the documentation is still needed
Resolves: #2927
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2957
-- Commit Summary --
* Allow whitespace before directives in the Preamble
-- File Changes --
M
@gordonmessmer pushed 1 commit.
3c412b8d2b85112316033bf87746cdfa29542c4d Update path var in tests.
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2372/files/74450082b087f93c93de752b37cc0b5d5f3b43dd..3c412b8d2b85112316033bf87746cdfa29542c4d
You are receiving this
@gordonmessmer pushed 12 commits.
9450b5fd00be9c53ad4f61dbb7d573ccf372b495 Enhance requires with version
information from the build root.
2ee4efdb819c1011e39d07f0c634e14cd6bfcb7a Provide macros that can be used to
enable fallback version dependencies.
36c3f933da0e974d4ebf4ba015aed77310da299c
@pmatilai pushed 1 commit.
c250502b7cbc77dbb6a7824ccdcee2a1e09dd22f Fix more Buildsystem related leaks,
sigh
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2956/files/1acf96c0e3bc2129f26f0afc123de54341c34fb7..c250502b7cbc77dbb6a7824ccdcee2a1e09dd22f
You are
Logically this should've been in commit
f02ddfd121d91ea00a534a0e04374c478f56d437 of course, but better late than never.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2956#issuecomment-1987968537
You are receiving this because you are
Verify all required sections (%conf, %build and %install) are covered by the
requested buildsystem, error out with a proper error message if not.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2956
-- Commit Summary --
*
100% agree. That said, AMD really ought to go the Nvidia route of having an
intermediate bytecode.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2060#discussioncomment-8741103
You are receiving this because you are subscribed
30 matches
Mail list logo
