Fixed both in rpmbuild and in rpmlint ?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2875#issuecomment-1943706675
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: _
rpmlint also considers ebpf as arch-dependent package.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2875#issuecomment-1909982487
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: __
Noarch RPMs that contain EBPF binaries code incorrectly fail with "Arch
dependent binaries in noarch package"
EBPF is really noarch binary.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2875
You are receiving this because you are s
#781
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2690#issuecomment-1746702064
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-m
#797
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/781#issuecomment-1746701819
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-ma
Seems dup of #797
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2690#issuecomment-1746700437
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint maili
Seems I figured out. After installing deps from file generated by `-bs` some
macroses appear. that's what is changed in environment.
So the bug is: not generating `.buildreqs.nosrc.rpm`. If it was generated, bug
would not happen.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://gi
@pmatilai there are no difference. Really. I have provided part of the shell
script. Tell me how to debug, please. I strongly consider there is a bug in
RPM, but con not knock it down.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/26
Interesting... `-rr --nodeps` rewrites .src.rpm in a way that `dnf` INSTALLS
`pkgconfig(systemd)` afterwards.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2690#issuecomment-1746625208
You are receiving this because you are subscribed
@pmatilai sorry for not explaining clearly. Seems it is another bug. When `-rr`
says error about missing deps but does not generate `.buildreqs.nosrc.rpm` in
some conditions. In generally – yes, it works as expected. Especially on
pyproject srpms, where 3-5 iterations are possible.
please reope
@pmatilai sorry for bash script, but I want just show what happens in our build
script:
```bash
unpriv rpmbuild "${defines[@]}" -bs "$spec_file" --rmspec
srpm=("$RPMBUILD"/SRPMS/*.src.rpm)
while :; do
unpriv rpmbuild "${defines[@]}" -rr "$srpm" && exit_code=0 ||
exit_code=$?
@pmatilai I always run everything in a clear environment. i.e. in the
container, yes.
Does `rpmbuild -rr` re-parse .spec-file ? Thought it does not.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2690#issuecomment-1746570147
You are r
@pmatilai Commented things – are my lines – I did not remove after experiments.
Yes, our scripts build `.src.rpm` from `.spec` file and then (in the same
environment) install build deps. The problem that `rpmbuild -rr` says about
missing deps, but `dnf builddep` does not install them (does not s
Moreover, I don't understand how it appears in this srpm file. This file was
made in our build scripts.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2690#issuecomment-1745146423
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to th
`rpm -qRp
/home/fedora/rpmbuild/SRPMS/frr-8.5.2-2.1696341206.16.8ff8ce50.utm.src.rpm`:
gives the following:
```
...
perl-XML-LibXML
perl-generators
python3-devel
...
```
That's OK. Nothing about pkgconfig.
Now, try to build it:
`su --login --shell=/usr/bin/env fedora -- "PATH=$PATH" "HOME=/h
@socketpair commented on this pull request.
> @@ -273,8 +273,16 @@ static int runGPG(sigTarget sigt, const char *sigfile)
if (pipefd[1])
close(pipefd[1]);
-(void) waitpid(pid, &status, 0);
OK
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-softw
@socketpair commented on this pull request.
> @@ -402,7 +402,19 @@ static int getOutputFrom(ARGV_t argv,
reap:
/* Collect status from prog */
-reaped = waitpid(child, &status, 0);
+
+do {
+ reaped = waitpid(child, &status, 0);
+} while (reaped == -1 && errno == EINTR);
@socketpair pushed 1 commit.
8cb5c6a31a475067d41923b8306f8625dde4a71f Fix ignoring exit code of child
scripts in case of EINTR
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2398/files/e36832755b35ae9aa4b5103987e9375e86e08ba3..8cb5c6a31a475067d41923b8306f8625dde4a71f
@socketpair commented on this pull request.
> @@ -273,8 +273,16 @@ static int runGPG(sigTarget sigt, const char *sigfile)
if (pipefd[1])
close(pipefd[1]);
-(void) waitpid(pid, &status, 0);
It's better to switch to new `rpmfc`. It's too difficult for me, I just can
only recom
I can make backport (the code has changed recently, so fix is slightly
different)
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2398#issuecomment-1443101095
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2398
-- Commit Summary --
* Fix ignoring exit code of child scripts in case of EINTR
-- File Changes --
M build/rpmfc.c (14)
M sign/rpmgensig.c (12)
-- Patch Links
Closed #2299 as completed.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2299#event-7900676024
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint ma
You are right, I did not read thoroughly.
https://github.com/facebook/zstd/issues/2470
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2299#issuecomment-1328737840
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Mess
Not, it's NOT about #1303
```
Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.APuaoT
+ umask 022
+ cd /home/fedora/rpmbuild/BUILD
+ cd /home/fedora/rpmbuild/BUILD
+ rm -rf ClickHouse-22.8.8.3-lts
+ /usr/bin/zstd -dc /home/fedora/rpmbuild/SOURCES/v22.8.8.3-lts.tar.zstd
+ /usr/bin/tar -xof -
```
```
OKAY. so rpmlint should check three checksums match:
1. downloaded file from github
2. attached archive in srpm
3. sha-256 sum in .spec file
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-mana
I want rpmlint to fight against packagers who unintentionally put wrong
archives. Yes, I trust github, so I want rpmlint to download from github, i.e.
1. unpack .srpm
2. remove archives that are expected to be from github
3. run something like `rpmbuild --undefine=_disable_source_fetch --define
'
@ffesti could you make `BuildRequires(check)` to work as expected ? i.e. ignore
them if `--nocheck` was passed.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/316#issuec
@ffesti There is no place, since documentation does not tell us whether we may
use buildrequires inside `%package` section or not.
Moreover, documentation does not say exactly what macroses we can define right
inside `%package` section, except `requires`, `version`, `summary` and `group`.
(http
Well, guys. If this is allowed, it should be documented. If core RPM team
considers it OK, I have no questions except missing documentation for that case.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rp
Yes, but I thought RPM does not scan %package sections while looking for
`buildrequires`. Since it is not clearly documented, I can't consider current
behaviour stable.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https:
Currently, `buildrequires` specified in `%package` work. But I think this is
completely wrong and I think RPM should consider such things as mistakes.
In any case, documentation should be updated regarding whether it is allowed to
add `buildrequires` inside `%package` section, or not.
--
You a
31 matches
Mail list logo
