@gordonmessmer One last thing, could you prefix your commit messages with
`scripts/pythondistdeps: ` so that we know what this is for?
--
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-managemen
Conan-Kudo approved this pull request.
--
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/pull/951#pullrequestreview-322938474___
Rpm
@gordonmessmer Can you squash 9f69722fa70c6a06bb15a090abfc89dba2d63e68 into
3e630d6809fa07b01be512564c110493e2c73200 and
4fbf59037b2da5403ff3d565e5a4e57dafa5eca9 into
8a13e8a46d972b14a0cb88c800b7e3ce4813d75f?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this em
Conan-Kudo requested changes on this pull request.
> @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
from sys import argv, stdin, version
from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib
from warnings import warn
+from pkg_resources import parse_version
Please do not do this import at the top of the file. It massively slow
@pmatilai I think it's fine for us to raise to popt-1.16. The only
distributions currently supported that have versions older than that are EL6
and EL7. Even SLE 12 has popt-1.16. On the Debian/Ubuntu side, they've had it
for quite a long time, going back to Ubuntu 12.04.
--
You are receiving
cc: @berolinux
--
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/pull/946#issuecomment-557843099___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lis
Conan-Kudo approved this pull request.
--
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/pull/947#pullrequestreview-321934203___
Rpm
Conan-Kudo approved this pull request.
Oh thank goodness! They finally broke down and added a pkgconfig 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-management/rpm/pull/942#pullrequ
Conan-Kudo approved this pull request.
--
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/pull/940#pullrequestreview-317988031___
Rpm
@kloczek Nah, @pmatilai will take care of it.
--
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/pull/940#issuecomment-554672136___
Rpm-m
Fair point. Okay, I'm convinced that we should change that to just affect
binary packages...
--
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/pull/931#issuecomment-552476514_
I guess so... I was mainly thinking of the time it takes to generate repodata,
as having long changelogs adds a fair bit to the `other.xml` 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-softw
@pmatilai That makes sense to me. Though I could easily see people wanting the
source package changelog header being trimmed too, since the full changelog is
also present in the spec file. Perhaps a tunable to switch the behavior, and
default to only trimming binary package changelogs?
--
You
Conan-Kudo approved this pull request.
--
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/pull/933#pullrequestreview-314641043___
Rpm
@pmatilai I think this qualifies as a regression to fix in 4.15.1.
--
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/pull/933#issuecomment-552233913
> (openSUSE is not slow to adopt new major versions. rpm-4.15 was released
> 2019-09-26, it is in the Factory staging project since 2019-10-02.)
To be fair, that's a relatively new thing. And being in staging still doesn't
mean it's in openSUSE itself yet. The gap _is_ closing though...
The lag
Yeah, the SUSE patch implements a "hard cutoff" date as opposed to RPM's built
in "range cutoff".
--
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/pull/931#issuecomment-551741656
Then I guess I got nothin'... 👍
--
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/pull/923#issuecomment-551736122___
Rpm-maint mailing
@pmatilai The "new surprise" actually is probably #931... Apparently logical
consequences escaped everybody for a while, who knew?
--
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/rp
Conan-Kudo approved this pull request.
--
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/pull/929#pullrequestreview-313392414___
Rpm
Conan-Kudo approved this pull request.
--
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/pull/927#pullrequestreview-313301748___
Rpm
Conan-Kudo approved this pull request.
--
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/pull/928#pullrequestreview-312588583___
Rpm
@elros34 Ah, so the issue is that Busybox diff only supports unified diffs. I
think it may make sense to just adjust check-files to use unified diff format
universally, then.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@elros34 Could you please paste in what the output looks like?
--
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/pull/928#issuecomment-550368605
Conan-Kudo requested changes on this pull request.
Could you also add `--reject` to the `git am` call?
--
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/pull/927#pullrequestrevi
Conan-Kudo approved this pull request.
--
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/pull/927#pullrequestreview-312483209___
Rpm
Conan-Kudo approved this pull request.
LGTM. The only thing missing is a fix for the changelog timestamps stuff, but
that's not even fixed in master yet. :(
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.c
This was attempted originally as #88 and was rejected, which is why we switched
to `^`.
--
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/pull/924#issuecomment-549566824__
@wzssyqa Well, upstream `config.guess`/`config.sub` hasn't made a release in
forever, so...
The correct thing to do would be to fix the `config.*` files...
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/
@wzssyqa Part of the reason that `redhat-rpm-config` ships a `config.guess` and
`config.sub` is to support these name aliases.
--
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/pu
@wzssyqa RPM and Debian have nearly never agreed on architecture names. RPM has
a far richer architecture definition system than Debian's, which makes it hard
for the two to align.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on Gi
@wzssyqa Also, RPM tends to use GCC and Linux kernel architecture names... Are
you sure the kernel would have machine arch names with `isa` in the name? That
seems weird...
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
ht
@wzssyqa I believe the Fedora MIPS port from three years ago was mips r6
flavor. There's also the Yocto builds for MIPS.
--
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/pull/916
I've added #909 to this PR, as it worked on macOS for me and definitely helps
with ndb. :)
--
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/pull/908#issuecomment-546642473___
Done.
--
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/pull/909#issuecomment-546642322___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.or
@Conan-Kudo pushed 2 commits.
477d9d98eb22096d3e01fed5aac318807719faa3 Use xdb's pagesize instead of
sysconf(_SC_PAGE_SIZE)
0dcb868a199d8dcc7e14637feb252b34f94e1aa9 Multiple fixes in rpmxdb.c for the
ndb database backend
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
V
Conan-Kudo requested changes on this pull request.
This would break a ton of things, especially the RPM distros that been built
for MIPS.
--
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-man
@pmatilai If #908 is accepted, can we also pull this PR into rpm 4.15?
--
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/pull/909#issuecomment-546197974
Conan-Kudo approved this pull request.
It's a decent compromise, code-wise looks sane too.
--
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/pull/914#pullrequestreview-306979571
@pmatilai Ugh... I guess the alternative is figuring out what rpmrc does and
implementing it in debbuild for the debrc file to translate rpm arches to deb
arches. I was hoping I wasn't going to have to go there, since rpmrc is
functionally undocumented and I have no idea what the behavior of the
Conan-Kudo approved this pull request.
--
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/pull/910#pullrequestreview-305582921___
Rpm
I'm also trying to maintain spec-level compatibility between debbuild and
rpmbuild, and supporting accepting `arm64` on both sides helps with that.
--
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-softw
@pmatilai I don't know of any publicly distributed RPMs in this manner yet.
That said, is it possible to make it so that `arm64` causes `aarch64` RPMs to
be created? When I wrote
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/commit/236d6f5a2b924266b1249a82875b595e8758c52b,
I followed the mappi
> There was never an "arm64", nor does it exist. The name "arm64" is also an
> explicit violation of Arm's trademark policy.
> [...]
> Those who did not listen and chose the name "arm64" for other reasons
I have to respectfully disagree. Aside from compilers, virtually every other
ecosystem has
Gak...
--
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/pull/907#issuecomment-544485048___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.o
@pmatilai Ah, oops. 😶
--
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/pull/873#issuecomment-544452654___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-m
@pmatilai unfortunately `%patch -P` is pretty heavily used. I've seen several
examples of it in SUSE packages, not the least of which is the SUSE package for
`rpm` itself...
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
h
@pmatilai Can you please mark this to backport into RPM 4.15? It's a pretty
severe problem for Mageia and OpenMandriva too, as both ship dnfdragora (which
breaks without this fix).
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on Gi
This pull request contains backports of #895 and #903 to rpm 4.15 to better
support usage of the NDB backend.
I am currently using this for rpm on macOS, but it makes sense to backport for
general exploration of using the NDB backend by RPM-based systems.
You can view, comment on, or merge this
@pmatilai @ffesti I'd appreciate this being backported into RPM 4.15.x too, as
this also inhibits my ability to upgrade rpm in OpenMandriva (which also uses
Clang as the system compiler and doesn't have OpenMP available on all
architectures).
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribe
In 464d21dc8c176222c6586e2ee503fec6207f0d29, support for building RPM
without OpenMP was conditionalized on the ENABLE_OPENMP define being
set by the compiler. However, the include statement for omp.h in
parseSpec.c was not conditionalized as everything else was.
Because the conditional was previo
Conan-Kudo approved this pull request.
--
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/pull/906#pullrequestreview-303846573___
Rpm
> This is something we categorically don't want in Fedora, it will create a
> support nightmare where things that might work in Fedora won't work
> elsewhere, we have explicitly not added this mapping from out outset of
> aarch64 for that reason and we really don't want it now.
I don't agree at
Conan-Kudo approved this pull request.
--
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/pull/904#pullrequestreview-303200207___
Rpm
Conan-Kudo approved this pull request.
SQLite backend code lgtm
--
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/pull/899#pullrequestreview-303199940___
> That's really strange given the rest of the Linux ecosystem used 5tel as
> there were literally no chips ever that didn't have the "enhanced DSP"
> option. Pity all this useful information wasn't provided in the commit
> message, it helps understand reasons for it.
That was in my early days o
@nullr0ute `armv5tl` was used in Mageia, and I upstreamed those changes from
Mageia as the rpm comaintainer to reduce the patch load and make our rpms
workable on other distros (having "special" architectures is not great...). We
used it as the baseline "synthetic" architecture to support many c
@mlschroe In the beginning, it wasn't even workable because it needed memory
map functions that weren't implemented yet. I had similar problems trying to
use ndb for rpm on macOS. Midipix later implemented them, and we switched from
LMDB to ndb. I'm thinking of using this new SQLite backend for
Note that even that fix as it stands will break OpenMandriva, who wrote that to
support their distribution. If you want to alter it, work with @berolinux to
fix it properly.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
h
@nullr0ute The only potentially legitimate commit here is
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/901/commits/790b0ec08027ba1676acc4091045d78e65aa8f2d,
as this one is actually about fixing the problem referenced in the RH bug
linked in the PR description.
--
You are receiving this
Conan-Kudo requested changes on this pull request.
This whole PR is awful.
Aside from the fact that all but one of the commits reverted are mine, most of
those changes were made as part of upstreaming ARM enablement from Mageia. The
last commit was upstreaming changes from OpenMandriva to supp
@mlschroe @pmatilai Well, @midipix and @Redfoxmoon3 are experimenting with the
ndb backend for rpm-based [midipix](https://midipix.org/). It's been
interesting...
I'm more interested in the SQLite backend simply because the tooling is better
for diagnosing and repairing SQLite databases.
(cc:
Conan-Kudo requested changes on this pull request.
> @@ -59,6 +64,15 @@ dbDetectBackend(rpmdb rdb)
}
#endif
+#if defined(WITH_SQLITE)
+path = rstrscat(NULL, dbhome, "/Packages.sqlite", NULL);
For this, we only have the single database file, right? Couldn't we just call
this `rpmdb.
Conan-Kudo approved this pull request.
--
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/pull/900#pullrequestreview-302470416___
Rpm
While I don't particularly like autotools (and generally prefer CMake to it
myself), the large amount of autotest usage in this codebase for the test suite
is a huge impairment for migrating to anything else. I don't expect it to
change unless we dedicated time to change all this, and it might n
Gah, wrong pull request, ignore that approval...
--
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/pull/889#issuecomment-539931997___
Rp
Conan-Kudo approved this pull request.
--
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/pull/889#pullrequestreview-299299725___
Rpm
@vathpela Could you adjust the commit message to indicate that both get this
enhancement?
--
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/pull/874#issuecomment-538054945
@pmatilai Wait, I thought that rpmlib dependency was only inserted for srpms.
It was in binary RPMs too?! That stinks...
--
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/pull/878
Wouldn't this also make sense for `%sourcelist` too?
--
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/pull/874#issuecomment-536698409__
Conan-Kudo approved this pull request.
--
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/pull/870#pullrequestreview-294273383___
Rpm
Conan-Kudo requested changes on this pull request.
> @@ -68,12 +68,6 @@ static const int typeSizes[16] = {
0
};
-enum headerSorted_e {
-HEADERSORT_NONE= 0,/* Not sorted */
-HEADERSORT_OFFSET = 1,/* Sorted by offset (on-disk format) */
-HEADERSORT_INDEX = 2,
This looks very cool! I've not had a chance to look at it in-depth, but the
first pass looks pretty good!
--
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/pull/854#issuecomment-5
(cc: @mhatle @kanavin)
--
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/pull/857#issuecomment-535604121___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-m
This is still actively used by the Yocto folks, especially Wind River, who
patches DNF to get rpm to do this when `gpgkey=` isn't specified while
`gpgcheck=1` is set.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://
Conan-Kudo approved this pull request.
--
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/pull/849#pullrequestreview-291318802___
Rpm
@pmatilai I'd think this does belong in rpm-4.15 too...
--
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/pull/849#issuecomment-533656669___
Conan-Kudo approved this pull request.
--
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/pull/848#pullrequestreview-290938701___
Rpm
Conan-Kudo approved this pull request.
--
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/pull/836#pullrequestreview-289845857___
Rpm
@mlschroe Wait, even *I* use `%if %var != "string"`... That won't work anymore?
--
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/pull/840#issuecomment-532286213___
@pmatilai Is this something you want to also include for rpm 4.15?
--
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/pull/836#issuecomment-532231485
Conan-Kudo approved this pull request.
--
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/pull/837#pullrequestreview-289278320___
Rpm
Conan-Kudo approved this pull request.
I guess if no one noticed for ~19 years...
--
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/pull/840#pullrequestreview-289277566_
Conan-Kudo approved this pull request.
--
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/pull/841#pullrequestreview-289276563___
Rpm
Conan-Kudo approved this pull request.
--
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/pull/835#pullrequestreview-287404330___
Rpm
Conan-Kudo approved this pull request.
--
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/pull/832#pullrequestreview-286093620___
Rpm
@pmatilai The main reason I suggest removing NSS is because NSS has become
increasingly troublesome to use for anything except Firefox, and nowadays, NSS
upgrades often require rebuilding everything dependent on NSS to continue
working properly. We've had incidents where rpm was broken because s
@pmatilai Perhaps we may want to add a commit to deprecate NSS backend or just
straight rip it out?
--
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/pull/826#issuecomment-5296178
> Or just leave them as historical reference for future generations to gape
> at...
I like this option. :)
--
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/pull/827#issuecomment
@mlschroe Hmm, there's a FIPS mode for GnuTLS, I thought that also meant the
underlying nettle library had one. I'd prefer to see a GnuTLS version simply
because it's easier to build across platforms...
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email dir
Conan-Kudo approved this pull request.
--
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/pull/827#pullrequestreview-282324873___
Rpm
@mlschroe Any particular reason for libgcrypt (from GnuPG) vs libnettle (from
GnuTLS)? The relative complexity of detecting gcrypt and the somewhat
insufferable upstream concerns me slightly...
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or
@marxin Why is this necessary?
--
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/pull/815#issuecomment-521185369___
Rpm-maint mailing li
Conan-Kudo approved this pull request.
--
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/pull/813#pullrequestreview-274314596___
Rpm
@berolinux Would this have a negative impact for OMV's usage of clang and
leveraging LTO?
--
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/pull/813#issuecomment-520845600
Conan-Kudo approved this pull request.
Looks good to me!
--
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/pull/806#pullrequestreview-272159202__
@ffesti I'm in the middle of reworking this now per the feedback you and
@pmatilai gave. OpenMandriva is interested in this change landing, so I've
prioritized getting this PR done.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on G
@pavlinamv Australian official eastern time designation is `AEST`. Australians
do know this, and will use it when appropriate.
--
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/pu
> Sorry, I don't understand the question. The buildtime value is an actual
> value of package RPMTAG_BUILDTIME. Within packages of one branch (the branch
> name is stored in RPMTAG_DISTTAG with some other metainformation) ALT rpm
> compares buildtime of packages with the same NEVR, youngest pack
Conan-Kudo approved this pull request.
--
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/pull/799#pullrequestreview-269359569___
Rpm
601 - 700 of 1218 matches
Mail list logo
