Another related thing we could easily do is track the SCC member status in the
rpmte's themselves, and in case of a scriptlet failure, emit a special "this
could be due to a dependency loop" type message for packages in a deploop.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
And we're live now with
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3028 :partying_face:
For the morbidly curious, there was certainly more to clean up before that, the
major preparatory work being in
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2977,
This is actually quite closely related to #2204 which we now *have to* fix.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1878#issuecomment-2044523111
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
This beauty blocks %install -a/-p usage and doesn't work with Buildsystem: at
all, so it just went to the head of the priority queue.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2204#issuecomment-2044512305
You are receiving this
Merged #3028 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3028#event-12402731645
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
:see_no_evil:
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3028#issuecomment-2044380986
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint mailing
Hmm, ugh. We have a test for this very scenario (%build -a) in the test-suite,
but looking closer indeed the buildsystem %build is lost. It's just that
autotools "make install" masks the issue by building automatically since not
already done. We also have bunch of other tests for -a/-p modes,
@pmatilai pushed 1 commit.
4e5b6d0c8886376d6e1ccc90e80db80f0953d3a5 Remove the WITH_CXX option, this is a
one-way street
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3028/files/70505942562da081e207ea908e090bc7e1c095ff..4e5b6d0c8886376d6e1ccc90e80db80f0953d3a5
You
This is (very) obviously a case of "things will get worse before they get
better", these casts are just unsightly but most will go away once converted to
actual native C++.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
As per https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2983, here
goes.
More details in commits, but to summarize: add necessary casts to most of the
codebase to make it buildable with a c++ compiler, and then switch over to c++.
Exempt from this conversion are
- Python bindings:
Merged #3025 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3025#event-12401725294
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
Merged #3027 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3027#event-12401283018
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
@pmatilai pushed 2 commits.
203263be11a696cf68fe6036b8ab66eed7e2eee1 Add rpmdsIsSysuser() function for
testing and decoding sysusers provides
a5dcb847073bb09141d81c509a5320f22dbc60c1 Take advantage of rpmdsIsSysuser()
for the tag extension + psm code
--
View it on GitHub:
Yeah it'd be good to get rid of this stuff. There will be a soname bump for 6.0
so there's the next chance, it's not like anything besides rpm itself is likely
to use this silly API.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Merged #3026 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3026#event-12401260082
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
@pmatilai pushed 3 commits.
43f3f524ce49cb2033899bcbac96a6d2554d0743 Make rpmTagType an integer type to
avoid complications
3f3d29c13514c069ef18c587b6bd8d9161bb89fa Fixup enum/int mismatches in header
format extensions
b64f6829bd4fbbcf2b251199ff802d17496bfce7 Drop unnecessary initialization
@pmatilai pushed 1 commit.
c9eb1168ee87c51a19e8f9c690d5b03ae440d09a Fixup missed constification in Lua
readline callback
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3027/files/fce005ff536484795f411e4bf088320ebe178ed6..c9eb1168ee87c51a19e8f9c690d5b03ae440d09a
You
@pmatilai pushed 3 commits.
bcf0419d184d5e153c68eecd7985e04739bc4e5c Handle Lua header C++ guards
centrally in rpmlua.h
94be1b2f5270fbfce8fce23791ba65c9f442d513 Make rpmmacro_internal.h
self-standing, ie include what you use
fce005ff536484795f411e4bf088320ebe178ed6 Fix pointer bogosity in
@pmatilai pushed 1 commit.
39ff81eb2ce8de5fc5a3fdb801220a7264518f18 Fix pointer bogosity in rpmlog
callback
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3027/files/7cabc280e58bc3cacfa30c94a3cd163a351db13f..39ff81eb2ce8de5fc5a3fdb801220a7264518f18
You are receiving
@pmatilai pushed 5 commits.
ec42ecc12aa7d887684071d23be96f99440fa703 Avoid jumping over variable
declarations
90b1cc863e8e00feb941b0cb754cba52cb021100 Add c++ guard to ndb internal headers
249c5b1fa972a6aa7342810fc2ec14f06868f516 Use the actual rpmRC enum in ndb
where relevant for internal
@pmatilai pushed 1 commit.
6c78a520cf7b763ed2d8421c81d82bc5080ba176 Make rpmmacro_internal.h
self-standing, ie include what you use
--
View it on GitHub:
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3027
-- Commit Summary --
* Avoid jumping over variable declarations
* Add c++ guard to ndb internal headers
* Use the actual rpmRC enum in ndb where relevant for
@pmatilai pushed 2 commits.
295ef46eaada72a50a6e672e43970b91d7d28ac6 fixup! Add rpmdsIsSysuser() function
for testing and decoding sysusers provides
13bfbbca9c0657f2eae74814b64676748a6ee185 Take advantage of rpmdsIsSysuser()
for the tag extension + psm code
--
View it on GitHub:
De-duplicate the code between psm and tag extensions and let API users into the
loop too. More details in commit messages.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3025
-- Commit Summary --
* Add rpmdsIsSysuser()
Reopened #3001.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3001#event-12387084215
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mailing
Reopening - we want to track this for the next 4.19.x bugfix release.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3001#issuecomment-2041896059
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
Merged #3022 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3022#event-12374003496
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
Oh, I forgot there were all these loosely related steps listed in the
description.
Whatever happens in this space is not significant behavior changes by any
measure.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3022
-- Commit Summary --
* Avoid c++ reserved keywords, part II
* Pointer const correctness
* Avoid char * to string literal conversions related to rpmfcExec() argv
*
The dependency on XZ has always been optional in rpm, it's a matter of distro
choice and preferences.
Older Fedora and RHEL used XZ compression on the payload, but both default to
zstd nowadays. But, because XZ compressed content is quite common still,
disabling it would probably be seen as an
Merged #3019 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3019#event-12371438725
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
Merged #3020 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3020#event-12371118635
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
Based on a quick look, the changes did what I asked for so it's all good. If
you want to add extra tests later, that's of course okay.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2944#issuecomment-2039346604
You are receiving this
Ack, s*** happens. No worries.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2944#issuecomment-2039332804
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
@pmatilai pushed 9 commits.
e6f9853c2112c8e7258623ed901a3e6b0804e4ef Introduce and use RPMRICHOP_NONE to
fix int/enum mismatches
0a60357815b5bf0b49b245e4418a8e601804eacd Add c++ guards to internal headers
and sources as needed
290155872a509d017ae55f01255ecab36c78445b Avoid relying on
Another batch of delightful trivia to appease c++.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3019
-- Commit Summary --
* Eliminate anonymous embedded struct use in filelist
* Drop a redundant helper variable
*
It's not a bad idea. Gzip is getting a bit long in the tooth, and I guess all
distros moved to something better 10-15 years ago.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2919#discussioncomment-9017177
You are receiving this
Uh? This would be just an extra option, not replace any existing functionality.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1939#issuecomment-2038983260
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
The tag conflicts between signature and header are gone as of #3017, what
remains is to error out if tags >= 1000 are found in v6 signature header.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1570#issuecomment-2036760091
You are
Obsolete crypto tags are gone from v6 packages in #3017 , what remains to be
done is disabling validation on those by default.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1292#issuecomment-2036758478
You are receiving this because
Closed #864 as completed.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/864#event-12355475047
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
Done in #3017
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/864#issuecomment-2036747341
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint mailing
Done in #3017
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2368#issuecomment-2036746689
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint mailing
Closed #2368 as completed.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2368#event-12355469187
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
Merged #3017 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3017#event-12355437943
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
Here we go. Details in commits, and this is obviously nowhere near complete,
the v6 work will be on-going throughout the year.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3017
-- Commit Summary --
* Start a v6 format
Closed #2988.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2988#event-12355359872
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Merged #3016 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3016#event-12354439990
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
Let the floodgates open!
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3016
-- Commit Summary --
* Bump version to 5.99.90 to begin a new devel cycle
-- File Changes --
M CMakeLists.txt (2)
M
Not so fast it seems, I just got this:
```
+++ /srv/rpmtests.dir/at-groups/353/stderr 2024-04-04 08:40:58.419002150
+
@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
-error: Illegal char '*' (0x2a) in: *
+error: failed to write all data to /tmp/bad.req: Broken pipe
```
But at least it's now hinting at the problem.
Reopened #2470.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2470#event-12354300211
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mailing
Closed #2519 as completed via #3006.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2519#event-12352647496
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Merged #3006 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3006#event-12352647299
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
If this breaks something, we're not going to find it by studying this on a
petri-dish.
I'll merge and if all hell breaks loose in testing, we'll just revert the damn
thing.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Closed #1346 as completed via #3004.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1346#event-12352564431
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Merged #3004 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3004#event-12352564263
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
Closed #2816 as completed via ad0eb9a461bce444271d9cf18748e8de821a8960.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2816#event-12352560560
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
Merged #2990 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2990#event-12352560333
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
> I believe this is not true. I see no code in rpmbuild that would elevate UID
> to root. Nor any consolehelper. Nor setuid bits.
In the container.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3005#issuecomment-2036268291
You are
Having a separate short-circuit for check is fine, but it's NOT the same
benefit! I get that you look at the world through mock lenses, but not
everybody does :smile:
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@pmatilai approved this pull request.
Other than the dependencies doc nit, looks fine to me now.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2990#pullrequestreview-1978812025
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> @@ -25,6 +25,9 @@ user/group allocation altogether by using
## Dependencies
+Explict group membership (m) will create a dependency on both the user
+and the group name.
It's a bit weird to have this as the first thing in this section. I'd put it
Maybe not the greatest example but at least something:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/commit/5d4a476d14998f8f7ebc7e0c15a5263ca7803f5d
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2998#issuecomment-2034434069
You are
Doubly more embarrassing as you mentioned that in the ticket description
:laughing:
Will fix.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2998#issuecomment-2034411616
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this
Oh, thanks for pointing that out! I didn't even remember we have that in the
documentation (although it was written by me, so ... age doesn't come alone as
they say around here)
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
After a bit of pondering, filed
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3014 instead, we'll
revisit the aliases with this is fixed.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/3008#discussioncomment-8995444
You
I know the split is somewhat painful this way, but it was the least painful (or
only) way I could see to accomplish this within reasonable time/effort.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2984#issuecomment-2034208979
You are
Oh, I guess I wasn't clear: sure rpm-sequoia supports and exports all the
digest functionality rpm needs. What I mean is that it does NOT support using
libgcrypt/openssl from rpm side to do that.
libgcrypt/openssl digest support in rpm is only for the case where rpm-sequoia
is not available.
The sole reason for this exercise is to be able to build rpm *without*
rpm-sequoia.
rpm-sequoia doesn't support external digest, and wouldn't make much sense for
it to do so.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Closed #2998 as completed via #3002.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2998#event-12337492251
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Merged #3002 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3002#event-12337492048
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
Oh and update (some of) the tests to use the new macros, optimally add a new
one for the clamp_to_buildtime behavior.
The above nits aside, I'm not going to say no to a reproducible builds patch
that appears to have consensus from everybody :sweat_smile:
--
Reply to this email directly or
After a few nights sleep - sorry but no. It'd be this strange macro you can
never use because something else might be relying on it. Just like you
shouldn't be overriding %_fixperms for your use because it breaks other things.
The idea of a pre/post action slots for macros and whatnot is not a
Closed #2961.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2961#event-12336249093
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> @@ -240,10 +240,12 @@ Supplements: (%{name} = %{version}-%{release} and
> langpacks-%{1})\
# Is ignored when SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is not set.
%use_source_date_epoch_as_buildtime 0
-# If true, make sure that timestamps in built rpms
-#
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
>
-/* Limit the maximum date to SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH if defined
- * similar to the tar --clamp-mtime option
- * https://reproducible-builds.org/specs/source-date-epoch/
- */
-if (srcdate &&
Coming to the conclusion that it's just not worth the trouble right now. I'll
revive this once we've fixed the order (filed a ticket for that)
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3011#issuecomment-2033714434
You are receiving
Closed #3011.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3011#event-12336023902
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
And, once we do, revive https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3011
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3014#issuecomment-2033713203
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
Sources and patches are stored in a singly linked list with front insertion in
the spec parser, and this implementation detail leaks into packages and rpmspec
queries: PATCH and SOURCE tags are in reverse order.
Technically changing the order *could* break somebody's carefully crafted
script
The thought crossed my mind too, I'm a bit torn on this all.
Sure, reverting the order in the aliases would be safe. But, it seems like a
bug that we're storing them in reverse order in the package in the first place,
and something we should fix instead. But, that'd break it for the alleged
Apologies for this not progressing anywhere, but the time in between has
confirmed that something like this will need a general purpose use-case in rpm
itself so that it can be regularly tested.
We'll be exploring this area in the future, but this isn't the time, we need to
focus on v6. I'm
Closed #2416.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2416#event-12335589169
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Apologies for this not progressing anywhere, but the time in between has
confirmed that something like this will need a general purpose use-case in rpm
itself so that it can be regularly tested.
We'll be exploring this area in the future, but this isn't the time, we need to
focus on v6. I'm
Closed #2557.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2557#event-12335587655
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
I thought I made it pretty damn clear in
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2378#issuecomment-1411912184:
this is not functionality that we want to see or maintain in rpm. Period.
Copy-on-write is an interesting technology in itself and we'll be exploring
that in the future,
Closed #3007.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3007#event-12335494693
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
That mock does something is not a reason to not improve rpmbuild security and
package/packaging sanity enforcement. A test-suite modifying what gets packaged
is simply *horribly wrong*, even if it's by accident. If we can catch that,
then we should. That's a no-brainer to me.
--
Reply to this
Merged #3013 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3013#event-12326180710
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
Right, I remember coming across this and thinking about removing and then
postponing for whatever reason, and here we are. The positive thing is that
while it's in the API, it's not in the ABI, so we can remove without soname
bumps. Indeed nobody should be using it, and by the looks of things
@pmatilai pushed 1 commit.
f824484589b8260a59dab0265fe41901c399a4c6 Ensure binary pkg headers are
identified as such after a spec parse
--
View it on GitHub:
@pmatilai pushed 2 commits.
2831368e2b7858047e9668ef126034faf6215dce Ensure source headers are identified
as such after a spec parse
e5184ba0ad9149e72c2f076f618053157927c4b9 Ensure binary pkg headers are
identified as such after a spec parse
--
View it on GitHub:
Added a second commit there to deal with RPMTAG_SOURCERPM too:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3012/commits/cb47d1e144cb0e83c715086423785c03f0ec51c4
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@pmatilai pushed 1 commit.
cb47d1e144cb0e83c715086423785c03f0ec51c4 Populate RPMTAG_SOURCERPM early to
allow binaries to be identified
--
View it on GitHub:
Aaargh, except that the issue here was not positively identifying source
headers but binaries :facepalm:
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2995#issuecomment-2031869298
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to
Nice to see somebody besides ourselves being excited about this :smile:
And yeah that is really a big part of the point: rpm's data structures aren't
really that exotic, but to someone new it's all lost in the details of this
specific implementation, and then we have like three different
BTW it's worth noting that both the patches and sources appear in a reverse
order to how they're introduced in the spec. This is basically an internal
implementation detail (linked list operation) leaking into the packages, but
because it's always been that way, "fixing" would silently break
@pmatilai pushed 1 commit.
11599c994b870444ac3cbffb61a8256152f9f27a fixup! Ensure source headers are
identified as such after a spec parse
--
View it on GitHub:
Heh, so a more careful reading of the report... the userid is *intentionally*
removed here.
So assuming that's a reasonable thing to do (considering where these keys are
coming from), the minimal fix would probably be this instead:
```
- digps[count]->userid =
Oh and, thanks @signed-log for reporting!
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3001#issuecomment-2031692954
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
201 - 300 of 7772 matches
Mail list logo
