@tarcieri , headers exist outside database iterators and such, and you really
dont want to require keeping potentially huge headers (tens of megabytes
possibly) in memory just in order to remember, say, a name of a package. Worse,
any data addition to a header can make the data retrieved with
And I've been telling you what I want: pull the bare minimum required compat
magic into rpm.
Remember the compatibility requirement for Lua is not a permanent thing but a
relatively short-term thing (1-2 years at most) and there's so little change in
our Lua department, new additions are hardly
Closed #122.
--
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/122#event-1578364709___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Closed #344.
--
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/344#event-1578577920___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Added to rpm-extras instead, as a part of bringing Fedora brp-scripts in:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm-extras/commit/273bb7004cda560a234a299c06636b762184e03e
Further discussion + refinement can be handled on that side, closing this one.
--
You are receiving this because you
Added the brp scripts to the rpm-extras repo. Further discussion and refinement
can happen there. Closing the PR here.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Thanks.
--
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/344#issuecomment-381957380___
Rpm-maint mailing list
The discussions about AUTOINSTALL are the basis for this RFE.
The obscure callback to re-read a package header should be reworked to permit
tags to be simply added (note added, not replaced) by applications when desired.
The simplest (I.e. least intrusive) interface I can think of is to save
@tarcieri: I am not particularly fond of XML either, but using headerFormat()
queryformat to export data from a header simplifies bindings for what is
usually desired: masses of RO metadata about rpm packages, an entirely well
understood programming technique.
Note that rpm -q --xml is also
@n3npq can't say I'm super thrilled with the prospects of replacing access to
an in-memory data structure with something based on XML
>As for handling tag data, you probably don't want to expose rpmtd to rust
>directly but convert to native representation [...]
> Worse, any data addition to a
@pmatilai someone brought to my attention today there is various confusion as
to what 'armv8' actually means (for a package type).
Does it mean traditional 32-bit ABI using instructions available on an 'ARMv8'
processor?
or does it mean using ILP32 ABI using all of the aarch64 instructions?
I think this makes most sense (and is what I implemented in the original patch):
armv8l == old ABI compatible with armv7l
armv8hl == old hardfloat EABI compatible with armv7hl
armv8hnl == armv8hl + neon, compatible with armv7hnl
armv8hcnl == armv8hnl + crypto extensions
ILP32, if properly
12 matches
Mail list logo
