I am predicting this will break multiple packages in Fedora, but I think this
would be good behavior.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
hroncok commented on this pull request.
> @@ -178,8 +178,10 @@
depsextras.remove(dep)
deps = depsextras
# console_scripts/gui_scripts entry points need pkg_resources from
setuptools
-if
gordonmessmer commented on this pull request.
> @@ -178,8 +178,10 @@
depsextras.remove(dep)
deps = depsextras
# console_scripts/gui_scripts entry points need pkg_resources from
setuptools
-if
See
https://refspecs.linuxbase.org/LSB_3.1.1/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/pkgformat.html
covers the fundamentals of rpm package file format,
http://ftp.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-file-format-rpm-file-format.html has more
background and rationale about the evolution.
But as ffesti already
Closed #974.
--
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/974#event-2917182677___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Thanks for the patch!
--
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/991#issuecomment-570147630___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Oh my.
I'm not exactly overjoyed about the idea of having custom BDB reader code in
rpm, but given the alternatives, it actually looks almost pretty :grin:
Oh and our database team will love you forever for this.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to
> ```
> 5 files changed, 837 insertions(+)
> ```
>
> :/
To put it into perspective:
```
$ find db-5.3.28 -name "*.[ch]" |wc -l
1037
```
In other words, this is fewer lines than the BDB has *source files*.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this
Um. What exactly does this thing *do*?
--
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/992#issuecomment-570154231___
Rpm-maint
@pmatilai
Original patch header information:
```
- vpkg-provides.sh, vpkg-provides2.sh: Use tempfile(1) for safe creation
of all temporary files. Many changes and untested. These scripts do not
work on linux anyway.
-- Joey Hess Thu, 19 Dec 2002 00:31:10 -0500
```
For what
> In other words, this is fewer lines than the BDB has source files.
This is a wonderful and equally terrifying statistic.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@KOLANICH That's really not the point. And webarchive systems do not
necessarily have this indexed.
The correct thing to do here would be to change the commit to have relevant
information:
```
$ git commit --amend --author="Michal Čihař " --date="Tue, 30
Dec 2014 11:55:15 +0100"
```
With the
@KOLANICH Here's a suggestion:
```
$ git commit --amend --author="Michal Čihař " --date="Sat, 11
Nov 2017 14:27:10 +0100"
```
With the following commit message:
```
tools/sepdebugcrcfix: Conditionally use MAP_POPULATE with mmap()
Not all architectures offer MAP_POPULATE. As MAP_POPULATE is
It really is :joy:
Actually the above stats are a bit off, because the Fedora sources include
db-1.85 compat. But the point does hold even with a pristine BDB tarball: it
has 894 *.[ch] source files. And that's missing quite a bit of other stuff, the
tarball has 9241 files in total (including
Yup, commit messages must be self-contained. Providing external links for
additional background data such as originating bug report is fine, but not
sufficient.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@pmatilai I'm pretty sure I'm going to want this for transitioning OpenMandriva
away from BDB. We're using db6 (even though I didn't want to...), and with the
latest versions of DNF okay with non-BDB, I can finally start considering it...
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to
Closed #983.
--
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/983#event-2917390343___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Since the fix that went into git is exactly what was proposed here as a
verified fix I think we can safely close this now.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@pmatilai The code works surprisingly well for me (which is terrifying and
awesome in itself), but I think I'd be more comfortable with this if it
conflicted with the regular bdb backend option.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly
Please squash the commits, we don't want two separate commits for this. Also
it'd be good to have the original author mentioned - surely Debian has package
change history available somewhere?
Other than that, mktemp seems pretty obviously right thing to do here. The only
question is whether
> How do you propose to change it?
Just note that MAP_POPULATE is safe to drop in this manner as it's only an
optimization, so future generations won't need to chase it down.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
On 12/23/19 6:09 PM, Thierry Vignaud wrote:
Hi
The attached patch fixes the zstd magic bytes detection.
I spot it while adding support for zstd compressed metadata in
URPM/urpmi, which was broken by this typo…
Thanks
(done against 4.15.x but should apply cleany to master)
Merged via
Also... It appears `mktemp(1)` does not exist on AIX, which might be why this
script doesn't use it.
Cf.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/10224921/how-to-create-a-temporary-file-with-portable-shell-in-a-secure-way
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply
Well, that's a good point. We'd be rendering this script unusable for what it
does by making it "more correct" on Linux where it's not even supposed to be
used at all. We also don't actually install these scripts since 2007 (see
commit 4e52d18de873a861447a589f52c85de2326cd863) so I think it's
Fixed by #991
--
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/990#issuecomment-570168608___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Closed #990.
--
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/990#event-2917386231___
Rpm-maint mailing list
>Also it'd be good to have the original author mentioned - surely Debian has
>package change history available somewhere?
It is stored in [the form of the
patch](https://salsa.debian.org/pkg-rpm-team/rpm/raw/master/debian/patches/tempfile.patch)
in which it is written
>Description: Use the
@KOLANICH The patch was created by @joeyh in 2002, per `debian/changelog`.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Yup.
But more to the point: this file is not even installed anywhere. The patch was
added in 2002, and still applies because the file is in the source tree but it
hasn't been installed in the last 12 years.
Just drop the patch, and lets leave the patch as it is to avoid breaking
platforms to
Closed #987.
--
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/987#event-2917551976___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Per the packaging description from Mageia:
> rpmconstant provides basic functions to map internal RPM constant values
> with their name. This is useful for perl/python or other language which has
> binding over rpmlib.
Based on that description and what the code _looks_ like it does, it allows a
(as for why I'm filing this now... well, I forgot about this in the shuffle two
years ago, and I was just reminded of this again today...)
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
As part of some of the work I've done in OpenMandriva in transitioning the RPM
stack from rpm5.org to rpm.org RPM, I've discovered that there was an
_interesting_ behavioral difference with `%exclude`.
In rpm5.org RPM, `%exclude` does not give you a "get out of jail free" card to
bypass the
Yeah I can imagine it does *something* like that. But "internal RPM values"
doesn't sound sane at all - internals are internals for a reason. Tags have a
public API in librpm as it is, and lot of the other constants in headers you'd
only want to export to languages selectively if at all.
Perhaps @soig could explain rpmconstant use-cases? He's the maintainer of
rpmconstant and perl-RPM4...
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
35 matches
Mail list logo
