Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE Make variable sets a first-class rpm citizen (#573)
The problem is that nothing like this exists in rpm internally. The spec is such an organigally grown hodgepodge that its simply impossible to impose structure on where it does not exist. Having sub-package information in meaningfully accessible data structures sounds like a job for spec-ng, and actual programming language bindings to it. This is well beyond what simple macros can or should be able to 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/573#issuecomment-603304916___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE Make variable sets a first-class rpm citizen (#573)
Closed #573. -- 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/573#event-3160188654___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Should python(abi) be provided by the interpreter or something else? (#395)
Sorry for not being more helpful but we as rpm upstream does not really know what is best for Python packaging. So any solution that works for the Python packaging community is fine with us. Closing. -- 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/395#issuecomment-603303273___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Should python(abi) be provided by the interpreter or something else? (#395)
Closed #395. -- 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/395#event-3160176246___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Rpm query causes corruption in the file-backed mmaped bdb regions (#232)
Closed #232. -- 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/232#event-3160168125___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Rpm query causes corruption in the file-backed mmaped bdb regions (#232)
Making BDB more reliable would require using transactions there, but this would be an incompatible change, which is the last thing we want to do at this point when we're basically just about to deprecate BDB. Which means we cannot do anything about this, on Berkeley DB backend, unfortunately. If other database backends (ndb and sqlite to be exact) were to exhibit such behavior, please file separate bugs. -- 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/232#issuecomment-603302322___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Autotrim leading and ending empty lines in description, shrink multiple intermediary empty lines to one, also %{text: } (#566)
We really don't want to get into the business of string formatting and text layout. Closing. -- 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/566#issuecomment-603301979___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Autotrim leading and ending empty lines in description, shrink multiple intermediary empty lines to one, also %{text: } (#566)
Closed #566. -- 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/566#event-3160165222___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: include only used debuginfo files even if _debuginfo_subpackages is disabled (#294)
Or drop the support for old style debuginfo 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/issues/294#issuecomment-603299895___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE OptionalBuildRequires (#577)
The issue here is that we do not actually want a weak dependency. The build should not depend on some package availability in the direct sense. We probably want to bind the dependency to something more robust. -- 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/577#issuecomment-603271381___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE OptionalBuildRequires (#577)
There's a use-case here alright, but I've a feeling the solution is something quite different. -- 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/577#issuecomment-603269558___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Please add a standard way to dump spec variable definitions to macro files in %prep (#581)
Closed #581. -- 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/581#event-3159838486___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Please add a standard way to dump spec variable definitions to macro files in %prep (#581)
Looks like successor the the PR above got merged into redhat-rpm-config. Closing. -- 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/581#issuecomment-603261278___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] hardlinked symlinks (#418)
Well, this may be technically a regression. But these packages can no longer be created for quite some time. So we are not adding support for them back now. Sorry. -- 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/418#issuecomment-603254902___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] hardlinked symlinks (#418)
Closed #418. -- 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/418#event-3159785228___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: read sources checksums from the SPEC file and verify them (#463)
But, yeah, maybe you guys have some other/better solution in mind. Idk. -- 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/463#issuecomment-603244500___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: read sources checksums from the SPEC file and verify them (#463)
Cool, ok, I admit I am not sure how big deal is the macOS compatibility. I think if somebody complains that the feature doesn't work there, it would be a reason to instead use some c library for the checksum validation. Maybe that could be done immediately? I would still consider relying on coreutils a good start. -- 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/463#issuecomment-603237373___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: read sources checksums from the SPEC file and verify them (#463)
> Alright but I think we are maybe tracking different goals then :). I thought > the issue was about making `%_disable_source_fetch 0` reliable. It's what the > original post suggested to me. It is about that. We don't want to operate on sources unless they've been validated to be good. That means no doing `%prep`, `%generate_buildrequires`, etc. until validated if rpm is downloading the sources. -- 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/463#issuecomment-603234237___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: read sources checksums from the SPEC file and verify them (#463)
> > We could use a bit of bash code `%([ "$(sha256sum
> > | cut -d " " -f 1)" = ])` to do the verification per downloaded
> > source
>
> Yep, something like this is where I was heading to.
>
> > but i think `` might be slightly tricky unless rpm
> > exposes enviroment variable like 'SOURCES'
>
> RPM exposes `%{SOURCE1}` right after it appears in the specfile.
>
> > All urls that are now pointing to upstream would need to change to point to
> > dist-git lookaside cache if the rpm mechanism for downloading should be
> > used instead of the fedpkg one.
>
> No, the `%{SOURCE1}` points to the rpmbuild directory, not to the URL. I
> don't think that fetching sources by RPM is really in question here, but it
> could be used.
Alright but I think we are maybe tracking different goals then :). I thought
the issue was about making `%_disable_source_fetch 0` reliable. It's what the
original post suggested to me.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/463#issuecomment-603225969___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: read sources checksums from the SPEC file and verify them (#463)
> We could use a bit of bash code `%([ "$(sha256sum |
> cut -d " " -f 1)" = ])` to do the verification per downloaded
> source
Yep, something like this is where I was heading to.
> but i think `` might be slightly tricky unless rpm
> exposes enviroment variable like 'SOURCES'
RPM exposes `%{SOURCE1}` right after it appears in the specfile.
> All urls that are now pointing to upstream would need to change to point to
> dist-git lookaside cache if the rpm mechanism for downloading should be used
> instead of the fedpkg one.
No, the `%{SOURCE1}` points to the rpmbuild directory, not to the URL. I don't
think that fetching sources by RPM is really in question here, but it could be
used.
--
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/463#issuecomment-603221205___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: read sources checksums from the SPEC file and verify them (#463)
On macOS, there is not a consistent interface for doing checksums via CLI. I'm unsure if AIX and other platforms would also have similar problems. -- 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/463#issuecomment-603219133___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add a CI target to make for easy local running, improve caching (#1135)
Merged #1135 into master. -- 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/1135#event-3159498632___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: read sources checksums from the SPEC file and verify them (#463)
Hmm, on Fedora: ``` $ dnf repoquery --requires rpm Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:08 ago on Tue 24 Mar 2020 01:34:47 PM CET. /usr/bin/bash /usr/bin/db_stat /usr/bin/sh coreutils curl libarchive.so.13()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) libpopt.so.0()(64bit) libpopt.so.0(LIBPOPT_0)(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) librpm.so.9()(64bit) librpmio.so.9()(64bit) popt(x86-64) >= 1.10.2.1 rtld(GNU_HASH) ``` I can see coreutils there. So I guess you mean on other distributions...if you can name those and where `sha512sum` and similar checksum checking utils can be found, that would be great! Generally speakingIs adding dependency to rpm for checksum checking utilities a big deal? It seems to me that it is something that rpm could support. -- 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/463#issuecomment-603214751___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add a CI target to make for easy local running, improve caching (#1135)
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1135 -- Commit Summary -- * Move CI copy to later for more caching opportunities * Add a ci make target for easy local running -- File Changes -- M Makefile.am (5) M ci/Dockerfile (4) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1135.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1135.diff -- 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/1135 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: read sources checksums from the SPEC file and verify them (#463)
RPM does not *specifically* require GNU coreutils. And `sha256sum` and friends are _not_ specifically available on all platforms RPM is used on. -- 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/463#issuecomment-603212237___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: read sources checksums from the SPEC file and verify them (#463)
> @voxik That is for verifying GPG signatures if they exist, and yes, it > requires `gnupg2` as a build dependency in that scenario. But if that was macro included in RPM, RPM would probably grow the dependency, so it would not need BR. So I still think this could be way forward. -- 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/463#issuecomment-603203878___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Migrate away from Zanata (#1131)
It make sense. Here are some information to help you to make your choice. Using Fedora instance only requires user to have a FAS account. No complex workflows or approval of any kind. Benefits I see is consistency with ecosystem (mostly RPM). And have a structured community to interact with. We are consistent with Fedora values: we translate upstream content, and not what is specific to Fedora. We do host projects outside of Fedora perimeter. Just part of the Linux ecosystem (such as pulseaudio). If translate.fedoraproject.org isn't your choice, hosted.weblate.org may also host you if you ask them. Just ping me if you need advices in your migration (wherever you go). -- 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/1131#issuecomment-603180769___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Sqlite backend's prefix match cannot deal with '%' characters (#1018)
Being somewhat slower doesn't make it wrong. I'd rather leave it alone unless the performance actually turns out to be a problem. -- 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/1018#issuecomment-603176456___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Deprecate Berkeley DB backend and beecrypt support (#1129)
Trying to behave a civilized upstream for a change, and deprecate features before removing? :grin: -- 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/1129#issuecomment-603174121___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: read sources checksums from the SPEC file and verify them (#463)
@voxik That is for verifying GPG signatures if they exist, and yes, it requires `gnupg2` as a build dependency in that scenario. -- 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/463#issuecomment-603171003___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Deprecate Berkeley DB backend and beecrypt support (#1129)
@pmatilai Why didn't we just remove beecrypt? It's not like bdb where it has drastic consequences for users whether it's available or not, and with having libgcrypt, we don't need it 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/1129#issuecomment-603168597___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] First iteration of a 4.14.3 update release (#1078)
This pull request **fixes 1 alert** when merging a2576ab6fe8676cd9b15a3836590069b21d80713 into 4a9440006398646583f0d9ae1837dad2875013aa - [view on LGTM.com](https://lgtm.com/projects/g/rpm-software-management/rpm/rev/pr-ddb4e54a84b9df329c644492b1256d7b6550da5f) **fixed alerts:** * 1 for FIXME comment -- 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/1078#issuecomment-603168720___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Migrate away from Zanata (#1131)
@pmatilai You'll then need to sign up for something with weblate.org. -- 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/1131#issuecomment-603166548___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Sqlite backend's prefix match cannot deal with '%' characters (#1018)
I learned a bit more about sqlite in another project. Turns out that using a custom match function is much slower than the LIKE version, because of sqlite's LIKE optimization: https://www.sqlite.org/optoverview.html#the_like_optimization So I think we should go back to use LIKE and escape the % and _ characters. -- 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/1018#issuecomment-603164781___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Sqlite backend's prefix match cannot deal with '%' characters (#1018)
Reopened #1018. -- 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/1018#event-3159073617___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] error: parse error in expression: %{__isa_bits} == 64 (#1133)
Thank you for the explanation.
> 0%{__isa_bits} == 64 should be the proper syntax.
BTW, I used originally "%if %{__isa_bits} == 64" as I found it in the official
documentation [here](https://rpm.org/user_doc/arch_dependencies.html). Please
consider to correct it, if without `0` it is somehow incorrect.
--
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/1133#issuecomment-603164609___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] First iteration of a 4.14.3 update release (#1078)
@ffesti pushed 2 commits. f5464cd88bbd6ce6315d4081953382fa6dc3c84b CI Dockerfile: Move copy command to a later time a2576ab6fe8676cd9b15a3836590069b21d80713 CI: enbale Python bindings -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1078/files/48ee0c3ad781e2686cbc3cca5341443322cb3e5f..a2576ab6fe8676cd9b15a3836590069b21d80713 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: add database change notification API (#1124)
A linux specific way would be to offer some functions around inotify(). We can also try something more generic: We could create a named pipe in /var/lib/rpm. At the start of the transaction we open the pipe O_WRONLY, at the end we simply close the fd. Some other process that wants to be notified can open the named pipe with O_RDONLY|O_NONBLOCK and then use poll/select on the fd. (Reading will not block for some reason if there is no writer.) When rpm opens the named pipe for writing nothing will happen, but closing it will make all the select/poll users get a read event (because of the EOF). -- 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/1124#issuecomment-603157916___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] error: parse error in expression: %{__isa_bits} == 64 (#1133)
Closed #1133. -- 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/1133#event-3158875309___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] error: parse error in expression: %{__isa_bits} == 64 (#1133)
You can't use ISA macros in a noarch package. That it only fails in koji could be considered a bug in how rpm loads the platform macros unless specifically using --target (which is what koji does), but that's beyond the scope here. -- 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/1133#issuecomment-603138796___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] error: parse error in expression: %{__isa_bits} == 64 (#1133)
Both versions:
- [%if %{__isa_bits} ==
64](https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fixedptc/c/d9cb4b48e03e49b8865b20dacbfb81ef3192896a?branch=a420237f72f3d48a762fa6e967d3c38a443d59b0)
- works on rawhide on local mock and
[copr](https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/dwrobel/fixedptc/build/1315874/)
and fails on
[koji](https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=42724782).
- [%if 0%{__isa_bits} >=
64](https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fixedptc/c/a420237f72f3d48a762fa6e967d3c38a443d59b0?branch=a420237f72f3d48a762fa6e967d3c38a443d59b0)
- works on rawhide on local mock and
[copr](https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/dwrobel/fixedptc/build/1315877/)
and fails on
[koji](https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=42736337)
koji log (excerpt):
```
error: parse error in expression: 0%{__isa_bits} >= 64
error: ^
error: /builddir/build/SPECS/fixedptc.spec:57: bad %if condition:
0%{__isa_bits} >= 64
```
How this can be explained?
--
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/1133#issuecomment-603135521___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: read sources checksums from the SPEC file and verify them (#463)
> I actually wonder, why the check is done in `%prep`. This might be due to `BR: gnupg2`, have not investigated this. -- 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/463#issuecomment-603109642___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: read sources checksums from the SPEC file and verify them (#463)
Thinking further about this, do we actually need something really fancy as special tag? For example, it is quite easy to check if the checksums in the dist-git sources file are correct during `rpmbuild -bs`. It is enough to put `%(sha512sum -c sources)` somewhere into specfile preamble. If the checksums are not correct then the `rpmbuild -bs` fails. Looking at [Verifying Signatures](https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_verifying_signatures) Fedora guidelines, I actually wonder, why the check is done in `%prep`. Maybe something like this macro should be placed right bellow the sources in preamble. -- 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/463#issuecomment-603108934___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] First iteration of a 4.14.3 update release (#1078)
This pull request **fixes 1 alert** when merging 48ee0c3ad781e2686cbc3cca5341443322cb3e5f into 4a9440006398646583f0d9ae1837dad2875013aa - [view on LGTM.com](https://lgtm.com/projects/g/rpm-software-management/rpm/rev/pr-f6f7bf051c077acd3fc3b1f8981a30c22997b4fe) **fixed alerts:** * 1 for FIXME comment -- 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/1078#issuecomment-603084130___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Migrate away from Zanata (#1131)
Ok, thought so - as a principle, rpm cannot use distro-specific instances to maintain an air of an independent upstream. -- 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/1131#issuecomment-603081567___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] First iteration of a 4.14.3 update release (#1078)
@ffesti pushed 1 commit. 48ee0c3ad781e2686cbc3cca5341443322cb3e5f Add python2-devel to CI root -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1078/files/d697e9203b7e9a137febe2a29aaf99adb4ed84c4..48ee0c3ad781e2686cbc3cca5341443322cb3e5f ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Nuke leftover LMDB references in Makefile.am and Dockerfile (#1134)
Merged #1134 into master. -- 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/1134#event-3158426601___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Nuke leftover LMDB references in Makefile.am and Dockerfile (#1134)
Argh. When a thing starts going wrong... Anyway, 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/1134#issuecomment-603078464___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Migrate away from Zanata (#1131)
@pmatilai https://translate.fedoraproject.org/projects/dnf/ -- 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/1131#issuecomment-603074865___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Nuke leftover LMDB references in Makefile.am and Dockerfile (#1134)
Shouldve been in commit 7de982ac0957c42f228b43685d9f486e55eac331 You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1134 -- Commit Summary -- * Nuke leftover LMDB references in Makefile.am and Dockerfile -- File Changes -- M Makefile.am (1) M ci/Dockerfile (2) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1134.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1134.diff -- 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/1134 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Migrate away from Zanata (#1131)
Hold your horses - what exactly is dnf using? Weblate okay, but which instance? -- 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/1131#issuecomment-603062657___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Bump libtool version info in preparation of 4.16.x branch (d210659)
No, the change is exactly as intended. When in doubt, I suggest to check what it *actually* does. The libtool version info is not equal to what ends up in the soname. -- 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/commit/d21065956aef6cdd3ab83303b4fb71039c17221b#commitcomment-38010111___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
