Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: New test suite and various updates and fixes (#1195)
As a short term thing, we just need to merge in the code, so other changes don't diverge too much. Not having the tests here is something that I'd rather avoid -- how do we expect everybody to remember that the tests are somewhere else? -- 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/1195#issuecomment-633852867___ 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 %postbuild section / Allow dynamic sub packages (#1239)
> I'd rather see this pushed to an external file entirely. That would > > * drive the intended usage home with a sledgehammer > > * make it easier to generate spec fragments from %build > > * simplify the parsing as you don't need to try not to parse a thing when > you're parsing that thing > > * be just as easy for complicated macro ecosystems > > > External files could maybe presented as spec tags (instead of sections) > resembling SOURCE, and thus allowing multiple files. Come to think of it, > you'd actually want to ship the generated spec fragments in an src.rpm for > reproducability / inspectability (this part will require some serious > thinking regardless of syntax details). So how about something like > > ``` > SpecN: > ``` > > ...where N > 0 because the spec itself is always 0. And these are then parsed > after the build phase, post %install more like it. The tag name should > probably indicate this somehow, but no ideas for that atm. I am not 100% sure why this rubs me the wrong way. It just doesn't feel right. A few thoughts and observations: It is hard to generate spec file fragments from within the spec. Just doing `echo > file
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: New test suite and various updates and fixes (#1195)
Maybe add a comment to the top of the script explaining the model: this is developed and tested at repository at `` and rpm only maintains a read-only copy of that, synced from time to time. At least that's how I perceive this thing. -- 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/1195#issuecomment-633880805___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: New test suite and various updates and fixes (#1195)
At any rate, I'm totally fine with merging just the code right now and worry about the rest later. -- 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/1195#issuecomment-633884333___ 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 %postbuild section / Allow dynamic sub packages (#1239)
> I am not 100% sure why this rubs me the wrong way. It just doesn't feel > right. A few thoughts and observations: I had a largely similar feeling about this PR so I fair enough :grinning: The answer is probably somewhere in the middle. > It is hard to generate spec file fragments from within the spec. Just doing > `echo > file < with a `%` and starts the new section right there - no matter wether you > thing you are still in `%build` or not. Sure this can be worked around but > it's really inconvenient. Right, certainly didn't think of this (generate spec fragments with shell-script from the spec) as a use-case at all, more or less because of that. I was thinking that these fragments would be created by external scripts - whether from upstream build system (similar to %files -f foo is often done) or macro systems. > I'd guess that there are use cases where the sub package declarations are not > entirely automatically created but they contain hand crafted pieces. I really > dislike this idea of these pieces moving to some files that are added as > Sources. All hand written spec syntax should be in the spec file itself IMHO. In principle I think hand written spec belonging to spec is a good guideline, I like (and agree with) that. I'm just having trouble seeing how this kind of part manual, part automatic thing would look like (without it being a terrible mess). Maybe there being kind of an "API" these things confirm to, like %generate_files, %generate_description etc which you can then call out as needed from between manual snippets. I dunno, just a random off the whack thought. > Then there is the question of saving the generated content. This is a tricky > one. I see that having this later one to understand how the package came to > be might be very useful. Otoh there is something very wrong there. First what > if the spec fragments are still "dynamic" in the sense that they do > calculation and includes on parsing. If they are not only generated from the > content of the build directory but actually use the build directory this will > not work. The next question is where would they actually live. If they are > created in the build dir they cannot be unpacked on SRPM installation. We'd > need a new subdir for them. Or have them generated in the SPEC dir - which > seem very wrong. Especially given that multiple package can step on each > others toes there. Yup, I realized yesterday evening that we don't save the content for any other dynamically generated content either, although its entirely possible to spawn thousands of lines of spec from a couple of lines of physical spec. So while this aspect does seem more important here (simply because of the size/scale), it's actually a separate topic. -- 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/1239#issuecomment-633899479___ 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 license to Python distutils module description (#1238)
Merged #1238 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/1238#event-3372608234___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] The rpm Python binding may be missing a license (#1236)
Closed #1236 via #1238. -- 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/1236#event-3372608246___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: New test suite and various updates and fixes (#1195)
@pmatilai So a couple of things here: 1. I don't really agree with the idea that pythondistdeps' primary development is in Fedora's `python-rpm-generators` (I never wanted it split out of rpm in the first place, but as I don't control its fate in Fedora, it happened despite my objections). I still consider the code in rpm to be the canonical version. That said, the Fedora Python SIG works from their downstream version _first_ and pushes it back up. That's not really different from when people work on their own packages first and push it back upstream. 2. Having tests in autotest isn't a terrible problem, except for I don't really if anyone really knows how to use autotest. I know it's the framework autotools has for it, but how do we test Python code with 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/1195#issuecomment-633909127___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: New test suite and various updates and fixes (#1195)
Ok, sounds good. I'll separate out the test suite. -- 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/1195#issuecomment-633908867___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: save the parsed spec in src.rpm (#1241)
With the trend of increasingly dynamic content generation for specs (currently via complex macros, in future automatic & dynamic sub packages, #329, #1222 etc) the originating spec and the parsed one might differ by hundreds of lines, making it really hard to grasp how we got from A to B. It seems we should store the parsed spec in the src.rpm somehow. IIRC this has actually been requested before but can't find the reference atm. -- 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/1241___ 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: save the parsed spec in src.rpm (#1241)
rpmSpecGetSection() returns it when passed RPMBUILD_NONE. Guess adding this to the API is what you remember even if it has been a while: ` c38504c4ba build/rpmspec.h (Panu Matilainen 2011-06-17 13:44:39 +0300 78) * As a special case, RPMBUILD_NONE as section returns the entire spec in c38504c4ba build/rpmspec.h (Panu Matilainen 2011-06-17 13:44:39 +0300 79) * preprocessed (macros expanded etc) format. ` -- 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/1241#issuecomment-633919663___ 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: save the parsed spec in src.rpm (#1241)
No, that was simply to support rpmspec --parse. There was a request to add the spec to the header, or something, someplace, but whether that request was for the *parsed* spec I don't recall. -- 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/1241#issuecomment-633920812___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: New test suite and various updates and fixes (#1195)
> 1. [...] That's not really different from when people work on their own > packages first and push it back upstream. Hmm, I thought this was in a separate repo actually, but I see it's just Fedora dist-git. Like noted in earlier comments, stuff developing their own test-suites is a certain step towards independence. > Having tests in autotest isn't a terrible problem, except for I don't really > if anyone really knows how to use autotest. I know it's the framework > autotools has for it, but how do we test Python code with it? Being an autotools project has little to do with it. Rpm's test-suite looks like voodoo because of the fakechroot integration, but that aside the autotest cases are nothing but shell script snippets followed by expected stdin/stderr + return code. What you do in that shell script space is totally up to you, and you can add arbitrary helper/wrappers to suit purpose. Our test-suite actually has wrappers to allow native Python code directly in the tests, take a look at https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/blob/master/tests/rpmpython.at and https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/blob/master/tests/rpmvercmp.at sometime. -- 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/1195#issuecomment-633925317___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Support ed25519 signatures (#1202)
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> @@ -168,7 +169,8 @@ typedef enum pgpPubkeyAlgo_e {
PGPPUBKEYALGO_EC = 18, /*!< Elliptic Curve */
PGPPUBKEYALGO_ECDSA= 19, /*!< ECDSA */
PGPPUBKEYALGO_ELGAMAL = 20, /*!< Elgamal */
-PGPPUBKEYALGO_DH = 21/*!< Diffie-Hellman (X9.42) */
+PGPPUBKEYALGO_DH = 21, /*!< Diffie-Hellman (X9.42) */
+PGPPUBKEYALGO_EDDSA= 22/*!< EdDSA */
Hmm, this ID isn't officially approved AFAICT, I was only able to find this
draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc4880bis/?include_text=1
If you have another source of information that actually confirms the ID
reservation, please add a pointer (to the commit message). Or does being in a
draft somehow protect the reservation (I'm not that familiar with IETF
processes)? Not sure we should add this as long as it's not official (although
since we're not actually generating such content, maybe its not that big a deal)
--
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/1202#pullrequestreview-418160205___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: New test suite and various updates and fixes (#1195)
> Being an autotools project has little to do with it. Rpm's test-suite looks > like voodoo because of the fakechroot integration, but that aside the > autotest cases are nothing but shell script snippets followed by expected > stdin/stderr + return code. What you do in that shell script space is totally > up to you, and you can add arbitrary helper/wrappers to suit purpose. Our > test-suite actually has wrappers to allow eg native Python code directly in > the tests, take a look at > https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/blob/master/tests/rpmpython.at > and > https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/blob/master/tests/rpmvercmp.at > sometime. So if we integrated the pythondistdeps test suite into the RPM test suite, you would be ok with merging it as well? The test suite would need to remain written in pytest of course, but from what you say, I can figure out to how to integrate a bash snippet that runs it. Because we (at least I) are not interested in creating a new upstream for pythondistdeps.py, so I would probably end up creating a repo only for the test suite, which is not great. -- 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/1195#issuecomment-633945967___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Support ed25519 signatures (#1202)
@mlschroe commented on this pull request.
> @@ -168,7 +169,8 @@ typedef enum pgpPubkeyAlgo_e {
PGPPUBKEYALGO_EC = 18, /*!< Elliptic Curve */
PGPPUBKEYALGO_ECDSA= 19, /*!< ECDSA */
PGPPUBKEYALGO_ELGAMAL = 20, /*!< Elgamal */
-PGPPUBKEYALGO_DH = 21/*!< Diffie-Hellman (X9.42) */
+PGPPUBKEYALGO_DH = 21, /*!< Diffie-Hellman (X9.42) */
+PGPPUBKEYALGO_EDDSA= 22/*!< EdDSA */
I don't know why this is not accepted yet. The draft is by Werner Koch, the gpg
upstream. It's the value gpg uses when you ask it to create a ed25519 pubkey
(you need the --expert --full-gen-key options for this).
gpg with EDDSA support is released since some years, so I don't see how the
value can change in the future.
--
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/1202#discussion_r430316926___
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 support for multiple, named OpenPGP signatures per package (#1050)
To clarify the new RPMTAG_OPENPGP tag a bit, the idea is that eventually *all*
OpenPGP signatures would be stored there, regardless of the public key
algorithm used. Having separate tags based on the underlying algorithm is nuts,
they're still all OpenPGP signatures, so it's the first step towards
eliminating these wacko queries (now imagine a few more supported algorithms
that *everybody* needs to check...):
> Signature :
> %|DSAHEADER?{%{DSAHEADER:pgpsig}}:{%|RSAHEADER?{%{RSAHEADER:pgpsig}}:{%|SIGGPG?{%{SIGGPG:pgpsig}}:{%|SIGPGP?{%{SIGPGP:pgpsig}}:{(none)}|}|}|}|\n\
I'm not sure if the "name" part really makes sense, or is it actually just
something weird that turns people away? OpenPGP signatures have User ID fields
including a "Signer's User ID" which can be used to state a signer role, so
perhaps we shouldn't be duplicating this at rpm level at all, instead just
actually implement this properly in the parser.
At which point the RPMTAG_OPENPGP would be just an array of base64-encoded
OpenPGP signatures on the header, and we should probably merge any
DSAHEADER/RSAHEADER tags into it when reading a package to unify it all.
So I'm starting to think I'll close this non-merged and go back to drawing
board, unless people suddenly jump in with use-cases for the name part.
--
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/1050#issuecomment-633951822___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Support ed25519 signatures (#1202)
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> @@ -168,7 +169,8 @@ typedef enum pgpPubkeyAlgo_e {
PGPPUBKEYALGO_EC = 18, /*!< Elliptic Curve */
PGPPUBKEYALGO_ECDSA= 19, /*!< ECDSA */
PGPPUBKEYALGO_ELGAMAL = 20, /*!< Elgamal */
-PGPPUBKEYALGO_DH = 21/*!< Diffie-Hellman (X9.42) */
+PGPPUBKEYALGO_DH = 21, /*!< Diffie-Hellman (X9.42) */
+PGPPUBKEYALGO_EDDSA= 22/*!< EdDSA */
Ok. Just add a note about this state of affairs (maybe with a reference to the
RFC draft) to the commit message, please. Other than that, I have no objections
to merging 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/pull/1202#discussion_r430325569___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: New test suite and various updates and fixes (#1195)
That's just the thing, I'm not at all okay with our tests spreading over multiple different test-suite systems. I can totally understand the desire to use what is a native tool for Python stuff, but we just can't have a situation where Perl, Python, OCaml etc scripts drag in their own test ecosystems to benefit one or two little scripts that have little to do with rpm itself. I also totally understand you don't want a separate repo for *just* the tests. Which is all part of the reason I think these things should live in their own language-specific repositories with related macros, generators and tests. This is one of those cases I really wish people would've ask beforehand. -- 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/1195#issuecomment-633964400___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: New test suite and various updates and fixes (#1195)
If the tests devolved to just using python's built-in unittest fixtures and autotest managed that, would that work? No extra deps in that case. -- 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/1195#issuecomment-633965648___ 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: split language specifics out of rpm core (#1199)
The ongoing discussion in #1195 points out yet another reason for doing this: people will want to use native language tools for their language-specific scripts. This is perfectly understandable, but impossible from our maintenance point of view. This topic keeps coming up in different forms so much that I'm simply sick of it, which does grave injustice to people wanting to contribute to their interest areas. So after further talks with @ffesti, the decision is this: we can't remove stuff from 4.16 at this point so we'll merge what we must there, but in 4.17 all these language-specific scripts will be pushed out to other repositories. Like @hroncok mentioned, Python will make for an excellent pioneer in this as there's an active and largish community around it, I'd suggest we start with that: we'll make a repo under rpm-software-management umbrella, and put the macros and generators there. We'll be branching off 4.16 by the end of this week, after that we can proceed. And if in a few years time this turns out to be an absolute disaster, we can always just merge things back. -- 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/1199#issuecomment-633979688___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: New test suite and various updates and fixes (#1195)
Don't bother. In the near future you can just use whatever you want for the tests: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1199#issuecomment-633979688 -- 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/1195#issuecomment-633988092___ 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: split language specifics out of rpm core (#1199)
To make these things discoverable, they should have a common naming scheme. I'd suggest rpm-extras-foo with the idea that things that have an active community around them will have their own repositories, and those that don't will go to rpm-extras. And yes this will require finally doing some integration with rpm-extras 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/issues/1199#issuecomment-633990512___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Support ed25519 signatures (#1202)
@mlschroe commented on this pull request.
> @@ -168,7 +169,8 @@ typedef enum pgpPubkeyAlgo_e {
PGPPUBKEYALGO_EC = 18, /*!< Elliptic Curve */
PGPPUBKEYALGO_ECDSA= 19, /*!< ECDSA */
PGPPUBKEYALGO_ELGAMAL = 20, /*!< Elgamal */
-PGPPUBKEYALGO_DH = 21/*!< Diffie-Hellman (X9.42) */
+PGPPUBKEYALGO_DH = 21, /*!< Diffie-Hellman (X9.42) */
+PGPPUBKEYALGO_EDDSA= 22/*!< EdDSA */
I added it to the header file, I hope that's also ok
--
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/1202#discussion_r430378716___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Support ed25519 signatures (#1202)
@mlschroe commented on this pull request.
> @@ -168,7 +169,8 @@ typedef enum pgpPubkeyAlgo_e {
PGPPUBKEYALGO_EC = 18, /*!< Elliptic Curve */
PGPPUBKEYALGO_ECDSA= 19, /*!< ECDSA */
PGPPUBKEYALGO_ELGAMAL = 20, /*!< Elgamal */
-PGPPUBKEYALGO_DH = 21/*!< Diffie-Hellman (X9.42) */
+PGPPUBKEYALGO_DH = 21, /*!< Diffie-Hellman (X9.42) */
+PGPPUBKEYALGO_EDDSA= 22/*!< EdDSA */
It's now also in the commit message ;)
--
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/1202#discussion_r430381333___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Support ed25519 signatures (#1202)
Just to xref, in ostree we recently merged an ed25519 signing system too: see https://github.com/ostreedev/ostree/issues/1233 and https://github.com/ostreedev/ostree/pull/1878 The main motivation apparently is that GPG being lgplv3 and carrying the patent clauses is problematic for some people making embedded systems. -- 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/1202#issuecomment-634008594___ 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 fsverity support (#1203)
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> @@ -430,6 +438,10 @@ typedef enum rpmSigTag_e {
RPMSIGTAG_SHA256 = RPMTAG_SHA256HEADER,
RPMSIGTAG_FILESIGNATURES = RPMTAG_SIG_BASE + 18,
RPMSIGTAG_FILESIGNATURELENGTH = RPMTAG_SIG_BASE + 19,
+RPMSIGTAG_VERITYSIGNATURES = RPMTAG_SIG_BASE + 20,
+RPMSIGTAG_VERITYSIGNATURELENGTH= RPMTAG_SIG_BASE + 21,
+RPMSIGTAG_VERITYSIGNATUREALGO = RPMTAG_SIG_BASE + 22,
+RPMSIGTAG_VERITYSIGNATUREBLKSZ = RPMTAG_SIG_BASE + 23,
RPMSIGTAG_FILESIGNATURES is not a good example on this, that's the *very* old
and bad way. Define the RPMSIGTAG_* values to the corresponding RPMTAG_* values
instead, eg like RPMSIGTAG_SHA256 does.
--
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/1203#pullrequestreview-418274610___
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 fsverity support (#1203)
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> @@ -430,6 +438,10 @@ typedef enum rpmSigTag_e {
RPMSIGTAG_SHA256 = RPMTAG_SHA256HEADER,
RPMSIGTAG_FILESIGNATURES = RPMTAG_SIG_BASE + 18,
RPMSIGTAG_FILESIGNATURELENGTH = RPMTAG_SIG_BASE + 19,
+RPMSIGTAG_VERITYSIGNATURES = RPMTAG_SIG_BASE + 20,
+RPMSIGTAG_VERITYSIGNATURELENGTH= RPMTAG_SIG_BASE + 21,
+RPMSIGTAG_VERITYSIGNATUREALGO = RPMTAG_SIG_BASE + 22,
+RPMSIGTAG_VERITYSIGNATUREBLKSZ = RPMTAG_SIG_BASE + 23,
The other thing here is: do we really need all these tags? Isn't length easily
calculable from the actual signature, and does the block size actually matter
for rpm? As in, can we not just decide that we use 4096 as the page size for
rpm's purposes and that's 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/1203#discussion_r430400205___
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 fsverity support (#1203)
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> +}
+
+rpmlog(RPMLOG_DEBUG, _("key: %s\n"), key);
+rpmlog(RPMLOG_DEBUG, _("cert: %s\n"), cert);
+
+compr = headerGetString(h, RPMTAG_PAYLOADCOMPRESSOR);
+rpmio_flags = rstrscat(NULL, "r.", compr ? compr : "gzip", NULL);
+
+gzdi = Fdopen(fdDup(Fileno(fd)), rpmio_flags);
+free(rpmio_flags);
+if (!gzdi)
+ rpmlog(RPMLOG_DEBUG, _("Fdopen() failed\n"));
+
+files = rpmfilesNew(NULL, h, RPMTAG_BASENAMES, RPMFI_FLAGS_QUERY);
+fi = rpmfiNewArchiveReader(gzdi, files,
+ RPMFI_ITER_READ_ARCHIVE_OMIT_HARDLINKS);
Mmh. Reading through the entire archive unpacking things as we go is expensive
and very much out of the ordinary for signing.
Could you instead use rpm's file hash algorithm for the purpose, ie if rpm's
file digests are sha256 then use that for verity too so you don't need to
recalculate?
--
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/1203#pullrequestreview-418292313___
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 fsverity support (#1203)
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> @@ -116,8 +116,12 @@ struct rpmfiles_s {
int digestalgo;/*!< File digest algorithm */
int signaturelength; /*!< File signature length */
+int veritysiglength; /*!< Verity signature length */
+uint16_t verityalgo; /*!< Verity signature length */
+uint32_t verityblksz; /*!< Verity signature length */
Comments seem copy-pasted, I doubt these are all about length :)
--
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/1203#pullrequestreview-418292899___
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 fsverity support (#1203)
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> +digest_hex = pgpHexStr(digest->digest, digest->digest_size);
+rpmlog(RPMLOG_DEBUG, _("file(size %li): %s: digest(%i): %s, idx %i\n"),
+ file_size, rpmfiFN(fi), digest->digest_size, digest_hex,
+ rpmfiFX(fi));
+
+free(digest_hex);
+
+memset(&sig_params, 0, sizeof(struct libfsverity_signature_params));
+sig_params.keyfile = key;
+sig_params.certfile = cert;
+if (libfsverity_sign_digest(digest, &sig_params, &sig, sig_size)) {
+ rpmlog(RPMLOG_DEBUG, _("failed to sign digest\n"));
+ goto out;
+}
+
+sig_hex = pgpHexStr(sig, *sig_size);
Here too, IMA file signatures set a bad example. Use base64 encoded strings
instead of hex, it's much more space efficient (and IMA should be changed to
that as well)
--
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/1203#pullrequestreview-418294777___
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 fsverity support (#1203)
@pmatilai commented on this pull request. > @@ -71,6 +71,18 @@ void headerMergeLegacySigs(Header h, Header sigh) case RPMSIGTAG_FILESIGNATURELENGTH: td.tag = RPMTAG_FILESIGNATURELENGTH; break; + case RPMSIGTAG_VERITYSIGNATURES: + td.tag = RPMTAG_VERITYSIGNATURES; + break; + case RPMSIGTAG_VERITYSIGNATURELENGTH: + td.tag = RPMTAG_VERITYSIGNATURELENGTH; + break; + case RPMSIGTAG_VERITYSIGNATUREALGO: + td.tag = RPMTAG_VERITYSIGNATUREALGO; + break; + case RPMSIGTAG_VERITYSIGNATUREBLKSZ: + td.tag = RPMTAG_VERITYSIGNATUREBLKSZ; + break; RPMSIGTAG_FILESIGNATURELENGTH is the wrong example to follow here, for all new tags the signature and main header tags should be the same value so no translation is needed, ie how SHA1/SHA256/RSA/DSA are handled. -- 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/1203#pullrequestreview-418299557___ 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 fsverity support (#1203)
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> @@ -396,6 +397,16 @@ static void deleteSigs(Header sigh)
headerDel(sigh, RPMSIGTAG_PGP5);
}
+static void deleteFileSigs(Header sigh)
+{
+headerDel(sigh, RPMSIGTAG_FILESIGNATURELENGTH);
+headerDel(sigh, RPMSIGTAG_FILESIGNATURES);
+headerDel(sigh, RPMTAG_VERITYSIGNATURELENGTH);
+headerDel(sigh, RPMTAG_VERITYSIGNATURES);
+headerDel(sigh, RPMTAG_VERITYSIGNATUREALGO);
+headerDel(sigh, RPMTAG_VERITYSIGNATUREBLKSZ);
This deals with a signature header, so RPMSIGTAG_* values should be used (even
if they actually match the RPMTAG_* counterparts)
--
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/1203#pullrequestreview-418303191___
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 fsverity support (#1203)
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> if (deleting) { /* Nuke all the signature tags. */
deleteSigs(sigh);
+ deleteFileSigs(sigh);
I think deleting file signatures needs to be a separate thing from the main
package signatures, you might want to delete one but not the other. I guess
there's actually no way to remove IMA signatures atm...
--
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/1203#pullrequestreview-418306319___
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 fsverity support (#1203)
@pmatilai commented on this pull request. > + * Copyright (C) 2020 Facebook + * + * Author: Jes Sorensen + */ + +#include "system.h" + +#include /* RPMSIGTAG & related */ +#include /* rpmlog */ +#include +#include /* rpmDigestLength */ +#include "lib/header.h"/* HEADERGET_MINMEM */ +#include "lib/header_internal.h" +#include "lib/rpmtypes.h" /* rpmRC */ +#include +#include Always use "..." when including internal-only headers, like you're doing with the others. And the libfsverity.h include should be moved outside the group of rpm's own includes to have it stand out a bit. -- 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/1203#pullrequestreview-418308520___ 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 fsverity support (#1203)
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> +}
+
+static char *rpmVeritySignFile(rpmfi fi, size_t *sig_size, char *key,
+ char *keypass, char *cert, uint16_t algo,
+ uint32_t block_size)
+{
+struct libfsverity_merkle_tree_params params;
+struct libfsverity_signature_params sig_params;
+struct libfsverity_digest *digest = NULL;
+rpm_loff_t file_size;
+char *digest_hex, *sig_hex = NULL;
+uint8_t *sig = NULL;
+int status;
+
+if (S_ISLNK(rpmfiFMode(fi)))
+ file_size = 0;
No signatures for symlinks? Symlink pointing to an unintended place can have
pretty drastic consequences...
--
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/1203#pullrequestreview-418310585___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Support ed25519 signatures (#1202)
Thanks for the info. Note that this pull request does not make rpm use some different signature system: it still only supports pgp (RFC4880) signatures. Only very old rpm versions used gpg to verify the signatures, rpm has its own pgp functions since ages. (See also issue #1193 for a discussion about different signature systems) -- 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/1202#issuecomment-634037280___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Support ed25519 signatures (#1202)
Merged #1202 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/1202#event-3373707254___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Support ed25519 signatures (#1202)
And thanks for the patches. -- 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/1202#issuecomment-634045670___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Support ed25519 signatures (#1202)
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> @@ -168,7 +169,8 @@ typedef enum pgpPubkeyAlgo_e {
PGPPUBKEYALGO_EC = 18, /*!< Elliptic Curve */
PGPPUBKEYALGO_ECDSA= 19, /*!< ECDSA */
PGPPUBKEYALGO_ELGAMAL = 20, /*!< Elgamal */
-PGPPUBKEYALGO_DH = 21/*!< Diffie-Hellman (X9.42) */
+PGPPUBKEYALGO_DH = 21, /*!< Diffie-Hellman (X9.42) */
+PGPPUBKEYALGO_EDDSA= 22/*!< EdDSA */
Fair enough :)
--
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/1202#discussion_r430436543___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] macros: Drop internal macros which are not used in RPM and Fedora (#1212)
FWIW, I plan to merge this once 4.16 is branched off. Not wanting extra drama this close to beta... -- 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/1212#issuecomment-634047668___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] macros: Drop internal macros which are not used in RPM and Fedora (#1212)
Fine with me, did not want to get this in 4.16 anyway :) -- 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/1212#issuecomment-634048644___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Reviewing: l10n: zh_TW: update translation (#1237)
@zerng07 commented on this pull request. > msgid "Illegal character (0x%x) in filename: %s\n" -msgstr "非法字符「%c」(0x%x)" +msgstr "檔名中有非法字元 (0x%x)：%s\n" 非法 is better changed to 不合規 -- 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/1237#pullrequestreview-418438970___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: Various updates and fixes (no test suite) (#1242)
This is a modification of PR https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1195, where I've deleted all mentions of the test suite. CC @pmatilai, @Conan-Kudo, @ffesti, @hroncok You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1242 -- Commit Summary -- * scripts/pythondistdeps: Also provide pythonXdist() with PEP 503 normalized names * scripts/pythondistdeps: "Fix" support of environment markers * scripts/pythondistdeps: Notes from an attempted rewrite to importlib.metadata * scripts/pythondistdeps: Sort generated provides/requires * scripts/pythondistdeps: Add option to generate major-version provides only for specified Python versions * scripts/pythondistdeps: Implement --normalized-name-* options * scripts/pythondistdeps: Do anything only when called as a main script * scripts/pythondistdeps: Version handling exception with better information * scripts/pythondistdeps: Modify handling of dev versions -- File Changes -- M scripts/pythondistdeps.py (466) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1242.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1242.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/1242 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: New test suite and various updates and fixes (#1195)
Closed #1195. -- 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/1195#event-3374229415___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Reviewing: l10n: zh_TW: update translation (#1237)
@zerng07 commented on this pull request. > #: build/parseReqs.c:57 msgid "Versioned file name not permitted" msgstr "包含版本的檔案名稱不被允許" #: build/parseReqs.c:222 msgid "No rich dependencies allowed for this type" -msgstr "此類型並沒有豐富的相依性。" +msgstr "此類型並沒有富依賴關係" 富依賴性 is not understandable for common readers, better to use 豐富依賴關係 -- 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/1237#pullrequestreview-418442111___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: New test suite and various updates and fixes (#1195)
I have modified the commits to take out the test suite and opened it as a new PR https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1242. Am therefore closing this PR in favour of the new one. -- 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/1195#issuecomment-634114538___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Reviewing: l10n: zh_TW: update translation (#1237)
@zerng07 commented on this pull request. > @@ -1579,9 +1571,7 @@ msgstr "無法決定策略名稱：%s\n" msgid "" "'%s' type given with other types in %%semodule %s. Compacting types to " "'%s'.\n" -msgstr "" -"「%s」類型以及其他類型給出了 %%semodule %s\n" -"壓縮類型至「%s」\n" +msgstr "「%s」類型以及其他類型提供了 %%semodule %s。壓縮類型至「%s」。\n" 成 is better than 至 here to present the idea of becoming. -- 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/1237#pullrequestreview-418443464___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Reviewing: l10n: zh_TW: update translation (#1237)
@zerng07 commented on this pull request. > @@ -463,7 +460,7 @@ msgstr "--hash (-h) 可能只能在軟體包安裝或擦除時指定" #: rpm.c:148 msgid "--percent may only be specified during package installation and erasure" -msgstr "-- percent 可能只能在軟體包安裝或擦除時指定" +msgstr "-- percent 只能在軟體包安裝或擦除時指定" 抹除 instead of 擦除 for consistence -- 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/1237#pullrequestreview-418439722___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: Various updates and fixes (no test suite) (#1242)
This pull request **introduces 1 alert** when merging 592a6d5980010c63eb76c31ddd8954fba9cbaa92 into 8734c1b97e39e3c7d3ac8396c4d6a2733852545c - [view on LGTM.com](https://lgtm.com/projects/g/rpm-software-management/rpm/rev/pr-b6979aa46105339f8a0843eae399433dc33d6444) **new alerts:** * 1 for Module is imported more than once -- 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/1242#issuecomment-634117340___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Reviewing: l10n: zh_TW: update translation (#1237)
@zerng07 commented on this pull request. > #: lib/backend/ndb/rpmidx.c:204 #, c-format msgid "rpmidx: Version mismatch. Expected version: %u. Found version: %u\n" -msgstr "" +msgstr "rpmidx：版本不符。期望版本：%u。找到版本：%u\n" 預期 is better than 期望 -- 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/1237#pullrequestreview-418446979___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Reviewing: l10n: zh_TW: update translation (#1237)
@zerng07 commented on this pull request. > #: lib/backend/ndb/rpmxdb.c:237 #, c-format msgid "rpmxdb: Version mismatch. Expected version: %u. Found version: %u\n" -msgstr "" +msgstr "rpmxdb：版本不符。期望版本：%u。找到版本：%u\n" 預期 is better than 期望 -- 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/1237#pullrequestreview-418447243___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Reviewing: l10n: zh_TW: update translation (#1237)
@zerng07 commented on this pull request. > #: lib/backend/ndb/rpmpkg.c:125 #, c-format msgid "rpmpkg: Version mismatch. Expected version: %u. Found version: %u\n" -msgstr "" +msgstr "rpmpkg：版本不符。期望版本：%u。找到版本：%u\n" 預期 is better than 期望 -- 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/1237#pullrequestreview-418447080___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Reviewing: l10n: zh_TW: update translation (#1237)
@zerng07 commented on this pull request. > #: lib/header.c:971 msgid "hdr load: BAD" -msgstr "hdr_load：壞的" +msgstr "hdr_load：無效" 損壞 better than 無效 -- 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/1237#pullrequestreview-418447600___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Reviewing: l10n: zh_TW: update translation (#1237)
@zerng07 commented on this pull request. > #: lib/header.c:1958 msgid "signature " -msgstr "簽名" +msgstr "簽署 " verb as 簽署, noun as 簽章 -- 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/1237#pullrequestreview-418448133___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Reviewing: l10n: zh_TW: update translation (#1237)
@zerng07 commented on this pull request. > msgid "RPM v3 packages are deprecated: %s\n" -msgstr "第 %d 行：%s 重複：%s\n" +msgstr "RPM v3 軟體包已過時：%s\n" 過時 should be 棄用 -- 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/1237#pullrequestreview-418448633___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Reviewing: l10n: zh_TW: update translation (#1237)
@zerng07 commented on this pull request. > #: lib/poptALL.c:235 msgid "don't verify package signature(s)" -msgstr "不校驗軟體包簽署" +msgstr "不核驗軟體包簽署" 簽章 -- 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/1237#pullrequestreview-418449027___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: Various updates and fixes (no test suite) (#1242)
> This pull request **introduces 1 alert** when merging > [592a6d5](https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/commit/592a6d5980010c63eb76c31ddd8954fba9cbaa92) > into > [8734c1b](https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/commit/8734c1b97e39e3c7d3ac8396c4d6a2733852545c) > - [view on > LGTM.com](https://lgtm.com/projects/g/rpm-software-management/rpm/rev/pr-b6979aa46105339f8a0843eae399433dc33d6444) > > **new alerts:** > > * 1 for Module is imported more than once It's a lazy import so that if it's not needed, it doesn't slow down the execution. -- 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/1242#issuecomment-634119166___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: Various updates and fixes (no test suite) (#1242)
I would move `import re` to the top imports and just be done with 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/1242#issuecomment-634120267___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Reviewing: l10n: zh_TW: update translation (#1237)
@zerng07 commented on this pull request. > #: lib/poptQV.c:105 lib/poptQV.c:107 msgid "query/verify the package(s) which require a dependency" -msgstr "查詢/校驗需要某些相依軟體包的軟體包" +msgstr "查詢/核驗需要某些相依軟體包的軟體包" 依賴軟體包 -- 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/1237#pullrequestreview-418452735___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Reviewing: l10n: zh_TW: update translation (#1237)
@zerng07 commented on this pull request. > #: lib/poptQV.c:111 msgid "query/verify the package(s) which provide a dependency" -msgstr "查詢/校驗提供某些相依軟體包的軟體包" +msgstr "查詢/核驗提供某些相依軟體包的軟體包" 依賴軟體包 -- 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/1237#pullrequestreview-418453067___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Reviewing: l10n: zh_TW: update translation (#1237)
@zerng07 commented on this pull request. > #: lib/rpmds.c:1411 #, c-format msgid "Unknown rich dependency op '%.*s'" -msgstr "未知的富相依性操作「%.*s」" +msgstr "未知的富依賴關係操作「%.*s」" 豐富依賴關係 -- 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/1237#pullrequestreview-418454666___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Reviewing: l10n: zh_TW: update translation (#1237)
@zerng07 commented on this pull request. > #: lib/rpmds.c:1251 msgid "support for rich dependencies." -msgstr "支援富相依性" +msgstr "支援富依賴關係。" 豐富依賴關係 -- 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/1237#pullrequestreview-418454387___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Reviewing: l10n: zh_TW: update translation (#1237)
@zerng07 commented on this pull request. > @@ -3614,7 +3602,7 @@ msgstr "%s%s" #: lib/rpmvs.c:281 msgid "signature" -msgstr "簽名" +msgstr "簽署" 簽章 -- 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/1237#pullrequestreview-418455666___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Reviewing: l10n: zh_TW: update translation (#1237)
@zerng07 commented on this pull request. > @@ -3668,7 +3656,7 @@ msgstr "遺漏 %c %s" #: lib/verify.c:440 #, c-format msgid "Unsatisfied dependencies for %s:\n" -msgstr "%s 的不滿足相依性：\n" +msgstr "%s 的不滿足依賴關係：\n" 「的」是綴字 -- 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/1237#pullrequestreview-418456198___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Reviewing: l10n: zh_TW: update translation (#1237)
@zerng07 commented on this pull request. > @@ -3591,17 +3579,17 @@ msgstr "%s 標籤 %u：無效的大小 %u" #: lib/rpmvs.c:197 #, c-format msgid "%s tag %u: invalid OpenPGP signature" -msgstr "%s 標籤 %u：無效的 OpenGPG 簽名" +msgstr "%s 標籤 %u：無效的 OpenGPG 簽署" 簽章 -- 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/1237#pullrequestreview-41846___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Reviewing: l10n: zh_TW: update translation (#1237)
@zerng07 commented on this pull request. > #: lib/signature.c:213 msgid "Unable to reload signature header.\n" msgstr "無法重新載入簽署表頭。\n" #: lib/transaction.c:1272 msgid "no signature" -msgstr "" +msgstr "沒有簽署" 簽章 -- 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/1237#pullrequestreview-418455790___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Reviewing: l10n: zh_TW: update translation (#1237)
@zerng07 commented on this pull request. > #: rpmio/expression.c:370 msgid "macro expansion returned a bare word, please use \"...\"" msgstr "" #: rpmio/expression.c:372 msgid "macro expansion did not return an integer" -msgstr "" +msgstr "巨集展開未回傳數字" 整數 instead of 數字 -- 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/1237#pullrequestreview-418456560___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Reviewing: l10n: zh_TW: update translation (#1237)
@zerng07 commented on this pull request. > #: lib/transaction.c:1272 msgid "no digest" -msgstr "" +msgstr "沒有 digest" 摘要 -- 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/1237#pullrequestreview-418455879___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Reviewing: l10n: zh_TW: update translation (#1237)
@zerng07 commented on this pull request.
> msgid "unmatched ("
-msgstr "不符合的 (\n"
+msgstr "未配對的 ("
不成對的 (，看起來是者小括號沒有 match 成對。
--
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/1237#pullrequestreview-418458124___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Reviewing: l10n: zh_TW: update translation (#1237)
@zerng07 commented on this pull request. > msgid "unexpected end of expression" -msgstr "| 預期於表述式的結尾" +msgstr "表述式非預期結束" 未預期結束 -- 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/1237#pullrequestreview-418458408___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Reviewing: l10n: zh_TW: update translation (#1237)
@zerng07 commented on this pull request. > @@ -3905,7 +3879,7 @@ msgstr "警告：" #: rpmio/rpmlog.c:269 msgid "Error writing to log" -msgstr "" +msgstr "寫入至記錄檔時發生錯誤" 紀錄為名詞，記錄為動詞 -- 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/1237#pullrequestreview-418459499___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Reviewing: l10n: zh_TW: update translation (#1237)
@zerng07 commented on this pull request. > #: rpmio/macro.c:1390 msgid "" "Too many levels of recursion in macro expansion. It is likely caused by " "recursive macro declaration.\n" -msgstr "巨集附加元件中太多遞迴階級。這可能是因為遞迴巨集聲明而造成。\n" +msgstr "巨集展開的遞迴階級更多。這可能是因為遞迴巨集聲明所導致的。\n" 階層 -- 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/1237#pullrequestreview-418458865___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Reviewing: l10n: zh_TW: update translation (#1237)
@zerng07 commented on this pull request. > msgid "unexpected argument" -msgstr "未預期的 ]" +msgstr "預期不是引數" 未預期引數 -- 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/1237#pullrequestreview-418459195___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Reviewing: l10n: zh_TW: update translation (#1237)
@zerng07 commented on this pull request. > @@ -3993,7 +3967,7 @@ msgstr "%s：Fflush 失敗： %s\n" #: sign/rpmgensig.c:203 msgid "Unsupported PGP signature\n" -msgstr "不支援的 PGP 簽名\n" +msgstr "不支援的 PGP 簽署\n" 簽章 -- 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/1237#pullrequestreview-418460243___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Reviewing: l10n: zh_TW: update translation (#1237)
@pan93412 pushed 1 commit. 3a766f1a3d8078b5d5b3be2a7b739b3b1b1cd578 l10n: zh_TW: fix the issues in translation -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1237/files/a26ba3cf8ea448e12b004dedd4853bf89dc51c6c..3a766f1a3d8078b5d5b3be2a7b739b3b1b1cd578 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: Various updates and fixes (no test suite) (#1242)
> I would move `import re` to the top imports and just be done with it. We can discuss this in a separate issue. It hasn't changed 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/pull/1242#issuecomment-634131378___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Reviewing: l10n: zh_TW: update translation (#1237)
@pan93412 pushed 1 commit. 9b056de66b76cace442440d51b618a56310f2f69 l10n: zh_TW: fix the issues in translation -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1237/files/3a766f1a3d8078b5d5b3be2a7b739b3b1b1cd578..9b056de66b76cace442440d51b618a56310f2f69 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: Various updates and fixes (no test suite) (#1242)
Merged #1242 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/1242#event-3376500848___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: Various updates and fixes (no test suite) (#1242)
Thanks for the patches and patience! -- 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/1242#issuecomment-63888___ 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 fsverity support (#1203)
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> + rpmlog(RPMLOG_DEBUG, "fsverity not supported by file system for
> %s\n",
+ path);
+ break;
+ case EOPNOTSUPP:
+ rpmlog(RPMLOG_DEBUG, "fsverity not enabled on file system for %s\n",
+ path);
+ break;
+ case ETXTBSY:
+ rpmlog(RPMLOG_DEBUG, "file is open by other process %s\n",
+ path);
+ break;
+ default:
+ rpmlog(RPMLOG_DEBUG, "failed to enable verity (errno %i) for %s\n",
+ errno, path);
+ break;
+ }
AFAICT these failures should result in RPMRC_FAIL return code as the plugin
failed to accomplish its task, accompanied by an actual error message. I'd
suggest something like this to replace the big switch:
```
if (ioctl() ... != 0) {
rpmlog(RPMLOG_ERR, _("enabling verity failed: %s %s\n", path),
strerror(errno));
rc = RPMRC_FAIL;
}
```
--
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/1203#pullrequestreview-418905497___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
