Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add OrderWithRequires dependency generation (#1257)
If there is just a scriptlet which calls `systemctl preset`, in _some_ cases it may silently fail to enable a service which must be enabled. In most cases, I agree, it is not needed, but seems to be not harmful. -- 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/1257#issuecomment-640264300___ 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 OrderWithRequires dependency generation (#1257)
But why? If a package contains a config is /usr/lib/sysusers.d/, why not to ensure that it is installed after systemd-sysusers binary is present and so the scriptlet which creates users can be executed? -- 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/1257#issuecomment-640263148___ 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 OrderWithRequires dependency generation (#1257)
> it is only some specific cases where this needs to be used. Yeah, we used to pull in systemd much more often. Nowadays, most packages should not pull in systemd, and install time ordering also doesn't matter. But that's largely irrelevant here, since systemd was only used as an example here. Extending generation to OrderWithRequires seems to be generally useful. -- 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/1257#issuecomment-640238714___ 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 _without_check macro (#1256)
I think this should set _with_check unless _without_check is defined already. Basically to have `%bcond_without check` by default without having to put it in all spec files. But still need to make sure that somebody defines `%bcond_without check`, this code won't override 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/1256#issuecomment-640229941___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fail the build if %_build_pkgcheck_set failed (#1258)
If %_nonzero_exit_pkgcheck_terminate_build is true, then the build fails, otherwise it does not. This regressed and the build never failed -- 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/1258#issuecomment-640224570___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] %transfiletriggerin does not work on Fedora 33 (#1260)
``` ❯ sudo rpm -ivh /home/brain/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/newsflash-1.0~rc1-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm --debug --rpmfcdebug [sudo] password for brain: D: == /home/brain/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/newsflash-1.0~rc1-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm D: loading keyring from pubkeys in /var/lib/rpm/pubkeys/*.key D: couldn't find any keys in /var/lib/rpm/pubkeys/*.key D: loading keyring from rpmdb D: PRAGMA secure_delete = OFF: 0 D: PRAGMA case_sensitive_like = ON: 0 D: read h#1690 Header SHA256 digest: OK Header SHA1 digest: OK D: added key gpg-pubkey-9570ff31-5e3006fb to keyring D: Using legacy gpg-pubkey(s) from rpmdb D: /home/brain/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/newsflash-1.0~rc1-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm: Header SHA256 digest: OK D: /home/brain/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/newsflash-1.0~rc1-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm: Header SHA1 digest: OK ufdio: 6 reads,11265 total bytes in 0.09 secs D: Plugin: calling hook init in systemd_inhibit plugin D: added binary package [0] D: found 0 source and 1 binary packages D: == +++ newsflash-1.0~rc1-1.fc33 x86_64/linux 0x2 D: read h# 209 Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 9570ff31: OK Header SHA256 digest: OK Header SHA1 digest: OK D: Requires: ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) YES (db provides) D: Requires: ld-linux-x86-64.so.2(GLIBC_2.3)(64bit)YES (db provides) D: Requires: libc.so.6()(64bit)YES (db provides) D: Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.17)(64bit) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.18)(64bit) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.2)(64bit) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) YES (db provides) D: read h# 444 Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 9570ff31: OK Header SHA256 digest: OK Header SHA1 digest: OK D: Requires: libcairo-gobject.so.2()(64bit)YES (db provides) D: read h# 443 Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 9570ff31: OK Header SHA256 digest: OK Header SHA1 digest: OK D: Requires: libcairo.so.2()(64bit)YES (db provides) D: read h#1997 Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 9570ff31: OK Header SHA256 digest: OK Header SHA1 digest: OK D: Requires: libcrypto.so.1.1()(64bit) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit)YES (db provides) D: Requires: libdl.so.2()(64bit) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libdl.so.2(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)YES (db provides) D: read h# 1 Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 9570ff31: OK Header SHA256 digest: OK Header SHA1 digest: OK D: Requires: libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)YES (db provides) D: Requires: libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit) YES (db provides) D: read h#1349 Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 9570ff31: OK Header SHA256 digest: OK Header SHA1 digest: OK D: Requires: libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit)YES (db provides) D: read h# 269 Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 9570ff31: OK Header SHA256 digest: OK Header SHA1 digest: OK D: Requires: libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) YES (db provides) D: read h# 224 Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 9570ff31: OK Header SHA256 digest: OK Header SHA1 digest: OK D: Requires: libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit)YES (db provides) D: read h#1370 Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 9570ff31: OK Header SHA256 digest: OK Header SHA1 digest: OK D: Requires: libhandy-0.0.so.0()(64bit)YES (db provides) D: Requires: libhandy-0.0.so.0(LIBHANDY_0_0_0)(64bit) YES (db provides) D: read h# 532 Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 9570ff31: OK Header SHA256 digest: OK Header SHA1 digest: OK D: Requires: libjavascriptcoregtk-4.0.so.18()(64bit) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libm.so.6()(64bit)YES (db provides) D: Requires: libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.27)(64bit) YES (db provides) D: read h# 935 Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 9570ff31: OK Header SHA256 digest: OK Header SHA1 digest: OK D: Requires: libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit)YES (db provides) D: Requires: libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] %transfiletriggerin does not work on Fedora 33 (#1260)
Also I checked `stat /usr/share/icons/hicolor/icon-theme.cache` and that does not change during the RPM run. But if I run command from trigger manually, it updates that file. -- 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/1260#issuecomment-640221416___ 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 OrderWithRequires dependency generation (#1257)
> When a package contains a systemd unit, %systemd_* macros are usually used; > it is usefull to add "OrderWithRequires: systemd" in this case to ensure > that systemd is installed before that package. I think I disagree here, it is only some specific cases where this needs to be used. cc @keszybz --- Other than that, LGTM. -- 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/1257#issuecomment-640214135___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] metainfo.attr: Fix execution of the generator (#1259)
Please backport to 4.16.x -- 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/1259#issuecomment-640211823___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] metainfo.attr: Fix execution of the generator (#1259)
Somehow it wasn't noticed before. Fixes: 9464926456125dacb8046767f1fe4235471986e9 Signed-off-by: Igor RaitsYou can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1259 -- Commit Summary -- * metainfo.attr: Fix execution of the generator -- File Changes -- M fileattrs/metainfo.attr (2) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1259.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1259.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/1259 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fail the build if %_build_pkgcheck_set failed (#1258)
RPM build did not fail if rpmlint (%_build_pkgcheck_set) failed when checking binary RPMs (it did fail correctly when rpmlint failed when checking SRPMs) Probably fixes regression introduced by 78f61f273 ("Refactor package set checking out of packageBinaries()") You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1258 -- Commit Summary -- * Fail the build if %_build_pkgcheck_set failed -- File Changes -- M build/pack.c (7) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1258.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1258.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/1258 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint