> A more user-friendly way of dealing with this would actually be the opposite,
> i.e. making the use of the priority keyword conditional at preprocessing,
> based on the detected OpenMP version (which is trivial to do as shown in the
> patch) because as you say, all that the keyword really
> Sometimes it's better to test for specifics features, sometimes for versions.
> I don't know how the OpenMP landscape looks like, but sometimes
> implementations only support a subset of a newer standard in which case
> testing for specific features is the friendlier way.
My impression after
Any updates on the test suite investigation? Is there anything I can do to help?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Just for a data point, OpenMP 4.5 is supported in clang >= 7 and gcc >= 6, both
from 2018. Which is brand new software barely off its wrappings in terms of rpm
software requirements :smile:
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> @@ -761,9 +778,9 @@ AC_ARG_WITH([lua], [AS_HELP_STRING([--with-lua], [build
> with lua support])],
AS_IF([test "$with_lua" != no],[
PKG_CHECK_MODULES([LUA],
-[lua >= 5.1],
+[lua >= 5.2],
Because 5.2 is the actually required minimum?
Dear all,
Can anyone please help me out, how to cross compile fedora source rpm for
RISC-V.
Thanks
Billa Surendra
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@dmnks commented on this pull request.
> @@ -761,9 +778,9 @@ AC_ARG_WITH([lua], [AS_HELP_STRING([--with-lua], [build
> with lua support])],
AS_IF([test "$with_lua" != no],[
PKG_CHECK_MODULES([LUA],
-[lua >= 5.1],
+[lua >= 5.2],
Heh, it's funny how easy is to misread the subject
Ehm, except that of course the trimtime is in the *past* so that "logic" is
completely flawed. Better not touch anything serious today, clearly :joy:
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Judging from commit 3255273ae0fabd03c9738249a29c9c1e15f28f64 which broke this
you may not care about this. Opening this issue anyway for documentation
purposes:
rpm no longer copies over the lead data verbatim when creating or deleting
signatures, but recreates it from the header.
This does
Of course, that's incompatible with the existing implementation that takes an
absolute timestamp as the cut-off point. That design is not one of our brighter
moments...
Perhaps we could do a little heuristic and determine any changelog_trimtime
value earlier than "now" as a delta, and if
@Conan-Kudo commented on this pull request.
> @@ -761,9 +778,9 @@ AC_ARG_WITH([lua], [AS_HELP_STRING([--with-lua], [build
> with lua support])],
AS_IF([test "$with_lua" != no],[
PKG_CHECK_MODULES([LUA],
-[lua >= 5.1],
+[lua >= 5.2],
Hah, I thought we actually dropped Lua 5.2
Hi Jan,
On Sat, 2020-08-01 at 11:23 +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> debugedit: Fix missing relocation of .debug_types section.
> https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1323
I believe our mail review comments don't make it to that website. And
given that there are some forced updates
This is the ticket system for rpm development and not a support forum. General
question on using rpm can go on the rpm mailing list or the #rpm.org IRC
channel. See http://rpm.org/community.html for details.
About your question: Bootstrapping a distribution like Fedora is a non trivial
task
Closed #1327.
--
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/1327#event-3633734263___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Well, there's not really a way to fix the behaviour of _changelog_trimtime. We
could amend it to keep a minimum number of entries even if they are older.
If we want to keep entries based on a time frame we basically need a new macro.
This of course raises the question of how these features
It looks to me as reviewed:
http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-maint/2020-August/014792.html
http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-maint/2020-August/014797.html
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
On Fri, 07 Aug 2020 13:55:35 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> But I pulled
> that branch and reviewed the actual commits (1d080e02 and c804a960).
git clone -b types g...@github.com:jankratochvil/rpm.git rpm-types
commit 8b5bbcc6d586be50b6a251256c39c3b0332b1f2b
debugedit: Fix missing relocation
17 matches
Mail list logo
