> I was about to ask whether you're expecting a review on this (generally PR's
> with failing tests will not be looked at), but then I noticed this is a
> "draft", I didn't even know GH has such a (handy looking) feature so thanks
> for the tip
Yeah, it's nice. It's just the `[WIP]` prefix,
No comments, guess nobody cares... :)
--
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/1428#issuecomment-732087959___
Rpm-maint
Merged #1428 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/1428#event-4027046940___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Sorry... wanted to give a peek, but of course, didn't make a note in my todo
list, so there you go... I'll check it nevertheless, as part of the BZ backport
that I'm assigned to :)
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on
I was about to ask whether you're expecting a review on this (generally PR's
with failing tests will not be looked at), but then I noticed this is a
"draft", I didn't even know GH has such a (handy looking) feature so thanks for
the tip :smile:
Since it's a work-in-progress by label, didn't
@pmatilai pushed 2 commits.
e791e85e7e1f159113729f4a01e8e325d3299c79 Only attempt loading the keyring once
the rpmdb is open
10b08df0d250c7d16d37a290b757adce7750a592 Disable implicit database creation on
read-only handle
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
This looks fine to me. I also disliked the automatic creation, so I'm happy if
it is gone.
I'll ask the libzypp folks if they need to adapt their code to accommodate for
this change, but that shouldn't bother you :-)
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply
Probably silly idea, but in the context of #1442, could we have something like
"-dev-null" subpackage, where we could reference all the files, which should
not be packaged? Such package would not be created at the end, or it would not
be composed into distribution. Maybe event the `%exclude`
@mlschroe approved this pull request.
--
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/1443#pullrequestreview-536621371___
This seems like a rather important issue to fix... it could help eliminate lots
of otherwise-unnecessary `%posttrans` and `%pretrans` scripts that exist only
due to dependency-order unpredictability.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email
> They're not incompatible with each other, but for the purpose of addressing
> the issue that libraries should not have to be packaged as executable, #1394
> kills the ability to chmod a-x to disable dependency generation for all ELF
> files, whereas #1395 doesn't.
>
Maybe my understanding
@KOLANICH pushed 1 commit.
278fec730baf775462391e74f71057c8eb8128ec Added a high-level wrapper.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
@KOLANICH pushed 1 commit.
75f8d5dbeef1f95e9a069092945fbc4c6fc01a0f Improved python support: enums are
now enums with all additional goodies. Can usually be available using
CamelCased prefix, class members have the prefix stripped.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to
So... any thoughts between the alternatives?
--
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1393#issuecomment-732137826___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Yup, we don't want detailed error messages from PGP parsing, otherwise the
whole parser would be littered with similar messages.
You're right that there's a missing check on rpmPubkeyNew() return in the
Python bindings, but this would introduce a different bug: it returns NULL with
no
Closed #1305.
--
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/1305#event-4027581951___
Rpm-maint mailing list
@Conan-Kudo approved this pull request.
--
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/1395#pullrequestreview-536463958___
This is very similar to a brp script we have in OpenMandriva downstream that we
execute as part of the "spec-helper" buildroot policy script. I think it makes
sense to have this so that having a `noexec` library directory is possible.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to
They're not incompatible with each other, but for the purpose of addressing the
issue that libraries should not have to be packaged as executable, #1394 kills
the ability to chmod a-x to disable dependency generation for all ELF files,
whereas #1395 doesn't.
But then the latter requires
Merged #1446 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/1446#event-4027412290___
Rpm-maint mailing list
@pmatilai Is there a reason we wouldn't ship _both_ #1394 and #1395? To me,
they seem like two parts of the same solution to replace this patch.
--
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@Conan-Kudo approved this pull request.
--
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/1447#pullrequestreview-536464803___
Merged #1447 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/1447#event-4027795564___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Added some further tweaks:
- we shouldn't try create a non-existent db directory in read-only mode either
- fix a brainfart wrt lazy keyring load on lazy db iterator open causing
double-errors for no good reason
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this
@mlschroe , any thoughts on the change itself?
This is something I've wanted to do for quite a while, but there might be quite
some fallout from doing so and I'm willing to listen to other opinions on the
matter...
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to
> You last patch looks good.
As per that, merging. FWIW, this appeared to have failed CI but that was due to
some unrelated daily docker quota thing, manually rerunning cleared the status.
Thanks for the patch!
--
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or
Merged #1435 into master.
--
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1435#event-4027446524___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
pkgParsePkts() only parses the PGP armor, the actual pubkey is only
parsed as a part of rpmPubkeyNew() whose return we need to check for
separately. Emit different messages in these cases.
Thanks to @KOLANICH for pointing this out and initial patch.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull
I think this makes sense as an independent fix, because that makes our ability
to generate dependencies more reliable.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@Conan-Kudo approved this pull request.
--
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/1394#pullrequestreview-536465747___
Okay, this is not in any way exclusive to other improvements in this area and
quite clearly is a good thing, so guess we'll just merge this and wonder about
the other stuff separately.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it
Merged #1395 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/1395#event-4027884180___
Rpm-maint mailing list
@Conan-Kudo approved this pull request.
--
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/1443#pullrequestreview-537021319___
There already is a configurable for this:
```# Note: The default value should be 0 for legacy compatibility.
%_unpackaged_files_terminate_build 1
```
FWIW, I remember when that check was initially introduced. There were a lot of
failing packages then too :smile:
The Fedora numbers indeed
34 matches
Mail list logo
