I'd *really* like to see this happen. How can I move it forward?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@pmatilai Thank you ++ for these commits!
Let me test that.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
> I routinely do a `make check` in Podman containers and never encountered this
> issue. Is there some specific set-up (of the testsuite) that you're referring
> to?
The container image itself is practically empty ― everything is bind-mounted
from the host. To be fair, it is possible that the
Merged #1566 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/1566#event-4460234433___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Thanks!
--
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/1566#issuecomment-799620888___
Rpm-maint mailing list
@DemiMarie pushed 1 commit.
ecb2a94bc31ca18722f0331c92933af81df59f30 Better detection of I/O errors
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
Done
--
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/1566#issuecomment-799612887___
Rpm-maint mailing list
I routinely do a `make check` in Podman containers and never encountered this
issue. Is there some specific set-up (of the testsuite) that you're referring
to?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Oh, indeed. Thanks for spotting this!
Also kudos for checking for the `fprintf()` return value - although it still
returns a positive value in case of an `ENOSPC`, there could be other errors,
so why not check for them right away.
That said, I realized I should've moved the `free(val)`
Sometimes its handy to disable multi-file mode and the patch
adds option for that: `--dwz-single-file-mode`.
It will be used in openSUSE for packages that use baselibs.conf
mechanism.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
> > Personally, I would consider being able to disable this on a per-package
> > basis a good idea, but it isn’t a blocker.
>
> How is `--nosignature` failing to achieve that as it is?
It does for `rpm(8)`, but not for `dnf(8)`.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this
I wholeheartedly agree, which is why I would be perfectly with you requiring
that a compiler support `-fwrapv -fwrapv-pointer -fno-strict-aliasing
-fno-delete-null-pointer-checks` :smile:.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view
Fixed by #1571 / commit 23770e1a4f28c56a31fe600cae332c77333b60b6
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Closed #1565.
--
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/1565#event-4458634442___
Rpm-maint mailing list
@pmatilai pushed 1 commit.
88b47ae2a1471d0ce11b034bf9529f8a89a29754 Permit secondary index open to fail
for bdb_ro
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
Yeah, I've ran into this as well, on more than one occasion. Rant alert...
:warning:
Here's what C99 standard says of it:
> The result of E1 << E2 is E1 left-shifted E2 bit positions; vacated bits
> are filled with zeros. If E1 has an unsigned type, the value of
> the result
> Personally, I would consider being able to disable this on a per-package
> basis a good idea, but it isn’t a blocker.
How is `--nosignature` failing to achieve that as it is?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on
Merged #1571 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/1571#event-4458259053___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Seems like a revised version of #1500 accidentally ended up in this PR. No
matter, I far prefer this version and splitting this to yet more PR's wouldn't
actually help anything. Also, @mlschroe seems to be busy but he did indicate
the preference for existing tags in #1202 so...
Thanks for the
Closed #1543 via #1575.
--
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/1543#event-4458209775___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Merged #1575 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/1575#event-4458209751___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Merged #1551 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/1551#event-4458208132___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Merged #1558 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/1558#event-4458208697___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Hmm, while this does cover the case is #1576 it'll segfault if there are no
secondary indexes at all. So this isn't a proper solution, just first-aid.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
The other backends would want to create the missing index, but as bdb_ro is
read-only it cant do that. As the main purpose of bdb_ro is to support
migrating away from BDB for which only the primary database is needed, it
doesnt make sense to fail it for non-essential data. Let it fail for
(reporter credits added to 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/1577#issuecomment-799312095___
Only look for known tags, and ensure correct type and size where known
before copying over. Bump the old arbitrary 16k count limit to 16M limit
though, its not inconceivable that a package could have that many files.
While at it, ensure none of these tags exist in the main header,
which would
27 matches
Mail list logo
