rpmPubkeyDig() is a public API function, we can't just drop it. At least
current incarnations of libdnf actually even use it.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
I'm a lua novice, so pardon my ignorance. Why does
```
--eval '%{lua:rpm=nil; print(rpm == nil)}' \
```
evaluate to false in the testcase? And the test is currently skipped in the CI,
probably due to that `AT_SKIP_IF([$LUA_DISABLED])`. Didn't we make lua
mandatory?
--
You are receiving this
We can’t drop it, but we can certainly stop using it internally :)
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
> Good catch. I'm just wondering if we shouldn't instead change RPM_MIN_TYPE to
> 1, because RPM_NULL_TYPE is not actually a type. This kinda confirms that:
>
> https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/blob/ed0e95a21e1d6cd097f25e56e219d07e45e026b1/lib/query.c#L254
My thoughts exactly
At makePubkeyHeader(), the key has PGP data collected already,
so rpmPubkeyDig() is redundant. And, since the former is the only
user of the latter, which, in turn, mostly duplicates the
functionaliry of rpmPubkeyNew(), rpmPubkeyDig() may be dropped.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull
Good catch. I'm just wondering if we shouldn't instead change RPM_MIN_TYPE to
1, because RPM_NULL_TYPE is not actually a type. This kinda confirms that:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/blob/ed0e95a21e1d6cd097f25e56e219d07e45e026b1/lib/query.c#L254
--
You are receiving this
@DemiMarie pushed 2 commits.
d1cc512a9c315c56c90c891c5052d3ebfca6b602 Set RPM_MIN_TYPE to 1
bb1a9658bfd45fac52878d53cd1b5abc8569fa39 Revert "Revert "Check that len is in
range before using it""
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
@dmantipov pushed 1 commit.
bbe2b67d292b7d274487af1a911b5cf3ac511751 Simplify pubkey header building code
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
> We can’t drop it, but we can certainly stop using it internally :)
OK let's reduce the change to internal scope.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
RPM 4.17.0-alpha Release Notes (DRAFT)
https://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.17.0
for example
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Merged #1621 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/1621#event-4566925973___
Rpm-maint mailing list
The change got reverted for now, reopening. Sigh.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Reopened #994.
--
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/994#event-4566954272___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Okay, the conclusion here is pretty simple: we need more places and better ways
to run tests, and those ways should be designed to prevent abuse. Some checks
want to run before %install and should be allowed to do so, others would prefer
the actual packaged content etc.
I don't have the
--
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/994#issuecomment-815548834___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Um, tag what, where? I have no idea what you mean by this.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Right, it's just fileclass string change causing the checksums not match
expectations. The files in question are created like this:
```
for x in a b c d e f g h i j; do
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/${x}
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/${x}/dir
echo "${x}" > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/${x}/file
chmod
Would it?
If you're unsure what an implementation does, it'd be more helpful to actually
test it.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
I'll try to test it this weekend and find out. I only gave a first pass look
and got a bit nervous.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Ideas for progress:
- [ ] Open a [ticket at Fedora Packaging
Committee](https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issues) or better send a PR to
[File and Directory
Ownership](https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_and_directory_ownership)
@pmatilai Could we have an (extra) knob for this behavior and have Fedora
switch it off by default? I think of the main distributions using/contributing
to RPM, only Fedora does not expect to enforce package file list consistency
because it runs no package build verification tools as automatic
The reason for reverting is that there's this unexpected link to %check usage
(and ambiguity) and I think those changes are better handled together. I have
zero more cycles and/or will to spare on this topic right now.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply
Commit f9b90179b7c80a170969d9ab4c77c0a311635e3f added debug logging for
file sizes which are 64bit in rpm, and %lu is not guaranteed to be
64bit.
Fixes: #1605
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1623
-- Commit
Unpackaged but %exclude'd files in buildroot will still cause build-id symlinks
to be created for them.
This is a long-standing bug originally reported, with reproducers, at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878863
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Rpm does no such thing.
There could be a distro-specific thing that does such things of course, but we
at the upstream are unaware of even that.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Closed #1620.
--
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/1620#event-4567246557___
Rpm-maint mailing list
So... I think it's better to just honestly fail if the setup is borken, rather
than try build fallbacks into silly shell scripts.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Closed #1567.
--
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/1567#event-4567318242___
Rpm-maint mailing list
I guess we are. I want to get the README adapted there but that is not a
blocker for removal from here.
However, let's document the transition in the changelog?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Oh, right. Now that the repo exists we can actually point to it in the commit
message. Good point.
This of course belongs to release notes as well, I'll handle that separately.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on
Please briefly explain the leak in the commit message. At the shortest,
something along the lines of this as the commit message would do:
> Fix memory leak on invalid data in Python pubkey constructor
Commit message summaries need to be informative enough to answer the "is this
relevant for
file 5.40 requires apparently requires at least three consecutive
ASCII characters for a file to be classified as ASCII text. This
doesnt seem at all unreasonable, so add some text to the case
that has started failing in 5.40 due to misclassified file data.
Fixes: #1616
You can view, comment on,
PR #1624 should fix, but I can't easily test with file 5.40. So if you can
confirm, that'd be appreciated.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Indeed, we have tracked it down to
https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/openSUSE:Factory/rpm/remove-translations.diff?expand=1
now. Sorry for the noise.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Merged #1619 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/1619#event-4567691028___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Thanks, for the patch + updated 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/1619#issuecomment-815632536___
Rebased + squashed...
Are we good to go with this?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Merged #1623 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/1623#event-4567475946___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Closed #1605 via #1623.
--
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/1605#event-4567475956___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Thanks for the report.
--
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/1605#issuecomment-815604628___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Merged #1569 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/1569#event-4567697654___
Rpm-maint mailing list
@pmatilai pushed 1 commit.
437152fac478e38784cc3c90a046a7ead6883ef6 Remove remaining Python helpers and
scripts from the repo
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
Also in the release notes now:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm-web/commit/e35a85cd2e7cc981cff88f79c32b1c678515cbf1
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
43 matches
Mail list logo
