> All these typos looks like copy-slopping under heavy vodka influence, only I
> don't have the excuse of chemical substances here. An embarrassing slip of
> self-review from me, thanks for bothering to fine-comb it all.
Actually, in this case, one would almost doubt the patch was written by a
@dmnks commented on this pull request.
> @@ -469,6 +469,17 @@ static rpmpsm rpmpsmNew(rpmts ts, rpmte te, pkgGoal goal)
psm->scriptArg = npkgs_installed + 1;
psm->countCorrection = 0;
break;
+ case PKG_PREUNTRANS:
+ if
@pmatilai pushed 1 commit.
addcde79d4493663abc63b9f7c62832faf8d7ddf Add support for %preuntrans and
%postuntrans scriptlets
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2177/files/3ed777e421773b7e4f472c5db2aab102ee6593c4..addcde79d4493663abc63b9f7c62832faf8d7ddf
And now with some earlier fixes + additions added back for the fourth time or
something. This PR really hates me :rofl:
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2177#issuecomment-1253426015
You are receiving this because you are
@dmnks commented on this pull request.
> @@ -469,6 +469,17 @@ static rpmpsm rpmpsmNew(rpmts ts, rpmte te, pkgGoal goal)
psm->scriptArg = npkgs_installed + 1;
psm->countCorrection = 0;
break;
+ case PKG_PREUNTRANS:
+ if
> Should be fixed now. Famous last words roll_eyes
Yet you apparently only pushed to your WIP branch, not the public one here
:sweat_smile:
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2177#issuecomment-1253346972
You are receiving
@pmatilai pushed 1 commit.
3ed777e421773b7e4f472c5db2aab102ee6593c4 Add support for %preuntrans and
%postuntrans scriptlets
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2177/files/48f04d6638096e9eafc537d314991ba44fadff08..3ed777e421773b7e4f472c5db2aab102ee6593c4
I seem to be short of clever/funny remarks for the preamble this time
around, so maybe I'll just pass. In what must be the driest news of the
day, we're releasing RPM 4.18.0 and POPT 1.19. Despite the timing, these
releases aren't technically related, and RPM continues to work with
older
The discussion here is beside the point of the PR. This is in large parts my
fault as the original patch also was beside the point. As it turns out this is
unrelated to v4 OpenPGP signatures and their use of SHA-1.
The current patch only returns the error of not supported older SHA-1 based
All these typos looks like copy-slopping under heavy vodka influence, only I
don't have the excuse of chemical substances here. An embarrassing slip of
self-review from me, thanks for bothering to fine-comb it all.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@dmnks commented on this pull request.
> @@ -37,7 +37,9 @@ enum rpmtransFlags_e {
RPMTRANS_FLAG_NOCONTEXTS = (1 << 8),/*!< from --nocontexts */
RPMTRANS_FLAG_NOCAPS = (1 << 9),/*!< from --nocaps */
RPMTRANS_FLAG_NODB = (1 << 10),/*!< from --nodb */
-
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> @@ -469,6 +469,17 @@ static rpmpsm rpmpsmNew(rpmts ts, rpmte te, pkgGoal goal)
psm->scriptArg = npkgs_installed + 1;
psm->countCorrection = 0;
break;
+ case PKG_PREUNTRANS:
+ if
Should be fixed now. Famous last words :roll_eyes:
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2177#issuecomment-1253259301
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
@dmnks commented on this pull request.
> @@ -37,7 +37,9 @@ enum rpmtransFlags_e {
RPMTRANS_FLAG_NOCONTEXTS = (1 << 8),/*!< from --nocontexts */
RPMTRANS_FLAG_NOCAPS = (1 << 9),/*!< from --nocaps */
RPMTRANS_FLAG_NODB = (1 << 10),/*!< from --nodb */
-
@pmatilai pushed 2 commits.
5a650b22066e3ec4325581bc18bb315e6bf79d9d Clarify countCorrection usage in psm
a2aa0d290c4115991df517eaf1a66f2fff32002f Add support for %preuntrans and
%postuntrans scriptlets
--
View it on GitHub:
> When a job starts to go wrong, it often does so all the way to the end. Like
> a trainwreck. laughing
Indeed. We've all been there and done that :smile:
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2177#issuecomment-1253364891
You
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
When a job starts to go wrong, it often does so all the way to the end. Like a
trainwreck. :laughing:
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2177#issuecomment-1253352402
You are receiving this
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> @@ -37,7 +37,9 @@ enum rpmtransFlags_e {
RPMTRANS_FLAG_NOCONTEXTS = (1 << 8),/*!< from --nocontexts */
RPMTRANS_FLAG_NOCAPS = (1 << 9),/*!< from --nocaps */
RPMTRANS_FLAG_NODB = (1 << 10),/*!< from --nodb
In RPMv4, IMA and fsverity signatures are not considered part of the package,
but of the signature. Therefore, they are included in the signature header
(not the main header), which leads to various problems and increases attack
surface. For RPMv6, I propose that they be considered part of
And then I went ahead and forgot it in final too :facepalm: This isn't the best
of months for me, really...
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2113#issuecomment-1253556302
You are receiving this because you are subscribed
Our documentation including the reference manual uses all manner of mixed up
terminology. We should clarify and unify the terminology used, eg talk about
directives rather than tags, and sections for the %-stuff.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
%prep
%setup -q -n %{name}-%{version}-release
sed 's:/bin/sh:/usr/bin/sh:' -i macros.in
sh autogen.sh --noconfigure
%build
_options=( --prefix=/usr
--program-prefix=
--sysconfdir=/etc
--sharedstatedir=/var/lib
--localstatedir=/var
--with-crypto=libgcrypt
--with-gnu-ld
--with-archive
--with-cap
22 matches
Mail list logo
