Apart from the example above, which could make easier to elaborate about the
licenses, I have package with subpackages which I am trying to drop (include in
the main package). However, each of this subpackages has its own license field.
If the license was cumulative, I could just copy paste the
@dmnks commented on this pull request.
> @@ -2451,6 +2453,105 @@ has_bcond(normally_on)
[])
RPMTEST_CLEANUP
+
+
+AT_SETUP([bcond_override_default macros])
+AT_KEYWORDS([bcond build])
+RPMDB_INIT
+
+# check bcond_override_default by defining
+AT_CHECK([
AT_CHECK is deprecated in favor of
@ffesti pushed 1 commit.
4d06f5559d55db81176a336b1f2b4259ecfa89e2 Allow to specify a default for bcond
features in a macro file
--
View it on GitHub:
@ffesti pushed 1 commit.
fd34246f90bd101274c18adae485c1b430dcf5d6 Allow to specify a default for bcond
features in a macro file
--
View it on GitHub:
Specifying multiple `License` fields is currently prohibited:
~~~
warning: line 180: second License
error: Duplicate License entries in package: (main package)
~~~
Is it possible to change the behavior so the multiple license fields were
supported and there would be `AND` relation between them?
And here we go. From 2 lines to 120 in just 11 months...
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2405#issuecomment-1934145866
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
> I think the database is abnormal because the verification fails when I run
> the rpm command,
You mean 'rpm --verify'? What errors?
> or the "rpm -qa" command cannot find the kernel package, but the "rpm -q"
> command can find the kernel package. According to the result, the problem is
>
This started life as pkgdump.c written way back when I needed to analyze some
low-level issues with malformed packages and the like. Since then its
proven necessary every once in a blue moon, so might as well include it in the
rpm codebase where it may actually be kept up to date and even
