To count as a real directory prefix the string matched should either
be equal to the given prefix or start with the prefix plus '/'.
skip_dir_prefix is always used with base_dir or dest_dir which don't
end with a slash themselves.
This really only is an issue if a package would put a directory
commit 038bfe "Split directory traversal and debuginfo extraction"
put the core of a while loop into its own function 'do_file()'.
That means that instead of using 'continue' to break out early it now
needs to use 'return'. Otherwise the script will give errors like:
continue: only meaningful
There is no official way to mark an instruction range as being not
part of some actual source code, but as part of a compiler built-in
construct in DWARF. So different compilers have come up with fake
source file names like or <__thread_local_inner macros>.
We already filtered out the strings ""
As long as --nosignature and --nodigest are commonly used everywhere --
including in depsolvers -- you can setup an internal table to associate the
data type with the tag and never access the field in the header.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to
This has been put on hold, closing for now at least.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Closed #200.
--
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/200#event-1142057457___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Closed #135.
--
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/135#event-1142044203___
Rpm-maint mailing list
The immediate crasher was already addressed, the underlying larger issue of tag
validation will be tracked in #242 from here on.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
The immediate crasher was already addressed, the underlying larger issue of tag
validation will be tracked in #242 from here on.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Closed #136.
--
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/136#event-1142043981___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Closed #137.
--
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/137#event-1142043836___
Rpm-maint mailing list
The immediate crasher was already addressed, the underlying larger issue of tag
validation will be tracked in #242 from here on.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
The immediate crasher was already addressed, the underlying larger issue of tag
validation will be tracked in #242 from here on.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
The immediate crasher was already addressed, the underlying larger issue of tag
validation will be tracked in #242 from here on.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Closed #138.
--
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/138#event-1142043641___
Rpm-maint mailing list
The common theme in tickets #135, #136, #137, #138 and #139 is that the
datatype of a valid tag is changed to something incompatible, such as an
integer tag is changed to string, which then causes crash-and-burn in various
places, many of which are not able to return an error even if they
The suggestion of moving RPMTAG_PUBKEYS was directed to rpm.org (and you) as a
better design for *.rpm packages, particularly if pursuing multiple signatures
on multiple plaintext within an RPM package.
*shrug*
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to
Closing due to lack of activity and missing information. Feel free to reopen
when providing the requested information about reproducing details.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
You're of course free to do whatever you wish in RPM5 but this is an issue
tracker of rpm.org, please limit usage to that purpose. Closing.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Closed #182.
--
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/182#event-1141967870___
Rpm-maint mailing list
This is an issue tracker, not a support forum. Closing.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Closed #184.
--
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/184#event-1141964299___
Rpm-maint mailing list
This is an issue tracker and there's no actual issue here, just a question. See
http://rpm.org/community.html for the appropriate forums for questions and
discussion.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Closed #231.
--
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/231#event-1141961457___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Sorry but this is an issue tracker, not a support forum. See
http://rpm.org/community.html
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Closed #240.
--
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/240#event-1141957245___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Excellent, 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/237#issuecomment-311594948___
Rpm-maint mailing list
On 06/26/2017 06:38 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
dwz -m multi only works when there are multiple .debug input files.
With just one .debug file it doesn't really make sense to extract
the shared debug info into a separate file and dwz will complain:
dwz: Too few files for multifile optimization.
On 06/26/2017 02:35 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
This adds some missing documentation for rpm macros and find-debuginfo.sh
options that were recently added (or renamed). -j N, --build-id-seed SEED,
--unique-debug-suffix SUFFIX and --unique-debug-src-base BASE.
Signed-off-by: Mark Wielaard
Sorry, was on vacation for a week (and will be again for all of July)
The patch as such looks fine to me, no problem with that.
What I'm wondering about is that this of course loses is the ability to easily
override python version both at run- and buildtime. The latter isn't that
relevant
Sorry I'd managed to forget this whole thing between vacations and other stuff.
Thanks for the patches!
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Merged #218.
--
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/218#event-1141832657___
Rpm-maint mailing list
32 matches
Mail list logo
