Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Define DistTag as optional tag with macro just like DistURL (from SUSE, used by OMV) (#406)
@ffesti 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/406#issuecomment-370615751___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpm ignores architecture when creating self-erasures (#408)
Apologies for the deleted comment. Meanwhile twisting in concepts of "compatible arch" strings including aliasing in all its flaming glories is going to open a world of buggy painfulness even if narrowly limited to what you are calling "self-updates". The circumstances where a system-wide transition from, say, i586 -> i686 are usually quite rare, and are better handled in depsolvers and installers rather than in rpm. It's also not too hard (and there have been hysterical RFE's) to imagine that upgrade decisions should include additional info like DistTag:, Vendor:, Buildtime:, desired LC_ALL settings, etc. At a minimum, using a platform string (and "platform compatibility") should be attempted if you choose to move forward with automated arch compatibility scored upgrade decisions. -- 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/408#issuecomment-370552425___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: the macro test-for-existence %{?...} does not scope directly across builtins (#409)
See usage confusion at #363 -- 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/409#issuecomment-370544954___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: the macro test-for-existence %{?...} does not scope directly across builtins (#409)
The test should be done earlier against the table of builtins as well as the macro definitions. -- 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/409___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Configurable macro file search path(s) (#363)
Try removing the leading '?', and note that the added documentation explicitly says "file" not pattern. You can verify the load (or attempt) by using "strace -e open" -- 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/363#issuecomment-370540267___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Configurable macro file search path(s) (#363)
Of course, that was just test. So I did different one:
~~~
$ git diff
diff --git a/ruby.spec b/ruby.spec
index c9ff8dc..ecc5e93 100644
--- a/ruby.spec
+++ b/ruby.spec
@@ -102,8 +102,7 @@ Source14: test_systemtap.rb
# The load directive is supported since RPM 4.12, i.e. F21+. The build process
# fails on older Fedoras.
-%{?load:%{SOURCE4}}
-%{?load:%{SOURCE5}}
+%{?load:%{dirname:%{SOURCE4}}/macros.*}
# Fix ruby_version abuse.
# https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/11002
@@ -520,6 +519,8 @@ HTTP.
%prep
+echo "%{dirname:%{SOURCE4}}/macros.*"
+
%setup -q -n %{ruby_archive}
# Remove bundled libraries to be sure they are not used.
~~~
This does not load anything.
--
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/363#issuecomment-370469400___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Configurable macro file search path(s) (#363)
```
+%{?load:%{_rpmmacrodir}/macros.*}
```
This is redundant... RPM already does this...
--
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/363#issuecomment-370468428___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Configurable macro file search path(s) (#363)
This passes:
~~~
$ git diff
diff --git a/ruby.spec b/ruby.spec
index c9ff8dc..3748781 100644
--- a/ruby.spec
+++ b/ruby.spec
@@ -104,6 +104,7 @@ Source14: test_systemtap.rb
# fails on older Fedoras.
%{?load:%{SOURCE4}}
%{?load:%{SOURCE5}}
+%{?load:%{_rpmmacrodir}/macros.*}
# Fix ruby_version abuse.
# https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/11002
~~~
But I am not really sure what is the result, if the macros got loaded :)
--
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/363#issuecomment-370465021___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Configurable macro file search path(s) (#363)
Just quick test:
~~~
$ git diff
diff --git a/ruby.spec b/ruby.spec
index c9ff8dc..fc2e68b 100644
--- a/ruby.spec
+++ b/ruby.spec
@@ -104,6 +104,7 @@ Source14: test_systemtap.rb
# fails on older Fedoras.
%{?load:%{SOURCE4}}
%{?load:%{SOURCE5}}
+%{load:%{_rpmmacrodir}/*}
# Fix ruby_version abuse.
# https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/11002
$ LANG=C.UTF-8 fedpkg srpm
error: failed to load macro file /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/*error: line 107:
%{load:%{_rpmmacrodir}/*}
error: query of specfile /home/vondruch/fedora-scm/own/ruby/ruby.spec failed,
can't parse
Could not execute srpm: Could not get n-v-r-e from '\n\n'
~~~
--
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/363#issuecomment-370463587___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Configurable macro file search path(s) (#363)
Ok, so I can imagine I put this into every SCL meta package, but then I have a few questions. * Does the load macro support the wild cards? * What happens if there is no such macro file? Does it fail or just continue? -- 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/363#issuecomment-370462695___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Configurable macro file search path(s) (#363)
@voxik No, no no. You can put the macros wherever, just have a `%{load:..}`
directive that points to it.
If I remember correctly, you can also do something like
`%{load:/opt///rpm/macros.d/macros.*}` to load it.
However, you have to be careful, since if the macros don't exist, the spec will
just break. So what you can do is control it with an `%is_scl` macro that turns
it on.
Something like this:
```
%{?is_scl:%{load:/opt/fedora/ruby99/rpm/macros.d/macros.*}}
```
--
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/363#issuecomment-370460367___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpmidxGetInternal(): leak on realloc() failure (#357)
Okay, changed to the x* versions and now redundant error handling removed. Hopefully didn't break anything, but it *seems* really straightforward... -- 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/357#issuecomment-370460086___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpmidxGetInternal(): leak on realloc() failure (#357)
Closed #357. -- 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/357#event-1504397124___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Configurable macro file search path(s) (#363)
I am disappointed. Many people calls SCL being big hack, but you won't make it
any easier :(
So if I read it correctly, the suggestion is that scl-utils should put
something into ```%{_rpmmacrodir}``` (please note that the collection itself
are generally not allowed to put anything outside their root directory), which
will be able to iterate through SCL ```/opt//```
directories and load the macros from there. May be I just don't have enough
imagination to see better solution.
--
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/363#issuecomment-370456519___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpmidxGetInternal(): leak on realloc() failure (#357)
No, that's fine. We can also remove the code that is not needed in rpm (i.e. the non-rpmxdb code in rpmidx). -- 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/357#issuecomment-370451381___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpmidxGetInternal(): leak on realloc() failure (#357)
@mlschroe ping, mind if we change ndb to use the rpm "native" xmalloc() etc that never fail? -- 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/357#issuecomment-370449787___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Configurable macro file search path(s) (#363)
I guess this was always more a matter of missing documentation than missing feature. -- 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/363#issuecomment-370447877___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Configurable macro file search path(s) (#363)
Closed #363. -- 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/363#event-1504309831___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Run binary package generation via thread pools (#226)
Ok, I pushed the first and the last patch as a sign of good will. The problem here is that librpm (which rpmstrPool is part of) but also librpmbuild are libraries that might be used in applications running other threading implementations. Also rpm already uses pthread - although not very consistently. So yes, rpmstrPool needs some thread proofing. Still I am for now not comfortable to push these remaining patches without further looking into possible implications - especially on the librpm side. -- 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/226#issuecomment-370439774___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpm ignores architecture when creating self-erasures (#408)
This issue once was https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/253 When you have foo-1-1.i586 installed and you do 'rpm -U foo-1-1.i686', rpm will not add an erase element for the i586 package. -- 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/408___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add macros to generate --enable-/disable- arguments (#176)
OK, this has not made progress for nearly a year. While there may be some use in further thinking about this the current patch does just not cut it. I am closing this for now. Feel free to continue the discussion on the mailing list or in a new, improved PR. -- 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/176#issuecomment-370415455___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add macros to generate --enable-/disable- arguments (#176)
Closed #176. -- 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/176#event-1504075897___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Revert "Revert "Only build bundled fts if system has a bad version th… (#324)
Half a year later, there's still no fakechroot upstream release with the relevant fix in it. Not exactly a huge surprise since the latest release is from 2016. We can reconsider when they finally cut that release. In the meanwhile, see my earlier comment about nftw()... -- 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/324#issuecomment-370414156___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Also test architecture in "refresh" test when not colored. (#253)
Closed #253. -- 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/253#event-1504048274___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Also test architecture in "refresh" test when not colored. (#253)
Looks like the patch content and the commit message do not match (or it does not explain things well enough) and there are also some pieces missing. I am closing this for now. Feel free to reopen a PR with a complete set of changes and improved commit messages. -- 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/253#issuecomment-370411672___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Define DistTag as optional tag with macro just like DistURL (from SUSE, used by OMV) (#406)
Closed #406 via 6ba887683b4bf9712be00a3d5dcaa890bfce47c1. -- 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/406#event-1503946492___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] debugedit: handle RISC-V relocation (#407)
Thanks for the patch! Pushed with the surrounding "if defined" guard. -- You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/407#issuecomment-370391017___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] debugedit: handle RISC-V relocation (#407)
Closed #407 via 86ec4c03de2b7cc6af6ba5b10dd686002e0b588c. -- You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/407#event-1503893852___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: '!=' vercmp operator (#376)
The longer I think about this RFE the more I think it is a bad idea. I am closing this now. Feel free to reopen if there is a good use case and includes a spec file of an existing package. -- 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/376#issuecomment-370387433___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: '!=' vercmp operator (#376)
Closed #376. -- 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/376#event-1503869934___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [PATCH] debugedit: handle RISC-V relocation
--- tools/debugedit.c | 6 ++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) diff --git a/tools/debugedit.c b/tools/debugedit.c index e0b1d98d99..57cd83030f 100644 --- a/tools/debugedit.c +++ b/tools/debugedit.c @@ -1947,6 +1947,12 @@ edit_dwarf2 (DSO *dso) if (rtype != R_68K_32) goto fail; break; +#if defined(EM_RISCV) && defined(R_RISCV_32) + case EM_RISCV: + if (rtype != R_RISCV_32) + goto fail; + break; +#endif default: fail: error (1, 0, "%s: Unhandled relocation %d in .debug_info section", -- 2.16.2 -- Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, sch...@suse.de GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE 1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7 "And now for something completely different." ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Define DistTag as optional tag with macro just like DistURL (from SUSE, used by OMV) (#406)
(Huh, SUSE carries has a patch like that? Weird. We don't use it for sure.) -- 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/406#issuecomment-370374393___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] debugedit: handle RISC-V relocation (#407)
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/407 -- Commit Summary -- * debugedit: handle RISC-V relocation -- File Changes -- M tools/debugedit.c (4) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/407.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/407.diff -- 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/407 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
