> @ignatenkobrain can you please send me some spec/src.rpm with dynamic
> dependencies?
@xsuchy you have another one here
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/nim/macros-ng/build/881699/
(needs the rest of the copr, and obviously failing to build in copr)
--
You are receiving this because
Still not 100% correct, you should use `\fBrpm-misc\fR(8)` so that the (8) is
not bold...
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@ignatenkobrain your releases are not big enough to be picked up over the rpm
version in koji rawhide
Koji rawhide is already at release 6
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=319
Also, the modified rpm seems to break some copr assumptions
* with `
@ffesti pushed 2 commits.
a27f82f955b6f09d5f44fa7627f7db2f8b867d81 fixup! Add support for dynamic
BuildRequires
93e5e3e408caf4d94eeb4acf412a8ca341cb93df fixup! Add support for dynamic
BuildRequires
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> @@ -480,6 +480,13 @@ int readLine(rpmSpec spec, int strip)
ofi->fileName, ofi->lineNum);
return PART_ERROR;
}
+ if ((spec->readStack->ifStage == LINE_ELSE)) {
+ /* Got an else after %else ! */
> Thinking about this a bit more, rpmbuild should probably get an option to
> just execute genbr section without checking dependencies.
> @ffesti thoughts?
The thing is that I had (and in the code still have) the execution of the br
script separate from the dependency check. But this makes the
Just some update on this from my side:
* RPM with this PR
* Latest mock
** With https://github.com/rpm-software-management/mock/pull/246
** With removed `--nodeps` from mock (@xsuchy is going to test whether it will
break anything)
* rust-packaging with
ffesti commented on this pull request.
> @@ -350,6 +350,18 @@ static rpmRC buildSpec(BTA_t buildArgs, rpmSpec spec,
> int what)
if ((what & RPMBUILD_CHECKBUILDREQUIRES) &&
(rc = doCheckBuildRequires(spec, test))) {
if (rc == RPMRC_MISSINGBUILDREQUIRES) {
+
@ffesti pushed 5 commits.
b2bb450b8b9a8548d10b8e6a3911f73f0ea9211d fixup! Add support for dynamic
BuildRequires
3a8b02d637a1c083463357fdb3b6c8cb5273813c fixup! rpmbuild: Allow to build
source with dymamic build dependencies included
23fcd00c01aca50ff00588106c23a7e764ca2a8b Use
Based on the comment there, the idea there is to set RPMBUILD_PREP bit to zero,
|= is certainly wrong for that purpose (but I dont know if there's something
else wrong in the surrounding logic). However the general rpm-style for
disabling bits would is:
```
what &= ~RPMBUILD_PREP;
```
@ffesti you have one more bug which is breaking basically everything :)
```diff
@@ -354,7 +353,7 @@ static rpmRC buildSpec(BTA_t buildArgs, rpmSpec spec, int
what)
!(what & (RPMBUILD_BUILD|RPMBUILD_INSTALL|RPMBUILD_PACKAGEBINARY))){
/* don't run prep if not needed for
Lets discuss Mock implementation here:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/mock/issues/245
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
> It isn't that bad is it?
Elf internals *are* a bit daunting for the uninitiated such as ourselves :grin:
Anyway, thanks for the review Mark.
--
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
13 matches
Mail list logo
