nwnk approved this pull request.
> @@ -329,8 +333,8 @@ static int doSetupMacro(rpmSpec spec, const char *line)
/* if necessary, create and cd into the proper dir */
if (createDir) {
- buf = rpmExpand("%{__mkdir_p} ", spec->buildSubdir, "\n",
- "cd '",
@vathpela pushed 1 commit.
43c0982a97a5c600f00b8108ef1765bc15ee563f Make %{buildsubdir} usable without
being a side effect of %setup.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
> Other than the typo this looks good to me.
>
> `Reviewed-by: Adam Jackson `
Yeah, that's what I get for doing make check and then going "oh that looks
dangerous, but it's an easy fix" while re-reading the patch before pushing.
Anyway, new version that passes pushed.
--
You are receiving
#163 / commit 91aa078 added `RPMTAG_PAYLOADDIGEST` and
`RPMTAG_PAYLOADDIGESTALGO`, so RPM now verifies the integrity of the payload.
But there are tools (e.g. `deltarpm`) that reconstruct RPM payloads from
individual parts. Given an RPM header and the individual file contents, the
original
Other than the typo this looks good to me.
`Reviewed-by: Adam Jackson `
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
`Reviewed-by: Adam Jackson `
--
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/859#issuecomment-534613072___
Rpm-maint mailing
This patch makes a couple of related changes:
- lets you set %{_buildsubdir} as a global to expose it everywhere,
rather than just specific parts of %prep (%setup and %patch*)
- lets you choose what path is used independently of the unpack
options in %setup
- allows you to use a different
This patch adds __tar_opts and __tar_opts_verbose macros, which can be
overriden to change the default tar behavior when called from %setup
while building packages.
Signed-off-by: Peter Jones pjo...@redhat.com
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
Thats the third loop of that form in the code...
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/858
-- Commit Summary --
* Make copyNextLineFromOFI() aware of the new %[] syntax
-- File Changes --
M build/parseSpec.c
Here's another solution:
```
%global godocs docs examples code-of-conduct.md %dnl\
README.md
```
This uses the new %dnl macro to eat away the newline generated by the trailing
`\`.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on
Okay then, 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:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/855#issuecomment-534517798___
Rpm-maint
Merged #855 into master.
--
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/855#event-2657706957___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Closed #852 via #855.
--
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/852#event-2657706960___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Kinda funny, I'm not familiar with that form at all. Not that it means much,
except that maybe I'm not the best judge here :)
I can certainly live without ```?``` and ```?:```, for the latter I know gcc
supports it but I don't recall ever using it. So it's not exactly of
life-support
(I've got no plans for another commit currently.)
--
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/855#issuecomment-534516042___
Merged #853 into master.
--
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/853#event-2657687248___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Merged #856 into master.
--
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/856#event-2657674654___
Rpm-maint mailing list
pmatilai approved this pull request.
Fine now, thanks.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
With the referenced pull request you can use && and || for alternate/default:
`%foo && %bar` is `%bar` if `%foo` is true, otherwise `0`
`%foo || %bar` is `%foo` if `%foo` is true, otherwise `%bar`
I think people are somewhat more used to this than the degenerate `?` and `?!`
forms that aren't
The PR looks good to me.
--
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/853#issuecomment-534511744___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Pushed.
--
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/856#issuecomment-534511549___
Rpm-maint mailing list
@pavlinamv pushed 1 commit.
9ae7eb4858f381cad3925c96a0ec1b4d7d9f36cc Correct description of %verbose and
%getconfdir in the macro manual
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
Forgot to push?
--
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/856#issuecomment-534509060___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Changed according to the comment.
--
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/856#issuecomment-534508114___
Rpm-maint
This is basically an abandoned and forgotten development path from
11 years ago that arguably shouldve been removed long ago, and one
that has potential security implications and doesnt play well with
existing API users who rely on gpg-pubkey headers being in the rpmdb
(RhBug:1393586)
You can
Good spotting, but please move them to the appropriate groups as well: the
first group of macros takes no argument, so %getconfdir belongs there, and
%{verbose:...} belongs to the group that does.
The grouping is pretty arbitrary of course, %define/%undefine/%global are in
the middle of
I looked into rpm/doc/manual/macros to check 0 and 1 added into the
builtinmacros[] in PR #853. Values added in PR #853 are correct, but
description of macros %verbose and %getconfdir in manual is confusing. So
that is why I created this PR.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull
Makes the code nicer while enhancing it, what's not to like.
One thing I forgot to mention in some of the earlier patches is that I
certainly don't see any need to add those empty comments above functions as the
common style in that function is. It's not a showstopper by any means but I'd
As for 3), I think both variants would be kinda nice to have.
In particular, people are used to ```%foo ? %bar``` from macros, and might be
even a bit surprised if that doesn't work. And default value case of ```%foo ?:
%bar``` is quite a common pattern, so why not?
--
You are receiving this
After poking around a bit, I ended up dropping the argument length checking
entirely: it's not an *error* to echo an empty string, and similarly it is not
an *error* to ask for dirname of an empty string. And so on - seems better left
alone in reality.
On-disk filenames cannot be empty so
This commits change the handling of the logical operators. It allows to use
strings as condition and also changes || and to return the last
evaluated term like in perl/python/ruby.
Fixes #852
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
Yup, the thing with g vs gn is that g reflects whether ':' is there or not, and
gn reflects whether there's something after it: macros that do not accept
arguments must not have g, and macros that do need to have both (but non-zero
gn implies non-NULL g).
And yeah, ```%{echo:%{nil}}``` would
32 matches
Mail list logo
