Well, if some sub packages are only build conditionally some build requires may
also only be needed for this sub package. So having the BuildRequires right
there makes the spec file easier and avoids separate conditional sections in
the main package.
@socketpair Can you point out where exactly
@ffesti I came up with another thing which might be nice to do. "Promotion of
dependencies".
As you know, Rust compiles statically and we package bunch of -devel packages
with source code. `i3ipc` crate has features for specific versions of `i3` (the
window manager). Like "which version of i3
Well, guys. If this is allowed, it should be documented. If core RPM team
considers it OK, I have no questions except missing documentation for that case.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Why should it disallow it?
--
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/1083#issuecomment-589749594___
Rpm-maint mailing
Yes, but I thought RPM does not scan %package sections while looking for
`buildrequires`. Since it is not clearly documented, I can't consider current
behaviour stable.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
I personally agree that it can be confusing, but I can't think of any technical
reason why RPM would actively prevent it from working. I think this is more of
a distribution issue; different distributions can choose to enforce different
guidelines for stylistic issues such as these if they
Currently, `buildrequires` specified in `%package` work. But I think this is
completely wrong and I think RPM should consider such things as mistakes.
In any case, documentation should be updated regarding whether it is allowed to
add `buildrequires` inside `%package` section, or not.
--
You
StZhukov commented on this pull request.
> @@ -1229,6 +1229,17 @@ static const struct rpmlibProvides_s rpmlibProvides[]
> = {
{ "rpmlib(FileDigests)", "4.6.0-1",
(RPMSENSE_EQUAL),
N_("file digest algorithm is per package configurable") },
+#ifdef
StZhukov commented on this pull request.
> @@ -395,6 +395,7 @@ AC_SUBST(WITH_OPENSSL_LIB)
WITH_LIBGCRYPT_INCLUDE=
WITH_LIBGCRYPT_LIB=
if test "$with_crypto" = libgcrypt ; then
+ AC_DEFINE(WITH_LIBGCRYPT, 1, [Build with libgcrypt instead of nss3 support?])
Thanks, I will change.
--
You
@mlschroe pushed 1 commit.
4c43d263ee1e01b5f3a9822e8bc24aff17cc0461 Use the transaction set as argument
in rpmalCreate()
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
This pull request **introduces 1 alert** when merging
d9ffe24cd45a16a9c2ea258d40fbf2e967760d2c into
153c5c219844f0f294862c9043b20f4d24f7fa69 - [view on
LGTM.com](https://lgtm.com/projects/g/rpm-software-management/rpm/rev/pr-74d712b30f7e113426127e28a80b606b4871f505)
**new alerts:**
* 1 for
@mlschroe pushed 1 commit.
d9ffe24cd45a16a9c2ea258d40fbf2e967760d2c Use the transaction set as argument
in rpmalCreate()
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
mlschroe commented on this pull request.
> @@ -266,6 +266,8 @@ typedef enum pgpHashAlgo_e {
PGPHASHALGO_SHA384 = 9, /*!< SHA384 */
PGPHASHALGO_SHA512 = 10, /*!< SHA512 */
PGPHASHALGO_SHA224 = 11, /*!< SHA224 */
+PGPHASHALGO_GOST12_256 = 100,
mikhailnov commented on this pull request.
> @@ -266,6 +266,8 @@ typedef enum pgpHashAlgo_e {
PGPHASHALGO_SHA384 = 9, /*!< SHA384 */
PGPHASHALGO_SHA512 = 10, /*!< SHA512 */
PGPHASHALGO_SHA224 = 11, /*!< SHA224 */
+PGPHASHALGO_GOST12_256 =
mlschroe commented on this pull request.
> @@ -266,6 +266,8 @@ typedef enum pgpHashAlgo_e {
PGPHASHALGO_SHA384 = 9, /*!< SHA384 */
PGPHASHALGO_SHA512 = 10, /*!< SHA512 */
PGPHASHALGO_SHA224 = 11, /*!< SHA224 */
+PGPHASHALGO_GOST12_256 = 100,
mlschroe commented on this pull request.
> @@ -266,6 +266,8 @@ typedef enum pgpHashAlgo_e {
PGPHASHALGO_SHA384 = 9, /*!< SHA384 */
PGPHASHALGO_SHA512 = 10, /*!< SHA512 */
PGPHASHALGO_SHA224 = 11, /*!< SHA224 */
+PGPHASHALGO_GOST12_256 = 100,
16 matches
Mail list logo
