Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] 4.15.1 creates unreproducible rpm DEPENDSDICT (#1056)
I was able to reproduce the problem with rpm-4.14.1 as well, so not a recent regression. -- 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/1056#issuecomment-590672950___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Make parametric macro arguments available as native Lua table (#1063)
Adding options as another table, accessed via option name as the key isn't hard. BUT. This uses global tables for local arguments, which means that such macros could not nest, which seems like a bit of a showstopper... -- 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/1063#issuecomment-590369640___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Make parametric macro arguments available as native Lua table (#1063)
Pushed a saner implementation of the thing, but options not done yet. -- 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/1063#issuecomment-590356294___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] 4.15.1 creates unreproducible rpm DEPENDSDICT (#1056)
As it's not entirely clear from the report: is this reported as a regression in 4.15.x or just a new finding that was simply reported on the version where tested? -- 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/1056#issuecomment-590323521___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Weak dependencies do not allow qualifiers (#624)
Closed #624. -- 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/624#event-3065344766___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Weak dependencies do not allow qualifiers (#624)
This should've been closed by commit ddbf30cf96a33319805b362b01d8a6fdfe7dea9c but GH doesn't recognize the Resolves: tag used in the message. -- 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/624#issuecomment-590318759___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] test fail of 222: rpmkeys -Kv 2 (#1074)
Right, that should be fixed already in commit 7cb8ebdf92f7f3d42a12afb9720e142284e71810 (and the mess behind 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/1074#issuecomment-590304614___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Year 2038 plan for rpm (#1084)
Hmm, actually the timestamps are uint32_t so they should be good until 2106, but this does need a proper investigation, and ultimately, move to 64bit types. -- 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/1084#issuecomment-590300392___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Year 2038 plan for rpm (#1084)
All timestamps in rpm packages are 32bit and will roll over on 2038, and at least some APIs are also affected. As Enterprise distro lifespans are 10+ years, this is something that needs to be addressed in the near future. Within rpm this can be relatively easily done using a similar approach as was used with 64bit file sizes, but that wasn't so smooth for the rest of the world which simply went on using the 32bit tags and only now are starting to notice the need to change. One tempting possibility would be jumping to 64bit values across the board and declare new major version with that... -- 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/1084___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] PVS-Studio Analysis Results for RPM (#1052)
Yes, I set it up at some point. IIRC you push to specific tag and it runs build... Florian might still remember how to do 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/1052#issuecomment-590279270___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] PVS-Studio Analysis Results for RPM (#1052)
Yep. Jeff had enabled it on the project using his account for about a year, I think? I saw some of the reports during that time. He used Coverity with rpm5 and turned it on for rpm too. -- 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/1052#issuecomment-590278985___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] PVS-Studio Analysis Results for RPM (#1052)
> We used to have coverity scans running on rpm Did we? That would be news 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/issues/1052#issuecomment-590278200___ 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 ability to calculate filedigests using Streebog-256 and Streebog-… (#1082)
Oh and to clarify, what I mean by "getting into OpenPGP" is at least try to get a reservation for the algorithm(s). There are any number of such reservations in the RFC and one would think that it wouldn't require jumping through *too* many hoops. -- 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/1082#issuecomment-590276331___ 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 ability to calculate filedigests using Streebog-256 and Streebog-… (#1082)
What I meant by detaching is declare a separate RPMHASHALGO_FOO enumeration that is free of PGP constraints and then adjust the entire codebase to use that as appropriate, but that seems like quite a bit of busywork and churn. Please try to get GOST included in OpenPGP officially, that's what you really wanted to begin with as per above comments. That'd be the win-win situation here. As per https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4880#section-10.3.3: > The initial values for this registry can be found in Section 9 for the algorithm identifiers and text names, and Section 5.2.2 for the OIDs and expanded signature prefixes. Adding a new hash algorithm MUST be done through the IETF CONSENSUS method, as described in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2434 -- 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/1082#issuecomment-590264342___ 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 ability to calculate filedigests using Streebog-256 and Streebog-… (#1082)
> RPM 5 did it: https://abf.io/soft/rpm5/blob/master/rpmio/rpmiotypes.h#lc-204 > Will the same approach be acceptable in rpm4? Well, rpm5 compatibility is an explicit _non-goal_, so it's not likely to sway anyone on 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/pull/1082#issuecomment-590257475___ 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 ability to calculate filedigests using Streebog-256 and Streebog-… (#1082)
RPM 5 did it: https://abf.io/soft/rpm5/blob/master/rpmio/rpmiotypes.h#lc-204 Will the same approach be acceptable in rpm4? -- 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/1082#issuecomment-590254191___ 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 ability to calculate filedigests using Streebog-256 and Streebog-… (#1082)
> The other option would be detaching the digest algorithm enumeration used by > rpm for non-PGP purposes from the OpenPGP values If to make values out of the range specified by the OpenPGP RFC (e.g. 250 and 251 or whatever else), they will still be called `PGPHASHALGO_*`, but may it break anything elsewhere in RPM? -- 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/1082#issuecomment-590251268___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Speed up dependency solving by using pool ids (#1081)
pmatilai approved this pull request. I thought I actually removed the ts as an argument to rpmalCreate() back somewhen as part of overall efforts to minimize what has access to the full transaction set, but seems that's not the case. Anyway, I can live with that, it does of course simplify the argument list. Nice optimization + cleanup, 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/1081#pullrequestreview-363268093___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Speed up dependency solving by using pool ids (#1081)
Merged #1081 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/1081#event-3064699495___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] More fpLookupSubdir cleanups (#1071)
OTOH maybe I just need to adopt a merge first strategy to avoid embarrassing accidental closures... Anyway, thanks for the nice cleanups. -- 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/1071#issuecomment-590236669___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] More fpLookupSubdir cleanups (#1071)
Merged #1071 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/1071#event-3064645142___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Make parametric macro arguments available as native Lua table (#1063)
Yup, like already noted in the above, "if we do this then we'd really want to export options natively to Lua too". -- 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/1063#issuecomment-590235510___ 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 ability to calculate filedigests using Streebog-256 and Streebog-… (#1082)
pmatilai requested changes on this pull request. Please ask for at least a reservation for the GOST algorithms in OpenPGP RFC, I don't see this being acceptable otherwise. The other option would be detaching the digest algorithm enumeration used by rpm for non-PGP purposes from the OpenPGP values. This would probably be the most "correct" thing to do anyway, but also the one that requires most work and churn. -- 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/1082#pullrequestreview-363255337___ 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 ability to calculate filedigests using Streebog-256 and Streebog-… (#1082)
pmatilai 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 WITH_LIBGCRYPT
+/*
+ * As rpmlib(FileDigestsGOST12) is available only when RPM is built with
libcgrypt,
+ * to avoid other versions of RPM from misunderatanding hashes
+ * (see e.g. https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/959),
+ * require FileDigestsGOST12 separately
+ */
+{ "rpmlib(FileDigestsGOST12)", "4.16.0-1",
+ (RPMSENSE_RPMLIB|RPMSENSE_EQUAL),
+N_("file digest can be GOST R 34.11 2012 (STREEBOG256, STREEBOG512)") },
We don't track individual file digest algorithms for anything else either, lets
keep it that way.
Rpm needs to better deal with unknown algorithms but rpmlib() dependencies are
such a clumsy and ugly way...
--
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/1082#discussion_r383150732___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] More fpLookupSubdir cleanups (#1071)
Doh, certainly didn't intend to close but just comment and then merge. Been multiple such mistakes from me in the last week or so, wonder if some button order or such on GH changed. -- 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/1071#issuecomment-590226857___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] More fpLookupSubdir cleanups (#1071)
Reopened #1071. -- 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/1071#event-3064556851___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] More fpLookupSubdir cleanups (#1071)
Okay so there was more than meets the eye... thankfully caught by the test-suite. -- 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/1071#issuecomment-590226357___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] More fpLookupSubdir cleanups (#1071)
Closed #1071. -- 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/1071#event-3064556636___ 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: Generators for license (#1073)
The case of generating run-time dependencies from non-installed files is a separate case that deserves a ticket of its own. -- 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/1073#issuecomment-590212726___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Disallow buildrequires: inside %package section (#1083)
Closed #1083. -- 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#event-3064428501___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Disallow buildrequires: inside %package section (#1083)
As a rule of thumb, %package can and is free to use everything that is in the main preamble, that's always been the case and that's why there's no special documentation about it. The "obvious" exception to the rule is Name: which is handled via %package argument. Buildrequires is no different, and especially with conditional sub-packages the ability to place Buildrequires in the requiring sub-package is highly useful. No bug here. -- 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-590210555___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
