Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add support for fsverity signatures (#1121)

2020-03-12 Thread jessorensen
I am currently working on splitting fsverity-utils into a shared library which will provide the needed functionality for computing digests and signing. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add support for fsverity signatures (#1121)

2020-03-12 Thread jessorensen
fsverity is a new integrity feature in the kernel, which in combination with fsverity-utils allows for validating integrity of binaries when data blocks are read from disk. This request is to add native rpm support for fsverity signatures, similar to what is already available in RPM for IMA

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Make "rpmspec -q --srpm foo.spec" say .src, not .%{arch} (#1116)

2020-03-12 Thread Peter Jones
> What about nosrc packages? It's a bit harder to do well, as "rpmspec -q" goes through rpmcliQuery(), which doesn't parse the spec file, and rpmspec.c doesn't know about rpmSpec internals, so can't access spec->noSource without including rpmbuild_internals.h, but I've pushed an updated patch

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Make "rpmspec -q --srpm foo.spec" say .src, not .%{arch} (#1116)

2020-03-12 Thread Michael Schroeder
What about nosrc packages? -- 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/1116#issuecomment-598149647___ Rpm-maint mailing list

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] %force file list directive (#1118)

2020-03-12 Thread Michael Schroeder
It's not so easy, it needs some changes in rpm's aliasing detection code (i.e. symlinked directories) so that the rpm internals know what's going on. I'm already working on this, but the development has been stalled the last weeks due to other work needing to be done first. -- You are

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] %force file list directive (#1118)

2020-03-12 Thread Vít Ondruch
Alternatively, I can also imagine more specific `%replace_{symlink,directory}` where RPM would know what was expected there and what is the replacement. On top of that, RPM could automatically create backup and own the backup, so it is removed when RPM is removed. -- You are receiving this

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Handling of files during installation via hooks (#1120)

2020-03-12 Thread Vít Ondruch
This is third idea in my series of handling symlink <-> directory conversion. Would it be possible to mark files, which should have some special treatment and process them via some hook? E.g. if the there is `%hook somefile` listed in `%files` section, for every action above this file, some

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Always open (and initialize) the entire database at once (#1119)

2020-03-12 Thread Panu Matilainen
In some scenarios we previously only created some of the indexes only lazy db init through query. Partially initialized databases dont make sense and are only asking for trouble, in particular this was causing issues with sqlite backend which is stricter about readonly-mode. Except for the

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] %force file list directive (#1118)

2020-03-12 Thread Vít Ondruch
Thinking about symlink <-> directory conversion, wouldn't be possible to have something like `%force` file list directive? That would do something like "remove whatever is standing in a way, be it file/directory/symlink and place there content from this RPM". -- You are receiving this because

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Is there RPM file list accesible in LUA? (#1117)

2020-03-12 Thread Vít Ondruch
Looking at the symlink <-> directory replacements scripts [[1]], I wonder if there is a way to access the RPM file list from LUA, because it is rather strange, that the scriptlet is supposed to define the path, which can be pretty random one. It would be much better, if the scope could be

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Rework and clarify database backend detection logic (#1115)

2020-03-12 Thread Panu Matilainen
> @pmatilai What does #1028 have to do with this? Michael Schroeder isn't even > in there. It doesn't, that's just a typo of some sort, quite possibly GH autofill induced. #1012 is what I meant, updated in the description now too. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this