Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Self-conflicts and self-obsoletes don't work correctly with --replacepkgs (#1190)
Yup, there's a RH bug on it too: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1693212 I had a look or two on it last year, it'd be easy to fix if we let -i add erasure elements but tricky otherwise. I kinda like the definition that an install operation cannot erase anything, but then the --replacepkgs is just such a weird, weird thing. The sanest thing (overall) would probably be just making it the inevitable exception to the rule, and be done with 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/1190#issuecomment-617566134___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Self-conflicts and self-obsoletes don't work correctly with --replacepkgs (#1191)
duplicate of #1190 caused by github incident. -- 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/1191#issuecomment-617316732___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Self-conflicts and self-obsoletes don't work correctly with --replacepkgs (#1191)
Closed #1191. -- 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/1191#event-3257228317___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Self-conflicts and self-obsoletes don't work correctly with --replacepkgs (#1190)
`rpm -i --replacepkgs` will not add an erasure element for an identical installed package. This makes the dependency check see the installed package and report an error even though the package will be removed later on. I've stumbled over this in another bug report. I don't mind if it does not get fixed, I opened this issue just to make this problem known. -- 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/1190___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Self-conflicts and self-obsoletes don't work correctly with --replacepkgs (#1191)
`rpm -i --replacepkgs` will not add an erasure element for an identical installed package. This makes the dependency check see the installed package and report an error even though the package will be removed later on. I've stumbled over this in another bug report. I don't mind if it does not get fixed, I opened this issue just to make this problem known. -- 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/1191___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] NEVR provides in source package lead to rpmbuild errors (#1189)
This is a regression caused by commit 75ec16e660e784d7897b37cac1a2b9b135825f25. The provides added to the source rpms will be checked against the dependencies of the installed packages. Because of this you will get an error if you try to build an rpm where the package name matches a conflict of an installed package. I.e.: ``` error: Failed build dependencies: bash <= 2.0.4-21 conflicts with (installed) setup-2.8.71-2.fc20.noarch ``` -- 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/1189___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Parallelize file processing (#1185)
Thanks for the feedback. I also noticed `readFilesManifest()` as being one potential source of problems here. Indeed, with a dirty patch that I'm currently testing out, I got a few random crashes (possibly due to that). However, in those cases where it worked, the build time of a kernel on remote 16-core system with a F31 went down from ~7m to ~3m (just the build phase, i.e. `rpmbuild -bb --short-circuit --noclean`). That makes it worthy a more thorough look at least, so I'll see what I can do :) There's nothing to lose; I'll learn something about the codebase either 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/issues/1185#issuecomment-617147116___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Convert few simple generators for a parametric ones + fix for parametric generators (#1163)
Merged #1163 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/1163#event-3255862156___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Convert few simple generators for a parametric ones + fix for parametric generators (#1163)
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/1163#issuecomment-617131507___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Parallelize file processing (#1185)
Based on a quick look, much of it does in fact appear thread-safe. There are grues in the darker corners though :eyes: One certain problem is the global macro space, readFilesManifest() does push/pop on %license which is probably harmless, but further down the call chain there's readManifest() and specExpand() which do push/pop on current file name and line number, which is not. So at the very least the files manifest parsing would have to be lifted to a pre-parallel section. I'd be nothing short of shocked if this was the only gotcha there is, as processPackageFiles() ends up covering a scary amount of code. -- 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/1185#issuecomment-617127136___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Use MIME types instead of magic strings for RPMTAG_FILECLASS (#1099)
Closed #1099. -- 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/1099#event-3255642011___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Use MIME types instead of magic strings for RPMTAG_FILECLASS (#1099)
Okay I suppose its become clear this is not the way to go, closing. -- 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/1099#issuecomment-617100607___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Convert few simple generators for a parametric ones + fix for parametric generators (#1163)
I'll rebase and clean it up :) -- 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/1163#issuecomment-617097701___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Convert few simple generators for a parametric ones + fix for parametric generators (#1163)
Meh, GH's "fix conflicts" creates this strange merge commit that we don't want. Thought I'd fix it as its kinda my fault the conflict exists, but this only makes it worse... Care to do a rebase to clean it up? Thanks, and sorry about the mess. -- 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/1163#issuecomment-617097347___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Convert few simple generators for a parametric ones + fix for parametric generators (#1163)
@pmatilai pushed 1 commit. dcf93d92f2b324eb1faf40f8ff25949c2e59bad4 Merge branch 'master' into parametric -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1163/files/bd7e2107d8fa1b3e4643d3907a03ec33659c61b3..dcf93d92f2b324eb1faf40f8ff25949c2e59bad4 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Convert few simple generators for a parametric ones + fix for parametric generators (#1163)
@pmatilai approved this pull request. -- 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/1163#pullrequestreview-397200156___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Convert few simple generators for a parametric ones + fix for parametric generators (#1163)
> I have tested it on my system, yes. With quite a few examples.
Ack, good.
> Just one things which I noticed when I was looking into this again... Any
> reason you did not use %{basename} for the redhat-rpm-config patch? I mean, I
> could use the same lua code here in one place.
Mostly just pain of knowing too much, ie how many crazy hoops
`rpm.expand("%{basename:%{1}}")` will jump through to achieve the mighty goal
of string split at '/' :smile: Might even make a small difference in the kernel
case, here it's entirely inconsequential.
--
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/1163#issuecomment-617094975___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Convert few simple generators for a parametric ones + fix for parametric generators (#1163)
> I assume you have manually tested all these to produce same results as
> before? The test-suite does not cover any of them.
I have tested it on my system, yes. With quite a few examples.
Just one things which I noticed when I was looking into this again... Any
reason you did not use %{basename} for the redhat-rpm-config patch? I mean, I
could use the same lua code here in one place.
--
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/1163#issuecomment-617089259___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Convert few simple generators for a parametric ones + fix for parametric generators (#1163)
Having now looked at these a bit more carefully... while there's no particular *need* to convert these (except maybe for debuginfo), I suppose these do serve as fine examples of what you can do what you can do with parametric generators (eg just how many silly grep's you can save etc :grinning: ) which is valuable in its own right. I assume you have manually tested all these to produce same results as before? The test-suite does not cover any of them. -- 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/1163#issuecomment-617088396___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Document all of rpmdeps options (#1157)
@pmatilai requested changes on this pull request. Please drop the second commit: it has nothing to do with rpmdeps options, the description is inadequate and we really don't care about translation updates via patches, they should go through the translation service (Zanata for the time being). -- 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/1157#pullrequestreview-397176915___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] fix testsuite on Mageia (#1156)
Like noted above, this looks like glibc hasn't been properly stripped off debuginfo which is then leaking elsewhere. Fix glibc packaging and it should go away. Looking for non-stripped debuginfo would make for a reasonable sanity check in rpmbuild though. -- 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/1156#issuecomment-617078667___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] fix testsuite on Mageia (#1156)
Closed #1156. -- 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/1156#event-3255469834___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Order Packages by size during build (#1045)
Closed #1045 via #1180. -- 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/1045#event-3255406673___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] build: prioritize large packages (#1180)
Merged #1180 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/1180#event-3255406654___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] build: prioritize large packages (#1180)
@pmatilai approved this pull request. -- 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/1180#pullrequestreview-397157468___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] build: prioritize large packages (#1180)
@dmnks pushed 1 commit. 7ab76d425d3660a3bfc83009f7cd77096bdb8881 fixup! build: prioritize large packages -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1180/files/25622ad3694c09e4e9662d387293d432d15e334b..7ab76d425d3660a3bfc83009f7cd77096bdb8881 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] build: prioritize large packages (#1180)
Good point on the backwards loop; it really shouldn't scream "look ma, reverse loop for no obvious reason, go figure out yourself!". Instead, I'll just make the reverse ordering explicit by simply inverting the `compareBinaries()` function, and push a fixup commit right away. -- 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/1180#issuecomment-617055239___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] 4.14.3 final (#1187)
Merged #1187 into rpm-4.14.x. -- 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/1187#event-3255002643___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] 4.14.3 final (#1187)
@pmatilai approved this pull request. -- 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/1187#pullrequestreview-397077067___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Selinux plugin (#1187)
@ffesti pushed 1 commit. 1f7f8e413fdabbc1e45d2127b4d56dce27dbaf9c Bump version to 4.14.3 final -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1187/files/148805a31fbcfbf467d43dbf04939518c526313e..1f7f8e413fdabbc1e45d2127b4d56dce27dbaf9c ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] build: prioritize large packages (#1180)
Good catch on the size tag, totally managed to miss that. Looks fine by me, just one thing for consideration: since we want them largest first, might as well sort them that way too so the second for-loop doesn't need to walk backwards, which looks a bit more special than it actually is. Not that it makes any practical difference so up to you. -- 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/1180#issuecomment-617011041___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
