Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add OrderWithRequires dependency generation (#1257)

2020-06-07 Thread mikhailnov
If there is just a scriptlet which calls `systemctl preset`, in _some_ cases it 
may silently fail to enable a service which must be enabled.
In most cases, I agree, it is not needed, but seems to be not harmful.

-- 
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/1257#issuecomment-640264300___
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 OrderWithRequires dependency generation (#1257)

2020-06-07 Thread mikhailnov
But why? If a package contains a config is /usr/lib/sysusers.d/, why not to 
ensure that it is installed after systemd-sysusers binary is present and so the 
scriptlet which creates users can be executed?

-- 
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/1257#issuecomment-640263148___
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 OrderWithRequires dependency generation (#1257)

2020-06-07 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> it is only some specific cases where this needs to be used.

Yeah, we used to pull in systemd much more often. Nowadays, most packages 
should not pull in systemd, and install time ordering also doesn't matter. But 
that's largely irrelevant here, since systemd was only used as an example here. 
Extending generation to OrderWithRequires seems to be generally useful.

-- 
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/1257#issuecomment-640238714___
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 _without_check macro (#1256)

2020-06-07 Thread Igor Raits
I think this should set _with_check unless _without_check is defined already. 
Basically to have `%bcond_without check` by default without having to put it in 
all spec files. But still need to make sure that somebody defines 
`%bcond_without check`, this code won't override 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/pull/1256#issuecomment-640229941___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fail the build if %_build_pkgcheck_set failed (#1258)

2020-06-07 Thread mikhailnov
If %_nonzero_exit_pkgcheck_terminate_build is true, then the build fails, 
otherwise it does not. This regressed and the build never failed

-- 
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/1258#issuecomment-640224570___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] %transfiletriggerin does not work on Fedora 33 (#1260)

2020-06-07 Thread Igor Raits
```
❯ sudo rpm -ivh 
/home/brain/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/newsflash-1.0~rc1-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm --debug 
--rpmfcdebug
[sudo] password for brain: 
D: == 
/home/brain/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/newsflash-1.0~rc1-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
D: loading keyring from pubkeys in /var/lib/rpm/pubkeys/*.key
D: couldn't find any keys in /var/lib/rpm/pubkeys/*.key
D: loading keyring from rpmdb
D: PRAGMA secure_delete = OFF: 0
D: PRAGMA case_sensitive_like = ON: 0
D:  read h#1690 
Header SHA256 digest: OK
Header SHA1 digest: OK
D: added key gpg-pubkey-9570ff31-5e3006fb to keyring
D: Using legacy gpg-pubkey(s) from rpmdb
D: /home/brain/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/newsflash-1.0~rc1-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm: Header 
SHA256 digest: OK
D: /home/brain/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/newsflash-1.0~rc1-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm: Header 
SHA1 digest: OK
ufdio:   6 reads,11265 total bytes in 0.09 secs
D: Plugin: calling hook init in systemd_inhibit plugin
D:  added binary package [0]
D: found 0 source and 1 binary packages
D: == +++ newsflash-1.0~rc1-1.fc33 x86_64/linux 0x2
D:  read h# 209 
Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 9570ff31: OK
Header SHA256 digest: OK
Header SHA1 digest: OK
D:  Requires: ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) YES (db provides)
D:  Requires: ld-linux-x86-64.so.2(GLIBC_2.3)(64bit)YES (db provides)
D:  Requires: libc.so.6()(64bit)YES (db provides)
D:  Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit)  YES (db provides)
D:  Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.17)(64bit)  YES (db provides)
D:  Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.18)(64bit)  YES (db provides)
D:  Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) YES (db provides)
D:  Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.2)(64bit) YES (db provides)
D:  Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) YES (db provides)
D:  Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit)   YES (db provides)
D:  read h# 444 
Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 9570ff31: OK
Header SHA256 digest: OK
Header SHA1 digest: OK
D:  Requires: libcairo-gobject.so.2()(64bit)YES (db provides)
D:  read h# 443 
Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 9570ff31: OK
Header SHA256 digest: OK
Header SHA1 digest: OK
D:  Requires: libcairo.so.2()(64bit)YES (db provides)
D:  read h#1997 
Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 9570ff31: OK
Header SHA256 digest: OK
Header SHA1 digest: OK
D:  Requires: libcrypto.so.1.1()(64bit) YES (db provides)
D:  Requires: libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit)YES (db provides)
D:  Requires: libdl.so.2()(64bit)   YES (db provides)
D:  Requires: libdl.so.2(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)YES (db provides)
D:  read h#   1 
Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 9570ff31: OK
Header SHA256 digest: OK
Header SHA1 digest: OK
D:  Requires: libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)YES (db provides)
D:  Requires: libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) YES (db provides)
D:  Requires: libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) YES (db provides)
D:  Requires: libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit)   YES (db provides)
D:  read h#1349 
Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 9570ff31: OK
Header SHA256 digest: OK
Header SHA1 digest: OK
D:  Requires: libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit)YES (db provides)
D:  read h# 269 
Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 9570ff31: OK
Header SHA256 digest: OK
Header SHA1 digest: OK
D:  Requires: libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit)   YES (db provides)
D:  read h# 224 
Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 9570ff31: OK
Header SHA256 digest: OK
Header SHA1 digest: OK
D:  Requires: libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit)  YES (db provides)
D:  Requires: libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) YES (db provides)
D:  Requires: libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)  YES (db provides)
D:  Requires: libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit)YES (db provides)
D:  read h#1370 
Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 9570ff31: OK
Header SHA256 digest: OK
Header SHA1 digest: OK
D:  Requires: libhandy-0.0.so.0()(64bit)YES (db provides)
D:  Requires: libhandy-0.0.so.0(LIBHANDY_0_0_0)(64bit)  YES (db provides)
D:  read h# 532 
Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 9570ff31: OK
Header SHA256 digest: OK
Header SHA1 digest: OK
D:  Requires: libjavascriptcoregtk-4.0.so.18()(64bit)   YES (db provides)
D:  Requires: libm.so.6()(64bit)YES (db provides)
D:  Requires: libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) YES (db provides)
D:  Requires: libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.27)(64bit)  YES (db provides)
D:  read h# 935 
Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 9570ff31: OK
Header SHA256 digest: OK
Header SHA1 digest: OK
D:  Requires: libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit)YES (db provides)
D:  Requires: libpthread.so.0()(64bit)  

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] %transfiletriggerin does not work on Fedora 33 (#1260)

2020-06-07 Thread Igor Raits
Also I checked `stat /usr/share/icons/hicolor/icon-theme.cache` and that does 
not change during the RPM run. But if I run command from trigger manually, it 
updates that file.

-- 
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/1260#issuecomment-640221416___
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 OrderWithRequires dependency generation (#1257)

2020-06-07 Thread Igor Raits
> When a package contains a systemd unit, %systemd_* macros are usually used;
> it is usefull to add "OrderWithRequires: systemd" in this case to ensure
> that systemd is installed before that package.

I think I disagree here, it is only some specific cases where this needs to be 
used.

cc @keszybz 

---

Other than that, LGTM.

-- 
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/1257#issuecomment-640214135___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] metainfo.attr: Fix execution of the generator (#1259)

2020-06-07 Thread Igor Raits
Please backport to 4.16.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/1259#issuecomment-640211823___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] metainfo.attr: Fix execution of the generator (#1259)

2020-06-07 Thread Igor Raits
Somehow it wasnt noticed before.

Fixes: 9464926456125dacb8046767f1fe4235471986e9
Signed-off-by: Igor Raits i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

  https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1259

-- Commit Summary --

  * metainfo.attr: Fix execution of the generator

-- File Changes --

M fileattrs/metainfo.attr (2)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1259.patch
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1259.diff

-- 
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/1259
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fail the build if %_build_pkgcheck_set failed (#1258)

2020-06-07 Thread mikhailnov
RPM build did not fail if rpmlint (%_build_pkgcheck_set) failed when checking 
binary RPMs
(it did fail correctly when rpmlint failed when checking SRPMs)

Probably fixes regression introduced by 78f61f273 (Refactor package set 
checking out of packageBinaries())
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

  https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1258

-- Commit Summary --

  * Fail the build if %_build_pkgcheck_set failed

-- File Changes --

M build/pack.c (7)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1258.patch
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1258.diff

-- 
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/1258
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint