Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix data race in packageBinaries() function (#1264)
@ffesti I'd appreciate this being pulled into rpm-4.16 since this is going to be needed for OpenMandriva. -- 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/1264#issuecomment-641615329___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix data race in packageBinaries() function (#1264)
The pkg variable used in the parallel loop was declared outside of the omp parallel construct, so it was shared among tasks. This had the potential to cause a data race. The gcc openmp implementation did not hit this problem, but I uncovered it while trying to compile with clang. My best guess as to what was happening is that after the last task was launched, all tasks had the same value of pkg and were operating on the same data at the same time. This patch marks the variable as firstprivate, so each tasks gets its own copy of the variable. You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1264 -- Commit Summary -- * Fix data race in packageBinaries() function -- File Changes -- M build/pack.c (2) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1264.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1264.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/1264 ___ 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 (32e2bc5)
Yes, sure. This is a dependency as all the others and does support the same features. The only difference is that OrderWithRequires is ignored during the dependency check and only used for ordering. -- 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/commit/32e2bc50cff9db05729349ff6645a0251d5719fb#commitcomment-39776284___ 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 (32e2bc5)
Does this mean that constructions like "OrderWithRequires: >= VERSION" are supported? -- 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/commit/32e2bc50cff9db05729349ff6645a0251d5719fb#commitcomment-39775833___ 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)
OrderWithRequires(pre) would probably be better for the use case which is described in this PR, but OrderWithRequires without pre also worked. This is probably some undocumented behaviour in dependency resolution, probably it tries to install required packages before the package which requires them, but I'm not sure. ``` # rpm -E %systemd_ordering OrderWithRequires(post): systemd OrderWithRequires(preun): systemd OrderWithRequires(postun): systemd ``` Implemention of Requires(pre) etc. generators will be ugly because it will requires to add each RPMTAG separately. It would be nice if the generator could print e.g. `post: xxx` to stdout, but it cannot be implemented with the current architecture of generators as far as I understand. Scriptlets can be converted into files (https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1033#issuecomment-583142300), it would easify making generators for them. @Conan-Kudo pointed that most scriptlets are designed to fail silently, e.g. scriptlets that call `systemctl` fail silently if systemd is not installed, what allows to make a minmal system aithout systemd. Adding 'Requires(pre): systemd' will break this usecase. 'OrderWithRequires(pre): systemd' would solve that. In some other cases it is useful to make sure that the binary which is called is already installed and has all its dependencies satisfied when the scriptlet is executed. `bash --rpm-requires` can be used to generate (OrderWith)Requires for scriptlets. Maybe generatore 'Provides: cmd(xxx)' for files inside /sbin /usr/sbin /bin /usr/bin and convert the output of `bash --rpm-requires` to 'OrderWithRequires(scriptlet type): cmd(xxx)' These are just some thoughts... -- 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-641245796___ 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 (32e2bc5)
*sigh* Fixed in #1263 -- 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/commit/32e2bc50cff9db05729349ff6645a0251d5719fb#commitcomment-39775202___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix tag mixup in 32e2bc50cff9db05729349ff6645a0251d5719fb (#1263)
Hit merge just a little bit too quickly on this one... You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1263 -- Commit Summary -- * Fix tag mixup in 32e2bc50cff9db05729349ff6645a0251d5719fb -- File Changes -- M build/rpmfc.c (4) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1263.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1263.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/1263 ___ 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 (32e2bc5)
@ffesti I see that you added "RPMTAG_ORDERNAME, RPMTAG_ORDERVERSION, RPMTAG_ORDERFLAGS," ( https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1262/files#diff-ddf4f9f570183f31f3d5ba0a715a954fR1406 ), but I added "RPMTAG_ORDERNAME, RPMTAG_ORDERFLAGS,". I actually did not test %__find_orderwithrequires because I am not sure how it should work, probably off the internal dependency generator and define this macro? Which variant is correct? -- 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/commit/32e2bc50cff9db05729349ff6645a0251d5719fb#commitcomment-39774778___ 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)
This is indeed not possible. The argument here is (except that it is simply not implemented) that those dependencies are generated from files in the package and not the scriptlets. So qualifiers should not be needed. But I am pretty sure people could come up with some valid use cases. There is https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/projects/11 There are quite a few things that I would like to see improved with dependency generators in the 4.17, 4.18 time frame. -- 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-641227025___ 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)
Thanks. One question: do I understand correctly that currently there is no way to make a generator of Requires(pre), Requires(post), Requires(postun), OrderWithRequires(pre) etc.? -- 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-641206157___ 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)
Yes, not having a dependency generator for OrderWithRequires is clearly an oversight. Details on what generators are a valid use case are not relevant here. Thanks for the patch! -- 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-641202025___ 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)
Merged #1257 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/1257#event-3424224260___ 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 support for dependency generators for RPMTAG_ORDERNAME (#1262)
Closed #1262. -- 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/1262#event-3424205732___ 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 support for dependency generators for RPMTAG_ORDERNAME (#1262)
*arg* I didn't even realize #1257 is a PR with a patch attached already. Please disregard. -- 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/1262#issuecomment-641199701___ 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)
Looks good to me. Should probably also go into 4.16. -- 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-641198193___ 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 dbus-announce plugin (#1255)
> Is there any coordination between this and the work to add dbus to libdnf in > [rpm-software-management/libdnf#941](https://github.com/rpm-software-management/libdnf/pull/941) > for example? Well, we add this on request of the DNF team that need to be notified if something else (rpm cli) changes the rpmdb underneath their daemon. Note that this is very different from the lib dnf thing even if it also uses DBus. RPM will not offer a DBUS interface that can be queried or send commands to. All this does is sending out signals that notify who ever is interested that the rpmdb is changing. I will probably even drop the second patch providing more detailed information until there are real use cases. So all this is going to do is sending out a ping at the start and the end of every transaction. > For rpm-ostree we are already a DBus daemon, and having multiple other > libraries in the stack also going out and talking to DBus is going to be a > bit problematic. > Binding this to the systemd-inhibit plugin makes sense because we already > turn that off for rpm-ostree (because it's transactional, there's no reason > to inhibit). So this is going to be a plugin that can be disabled or just plainly not be installed in the first place. We will probably not integrate this into the systemd-inhibit plugin but have it as a separate plugin that is very similar and comes in it's own sub package. Can you please elaborate on why sending some DBus signals should be problematic? -- 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/1255#issuecomment-641112150___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
