[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add a low-level package dump utility (PR #2893)
This started life as pkgdump.c written way back when I needed to analyze some low-level issues with malformed packages and the like. Since then its proven necessary every once in a blue moon, so might as well include it in the rpm codebase where it may actually be kept up to date and even evolve a bit. Since this is not an end-user tool, stash it away in /usr/lib/rpm. You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2893 -- Commit Summary -- * Add a low-level package dump utility -- File Changes -- M tools/CMakeLists.txt (3) A tools/rpmdump.c (231) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2893.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2893.diff -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2893 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2...@github.com ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Allow to specify a default for bcond features in a macro file (PR #2405)
@ffesti pushed 1 commit. 4d06f5559d55db81176a336b1f2b4259ecfa89e2 Allow to specify a default for bcond features in a macro file -- View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2405/files/fd34246f90bd101274c18adae485c1b430dcf5d6..4d06f5559d55db81176a336b1f2b4259ecfa89e2 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Allow to specify a default for bcond features in a macro file (PR #2405)
@dmnks commented on this pull request. > @@ -2451,6 +2453,105 @@ has_bcond(normally_on) []) RPMTEST_CLEANUP + + +AT_SETUP([bcond_override_default macros]) +AT_KEYWORDS([bcond build]) +RPMDB_INIT + +# check bcond_override_default by defining +AT_CHECK([ AT_CHECK is deprecated in favor of RPMTEST_CHECK. It's currently just an alias so it works the same but for consistency, we should use the latter. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2405#pullrequestreview-1870271639 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Allow to specify a default for bcond features in a macro file (PR #2405)
And here we go. From 2 lines to 120 in just 11 months... -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2405#issuecomment-1934145866 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Allow to specify a default for bcond features in a macro file (PR #2405)
@ffesti pushed 1 commit. fd34246f90bd101274c18adae485c1b430dcf5d6 Allow to specify a default for bcond features in a macro file -- View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2405/files/7bd59e2a6146da8765a091dad197a7bcd1df4013..fd34246f90bd101274c18adae485c1b430dcf5d6 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Cumulative `License` field (Discussion #2892)
Apart from the example above, which could make easier to elaborate about the licenses, I have package with subpackages which I am trying to drop (include in the main package). However, each of this subpackages has its own license field. If the license was cumulative, I could just copy paste the subpackage licensing section as it is. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2892#discussioncomment-8407529 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Can `License` field work cumulatively (Discussion #2892)
Specifying multiple `License` fields is currently prohibited:
~~~
warning: line 180: second License
error: Duplicate License entries in package: (main package)
~~~
Is it possible to change the behavior so the multiple license fields were
supported and there would be `AND` relation between them?
For example, currently the license line can look like this:
~~~
# BSD-3-Clause: missing/{crypt,mt19937,setproctitle}.c
# ISC: missing/strl{cat,cpy}.c
# Public Domain for example for: include/ruby/st.h, strftime.c, missing/*, ...
# MIT and CCO: ccan/*
# zlib: ext/digest/md5/md5.*, ext/nkf/nkf-utf8/nkf.c
# Unicode-DFS-2015: some of enc/trans/**/*.src
License: (Ruby OR BSD-2-Clause) AND BSD-3-Clause AND ISC AND Public Domain AND
MIT and CC0 AND zlib AND Unicode-DFS-2015
~~~
But it could look this way:
~~~
License: Ruby OR BSD-2-Clause
# BSD-3-Clause: missing/{crypt,mt19937,setproctitle}.c
License: BSD-3-Clause
# ISC: missing/strl{cat,cpy}.c
License: ISC
# Public Domain for example for: include/ruby/st.h, strftime.c, missing/*, ..
License: Public Domain
# MIT and CCO: ccan/*
License: MIT and CC0
# zlib: ext/digest/md5/md5.*, ext/nkf/nkf-utf8/nkf.c
License: zlib
# Unicode-DFS-2015: some of enc/trans/**/*.src
License: Unicode-DFS-2015
~~~
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2892
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Enhance the recoverability and location of database exceptions (Issue #2828)
> I think the database is abnormal because the verification fails when I run > the rpm command, You mean 'rpm --verify'? What errors? > or the "rpm -qa" command cannot find the kernel package, but the "rpm -q" > command can find the kernel package. According to the result, the problem is > caused by the database. If -qa doesn't match with -q then the indexes are out of sync, ie the database is indeed inconsistent then. That can happen with ndb, but AIUI it should also detect that and fix itself. Except of course if it can't, ie you run queries as an unprivileged user who cannot write to the rpmdb. The sqlite backend is transactional so you're never supposed to see such a state there, it's all handled transparently by sqlite. So if you have an environment where rpm gets forcibly killed at random times a lot then that may be something to try out. However, rpm is NOT suited well for such an environment. At all. Rpm WILL leave orphan files around if such things happen, and there's currently no attempt to try to track them. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2828#issuecomment-1933809984 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
