Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Support optionally creating backup files with %autopatch or %autosetup (#110)

@pmatilai FWIW, I didn't notice that it was broken because I tested on Mageia, and that variable existed already. Sorry about that. -- 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/r

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] %include breaks if space is included in path (#125)

Does doing the following work? ```python rpm.expandMacro('%define _sourcedir "/home/cqi/my\ package/systemd/"') ``` -- 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/125#is

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Offer LMDB as an alternative engine to BDB for rpmdb (#128)

I think most of us are keenly aware that Berkeley DB 5.x is dead. While Oracle has Berkeley DB 6.x, it is licensed AGPLv3, which seems to make some people rather skittish. As a potential alternative, why not use [LMDB](https://symas.com/products/lightning-memory-mapped-database/)? Projects lik

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add OpenSSL crypto backend (#129)

Conan-Kudo requested changes on this pull request. I'd prefer to have autotools change so that it would detect and auto-select based on what's available. Since the usage of these are mutually exclusive, it would also make sense to change the switches so that it reflects this more correct behavi

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Offer LMDB as an alternative engine to BDB for rpmdb (#128)

Perhaps @hyc could provide some insight into whether the situation has improved any since the discussions that occurred in Red Hat Bugzilla. >From my point of view, the main issues I see are the following: * LMDB is not independently released (it's part of the OpenLDAP source tree) * The library

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] add brp helper scripts from mandriva's spec-helper (#122)

Conan-Kudo commented on this pull request. > %{_rpmconfigdir}/brp-strip %{__strip} \ %{_rpmconfigdir}/brp-strip-static-archive %{__strip} \ %{_rpmconfigdir}/brp-strip-comment-note %{__strip} %{__objdump} \ +%{?!dont_clean_files: [ -n "$DONT_CLEANUP" ] ||

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] add brp helper scripts from mandriva's spec-helper (#122)

Conan-Kudo commented on this pull request. > @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +#!/bin/sh + +# If using normal root, avoid changing anything. +if [ -z "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" -o "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" = "/" ]; then + exit 0 +fi + +find "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" \( -type f -o -type l \) -name \*.la -print0 | Yay! -- You a

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] add brp helper scripts from mandriva's spec-helper (#122)

Conan-Kudo commented on this pull request. > @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +#!/bin/sh + +# If using normal root, avoid changing anything. +if [ -z "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" -o "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" = "/" ]; then + exit 0 +fi + +INFODIR=`rpm --eval %{_infodir}/dir` + +dir="$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/$INFODIR" + +if [ -f $dir

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] add brp helper scripts from mandriva's spec-helper (#122)

Conan-Kudo commented on this pull request. > @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +#!/bin/sh + +# If using normal root, avoid changing anything. +if [ -z "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" -o "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" = "/" ]; then + exit 0 +fi + +find "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" \( -type f -o -type l \) -name \*.la -print0 | +xargs --no-run

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] add brp helper scripts from mandriva's spec-helper (#122)

Conan-Kudo commented on this pull request. > @@ -0,0 +1,49 @@ +#!/bin/sh + +# This script makes sure to remove any standard library search paths from rpath +# or runpath tags as they're not only redundant, but will break overriding +# search paths. Search paths of the tag that's not standard wil

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] python bindings are using system RPM instead of in-source one (#130)

I've encountered a similar issue when I was building pythonX-rpm by hand on PCLinuxOS when I was attempting to upgrade them from 4.8.1 to 4.12.0.1. There didn't appear to be an obvious way to fix this, as the setuptools is wont to refer to system libraries for linking rather than the ones provid

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Allow SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH to override file timestamps (#144)

@toabctl I'm not particularly a fan of the late byte-compilation technique Debian uses, and I'd rather not propagate that down to everyone. However, @bmwiedemann's idea of getting the .py files set to `$SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH` to embed that in .pyc files is interesting. -- You are receiving this be

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Does not the rpmbuild command execute (de)compression of files in parallel? (#113)

I would hazard to say I would _almost never_ recommend switching to multithreaded stuff by default, after accounting for how it would potentially break DeltaRPM. Unless there's a way to make _that_ deterministic, I see no pathway that would allow for widespread usage of multithreaded compression

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add OpenSSL crypto backend (#129)

So, I've had a chance to test this on MacOS... A few points of feedback: * The configure script _does not_ catch that OpenSSL 0.9.8zh is incompatible, and the build fails due to undeclared things (`EVP_PKEY_CTX` and `pkey_ctx` were mentioned before it bailed out). It needs some better checks to

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add OpenSSL crypto backend (#129)

@sgallagher Yes. -- 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/129#issuecomment-277678714___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@l

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Allow SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH to override file timestamps (#144)

@fweimer Wouldn't that happen during the package build, rather than at runtime? It seems like that's a package build-time action. -- 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

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] add brp helper scripts from mandriva's spec-helper (#122)

Conan-Kudo requested changes on this pull request. I'd prefer that the new extra scripts be disabled by default for now, rather than enabled by default. In addition, instead of using `dont_`, I'd suggest using `enable_` or `disable_` and wording it appropriately. That's consistent with other fe

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Allow SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH to override file timestamps (#144)

@fweimer I see, that makes much more sense. -- 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/144#issuecomment-278350760___ Rpm-mai

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add OpenSSL crypto backend (#129)

@sgallagher Before having @pmatilai merge it, can you squash your fixup commits into the non fixup ones? We don't have autosquashing for them here... -- 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-sof

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add OpenSSL crypto backend (#129)

Conan-Kudo approved this pull request. The changes look good to me for Linux, and it properly fails to allow usage of OpenSSL backend from the configure step on macOS. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] add brp helper scripts from mandriva's spec-helper (#122)

@proyvind If you are changing them to be disabled by default, then I don't particularly care if they are there, I suppose. -- 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/1

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix pythondistdeps.py --provides for Python wheels (#154)

Conan-Kudo approved this pull request. Looks good to me. -- 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/154#pullrequestreview-21728262___

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix pythondistdeps.py --provides for Python wheels (#154)

@ffesti Could you please merge this? -- 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/154#issuecomment-279715293___ Rpm-maint mail

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: OpenSSL/LibreSSL as an alternative to NSPR/NSS or beecrypt (#119)

@Redfoxmoon3 OpenSSL support has now been merged into rpm git master with commit 64028f9a1c25ada8ffc7a48775f526600edcbf85. 🎉 -- 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/iss

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Upgrade to work with lua 5.3 without compat mode (#166)

@daurnimator I'd prefer to see a PR for this to make it easier to review (even if it's marked as "WIP" for now). -- 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/166#issue

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] debugedit.c patches (#171)

@n3npq For what it's worth, to make it all unformatted text, use ` ``` ` at the top of the block, and ` ``` ` at the bottom of the block. That way, it looks like patches or code. :) In addition, you can tell it to be diff style by doing ` ```diff ` for the top of the block. -- You are receiv

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] work with lua 5.3 without compat mode (#169)

For what it's worth, I don't think we should have compatibility shims. I'd be fine with having this merged and bumping the requirement in configure to Lua 5.3. Fedora has been using Lua 5.3 with RPM for a while now, and as far as I know, there haven't been any ill effects in doing so. -- You a

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add support for ARM 64bit (aarch64) - Add arm32 and arm64 macros (#173)

We never needed anything because the x86_64 architecture never further mutated. Unless AArch64 also mutates like the 32-bit ARM architectures did, I don't see why we need `%arm64`. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on Gi

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add macros to generate --enable-/disable- arguments (#176)

Not that I see anything particularly wrong with this, but, umm, why do you want this? -- 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/176#issuecomment-286406247

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add macros to generate --enable-/disable- arguments (#176)

The with/without macros don't quite work the same way, as they don't assume autotools underneath. Your enable/disable macros do. -- 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/

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add macros to generate --enable-/disable- arguments (#176)

I'd defer to @pmatilai and @ffesti on this, but from my point of view, I'd just name them something like `cfg_enable`, `cfg_disable`, `cfg_with`, `cfg_without`... -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://git

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Accept --nocaps also for the package installation (#178)

@lkundrak Could you please also add the required information to `doc/rpm.8`? -- 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/178#issuecomment-287248475__

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add armv5tl support (#179)

This patch adds support for `armv5tl`, which we have been using in Mageia to support an ARM port for a while now, and is an officially supported architecture for Mageia 6. You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/179 -

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] File conflicts: Symlinked directories -> same file replaced by real directories -> unique files (#1458)

But you shipped it and then unshipped it, so now you can't even do mock or chroot builds of those releases. If handling stuff like this is properly fixed in RPM, there's no reason to not have some way to emit those `rpmlib()` capabilities either. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on G

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Deduplicate data among binary packages produced by the same source package in the rpmdb (Issue #2827)

With more and more packages, especially in the distributions that do library subpackaging by soname (such as openSUSE, Mageia, and OpenMandriva), there's a lot of data that comes from the source package that has duplicate entries in the rpmdb per binary package. The largest offender of this is t

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Make `%setup` work with archives regardless of inner structure (Issue #2664)

> Note that because of compatibility concerns, we'd probably want this new > behavior in a new macro. We could make `%autosetup` use this behavior by default when `-n` isn't present, though. It's a "do-what-I-mean" change that would be beneficial for most. -- Reply to this email directly or v

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Make `%setup` work with archives regardless of inner structure (Issue #2664)

I believe we have to inspect it to check. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2664#issuecomment-1877526112 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Make `%setup` work with archives regardless of inner structure (Issue #2664)

Yup. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2664#issuecomment-1877538632 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-m

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Make `%setup` work with archives regardless of inner structure (Issue #2664)

Not quite. If it contains a single entry, strip it. Always create the directory `%name-%version` and extract into it. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2664#issuecomment-1877539519 You are receiving this because you are su

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RPM v6 package format, first public draft for commenting (Discussion #2374)

Group tag is still used by the Mandrake family (Mageia, OpenMandriva, PLD, ALT, etc.). -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2374#discussioncomment-8024703 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Create Issue templates for Bug reports and RFEs (PR #2823)

@Conan-Kudo commented on this pull request. > @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ +--- +name: Feature request +about: Suggest an idea for this project +title: '' +labels: RFE +assignees: '' + +--- + +If your feature need figuring out how to implement it or needs feedback from the wider comunity, please open a [D

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Create Issue templates for Bug reports and RFEs (PR #2823)

@Conan-Kudo commented on this pull request. > @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ +--- +name: Feature request +about: Suggest an idea for this project +title: '' +labels: RFE +assignees: '' + +--- + +If your feature need figuring out how to implement it or needs feedback from the wider comunity, please open a [D

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Declarative buildsystem, take II (PR #2774)

@Conan-Kudo approved this pull request. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2774#pullrequestreview-1815228582 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: __

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Declarative buildsystem, take II (PR #2774)

Thanks for finally landing this! 🚀 -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2774#issuecomment-1892038147 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Make user/group lookup caching thread-safe (PR #2843)

@Conan-Kudo approved this pull request. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2843#pullrequestreview-1821554619 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: __

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] add build directory auto path to setup step (PR #2859)

@Conan-Kudo requested changes on this pull request. > @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ target_link_libraries(rpmlua PRIVATE LUA::LUA) target_link_libraries(rpmbuild PRIVATE librpmbuild) target_link_libraries(rpmspec PRIVATE librpmbuild) target_link_libraries(rpmdeps PRIVATE librpmbuild) +target_link_librari

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Make user/group lookup caching thread-safe (PR #2843)

@Conan-Kudo approved this pull request. Modulo note as @dmnks stated, it looks good to me. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2843#pullrequestreview-1833116074 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this threa

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] support reproducible automatic rebuilds (PR #2880)

This seems to defeat the point. The point of this is to clamp the times to the date stamp in the changelog. If you're doing automatic rebuilds, you should not use that feature, full stop. You've effectively created a situation where your builds are not reproducible outside of your build system

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] support reproducible automatic rebuilds (PR #2880)

I will also point out that this is premised on some kind of "build counter" property that we don't have. @bookwar proposed [adding something like this to RPM and extending NVR to NVRB some time ago](https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/rfc-build-tag-in-rpms-nvr-nvrb/39954), but there has bee

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] support reproducible automatic rebuilds (PR #2880)

FYI: @davide125 @michel-slm -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2880#issuecomment-1918382019 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-mai

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Adjust User/Group handling Documentation (PR #2903)

@Conan-Kudo approved this pull request. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2903#pullrequestreview-1879061365 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: __

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Including a file, expanding the macros in it and writing the result to another file? (Discussion #2912)

This should do the trick: ``` cat > expanded

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] CMakeLists.txt: eliminate floating dependencies (PR #2914)

We didn't even do this with the Autotools build scripts, I don't think we should make it so strict in the CMake build script either. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2914#issuecomment-1954138148 You are receiving this becau

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RPM v6 package format draft, major update (Discussion #2919)

> proper multiarch dependencies (instead of ()(64bit) markers) As a reminder, I took a stab at this in #360 and later #1038. The big change since then is the introduction of subarches for both ARM and x86_64, and I still expect that to happen for RISC-V too. What are we thinking for this now? -

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Reproducible builds improvements (Issue #2894)

One of the reasons for the knobs is that not all of these settings are fully useful for "reproducibility" and some of these harm traceability and debugging. For example, forcing the build host to `reproducible` does not provide much value if you are able to do comparisons while stripping/ignorin

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Reproducible builds improvements (Issue #2894)

Clamping the mtime to buildtime has its own negative consequence too, because it makes it harder to reason reproducibility and it invalidates reproducibility in practice because every build will be different due to a variable clamp rather than an immutable clamp. -- Reply to this email directl

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] support reproducible automatic rebuilds (PR #2880)

Since I was tagged in here and for some reason people think I don't care about reproducibility, let me be clear, I do care about it. However, neither Fedora nor openSUSE suffer from the problems Debian has that necessitated reproducible builds, and the nature of the RPM format vs the Debian form

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] support reproducible automatic rebuilds (PR #2880)

I don't think bumping the changelog for rebuilds is actually important, but I do think that this is still the wrong way to solve it, because we're presuming that _a rebuild is important_. When rebuilds happen every day for whatever reason due to dependency churn, they are no longer important. Bu

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Set git commit dates based on $SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH (PR #2930)

If we're not clamping the build-time but want the commits to be clamped (which is Fedora's configuration), then this is the way we need to do it. I do think that if SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH isn't set, we should clamp to RPM_BUILD_TIME though. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Expose build time to package build scriptlets via $RPM_BUILD_TIME (PR #2933)

@Conan-Kudo approved this pull request. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2933#pullrequestreview-1903336269 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: __

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Set git commit dates based on $SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH (PR #2930)

Locking down the stored build time in the rpm headers to `SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH` can have other undesirable side-effects, so generally I wouldn't want that to be a thing for Fedora or any distribution, really. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-man

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Reproducible builds improvements (Discussion #2934)

It's also important to keep in mind the context of Debian style reproducibility: their archive format is a tarball with ar archives inside. That makes things very different for them than us. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/dis

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Reproducible builds improvements (Discussion #2934)

You already need all the inputs to correctly reproduce packages in openSUSE. The build system doesn't capture this, but it's still required. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2934#discussioncomment-8618519 You are rec

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Reproducible builds improvements (Discussion #2934)

I've been bitten enough times personally that I would rather not have BUILDHOST and BUILDTIME set to fake values. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2934#discussioncomment-8630113 You are receiving this because you are

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Allow customizable default of RPMBUILD_RMBUILD in rpmbuild (--noclean) (Discussion #2942)

> Before commit > https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/commit/b34333fa021c0ee7215714eeef96d1a2843ea08e, > rpmbuild has by default kept built artifacts. RPM has deleted the buildroot tree by default since RPM 4.6. If it wasn't doing that before, that's a bug. -- Reply to this email d

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Reproducible builds improvements (Discussion #2934)

I am aware of some tools that use `RPMTAG_BUILDTIME` to sort packages in various situations, especially if they have the same NVRA (ie. rebuilds). It is also useful in diagnostic purposes when trying to figure out a factor of breakage. I would rather not falsify this tag. -- Reply to this ema

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Reproducible builds improvements (Discussion #2934)

I don't think it's a good idea to offer. I am not convinced these knobs are a good idea for RPM to expose for any reason, especially reproducibility. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2934#discussioncomment-8643933 Yo

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Set git commit dates based on $SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH (PR #2930)

Oh, wouldn't we need these fixups for all the VCS backends, not just Git? -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2930#issuecomment-1973534254 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: _

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Set git commit dates based on $SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH (PR #2930)

Sounds good to me. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2930#issuecomment-1973616134 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailin

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Set git commit dates based on $SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH (PR #2930)

@Conan-Kudo approved this pull request. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2930#pullrequestreview-1911698628 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: __

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] CMakeLists.txt: eliminate floating dependencies (PR #2914)

@Conan-Kudo approved this pull request. Sure, I suppose. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2914#pullrequestreview-1916977215 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: __

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: store a copy of files maked as config in /usr/lib/rpm/config (#1178)

For a path, maybe this is where we finally introduce `/usr/lib/sysimage` as an expected path. I could see something like `/usr/lib/sysimage/rpm-config` be a valid location to store a whole hierarchy of pristine config files. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.c

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: multi-arch dependencies (Issue #2197)

> soft FP is a very rare thing these days, that's the exception that should be > encoded if at all - I know it's a thing you need to care about on Arm, at > least in the past, but is it something that needs to be in every single > dependency, really? We may need to care about it again with RISC

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RPM v6 package format draft, major update (Discussion #2919)

I'd probably go with `RPMTAG_FILEMIME`. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2919#discussioncomment-8757616 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: _

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Introduce an rpm-controlled per-build directory (PR #2885)

@Conan-Kudo commented on this pull request. > - goto exit; - } - if (rstreq(buildRoot, "/")) { - rpmlog(RPMLOG_ERR, _("%%{buildroot} can not be \"/\"\n")); - goto exit; + if (!spec->buildDir) { + /* Grab top builddir on first entry as we'll

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add support for setting the build time and clamping to the build time (PR #2944)

@Conan-Kudo commented on this pull request. > @@ -245,6 +245,10 @@ Supplements: (%{name} = %{version}-%{release} and > langpacks-%{1})\ # Is ignored when SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is not set. %clamp_mtime_to_source_date_epoch 0 +# If true, make sure that timestamps in built rpms +#

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Support per-user macro configuration in XDG_CONFIG_HOME (PR #2992)

@Conan-Kudo requested changes on this pull request. > +#ifdef MACROFILES +static char *initMacroPath(const char *confdir) +{ +return xstrdup(MACROFILES); +} +#else +/* + * Prefer XDG_CONFIG_HOME/rpmmacros but fall back to ~/.rpmmacros + * if it exists and the XDG path doesn't. + */ +static c

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Make it possible to evaluate arbitrary macros in the context of a given spec file (Discussion #3008)

This would be tremendously useful, especially for me trying to dig through really complex packages... Some of them are just not able to be intuited by reading, and being able to probe them like this would be really useful! -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Return to Tralla La or: RPM in C++ (Discussion #2983)

For what it's worth, I'm excited about the transition to C++, because as a C++ programmer, I feel much more comfortable working my way through and cleaning things up leveraging the things I know well. So I'm looking forward to this! -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Implement a way to ensure build artifacts integrity after the `%build`, and during post-build phases like `%check` (Discussion #3009)

Yeah, it would be interesting for sure. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/3009#discussioncomment-8974419 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: _

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add support for bare `%package` (Discussion #2959)

So is the idea to be able to mimic the `debian/control` style of the top preamble actually being for the source package only, and then a bare `%package` section for the binary package of the same name? -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-managem

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add --patches and --sources aliases to rpmspec (PR #3011)

@Conan-Kudo approved this pull request. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3011#pullrequestreview-1973096004 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: __

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Make it possible to evaluate arbitrary macros in the context of a given spec file (Discussion #3008)

Could you fix it for your rpmspec aliases though? -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/3008#discussioncomment-8982821 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add --patches and --sources aliases to rpmspec (PR #3011)

@Conan-Kudo requested changes on this pull request. Actually, since these emit the sources and patches in reverse order, could we make the aliases also reverse that so they are in the correct order? -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-manageme

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Return to Tralla La or: RPM in C++ (Discussion #2983)

Yeah, I've always been afraid of broaching the idea seriously. I had joked about this with @ffesti a few times at the openSUSE Conference, but I'm really glad to see us doing this. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Convert a bunch of librpmio stuff to native C++ (PR #3054)

@Conan-Kudo approved this pull request. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3054#pullrequestreview-2015563636 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: __

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Automatically reload rpm configuration on mismatching BuildArch (PR #3071)

So what does this do when we use it to declare only a subpackage as noarch? -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3071#issuecomment-2085451141 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Drop architecture from %builddir path (PR #3069)

Oh hey, thanks for that! 😅 -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3069#issuecomment-2089251801 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-mai

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Dynamic spec generation depends on %setup (for no good reason) (Issue #3063)

So this is similar to #3042 (and probably really just a more generic version of that issue). -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3063#issuecomment-2092561549 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add proper logic for debuginfo enablement (PR #3085)

@Conan-Kudo approved this pull request. This is a lot cleaner and I like this setup. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3085#pullrequestreview-2051465542 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Me

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Always create %specpartsdir on build (PR #3084)

@Conan-Kudo approved this pull request. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3084#pullrequestreview-2051465619 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: __

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Always create %specpartsdir on build (PR #3084)

This should still get it created in `%prep`, right? It _seems_ like that's the case. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3084#issuecomment-2106394010 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message I

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: watermark short-circuit'ed binaries (Issue #3091)

Note that Yocto already guts our poison logic from short-circuit builds, since the entire distribution is built short-circuited. https://github.com/openembedded/openembedded-core/blob/master/meta/recipes-devtools/rpm/files/0001-Do-not-add-an-unsatisfiable-dependency-when-building.patch -- Reply

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] --build-in-place multiple flaws (Issue #3131)

I think there'd be interest in having this wired up in mock if it was easier to use... -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3131#issuecomment-2141048489 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Messa

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Minimally bring back --buildroot and %{_buildrootdir} (PR #3139)

@Conan-Kudo approved this pull request. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3139#pullrequestreview-2093808138 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: __

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: watermark short-circuit'ed binaries (Issue #3091)

> Mock guarantees the "production readiness" and "reproducibility" of the > result. Running the final -ba without noprep would gain no benefit to mock. No, it does not. Mock just runs dnf and rpmbuild in repeating sequences. That doesn't guarantee any reproducibility. What guarantees reproducibi

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Refactor ordering code to use STL containers (PR #3243)

@Conan-Kudo approved this pull request. Wow, this is quite the cleanup! -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3243#pullrequestreview-2249161023 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Make Buildsystem %conf section optional (PR #3245)

@Conan-Kudo approved this pull request. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3245#pullrequestreview-2249162407 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: __

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Enhance requires with version information from the build root. (PR #2372)

As I think about this, I come back to my long-ago closed ticket #362. Fundamentally, we need stronger symbol dependencies represented somehow, and we need it in a way that we don't bind things to specific implementations so that switching is still workable. -- Reply to this email directly or v

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Build version (build tag?) in RPM (Discussion #2031)

I think another part missing from this thread is that the build system "burns in" the value of Release into the spec file before running rpmbuild, so it's part of the shipped artifact. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussio

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >