Closed #782 as completed via #2911.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/782#event-11811682599
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Merged #2911 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2911#event-11811682408
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
Closed #2875 as completed via #2902.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2875#event-11800612403
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Merged #2902 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2902#event-11800612204
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
@ffesti pushed 1 commit.
805d83186bec6297ef35a1b0d1405aec845c069a Add %_local_file_attrs macro
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2734/files/95b89b63ab47a576e1006e512cb14935d980361e..805d83186bec6297ef35a1b0d1405aec845c069a
You are receiving this because
@ffesti commented on this pull request.
> if (rpmGlob(attrPath, NULL, ) == 0) {
- nattrs = argvCount(files);
- fc->atypes = xcalloc(nattrs + 1, sizeof(*fc->atypes));
- for (int i = 0; i < nattrs; i++) {
- char *bn = basename(files[i]);
-
Tested locally with mystery package that shall not be named
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2906#issuecomment-1943236369
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
To answer the question: We really shouldn't!
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2906#issuecomment-1942018096
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
%config is only allowed for regular files and links. While rpmbuild wont
produce package with other files with %config other tools might. Handle these
cases gracefully by ignoring the %config flag.
Resolves: #2890
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
This is suspicious as they assign different values. @pmatilai do you want to
have a closer look?
Could be a rebasing artifact between fb13f7fd9e and 318efbaec8. Probably by
changing the order those two are aplied.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@ffesti commented on this pull request.
> if (rpmGlob(attrPath, NULL, ) == 0) {
- nattrs = argvCount(files);
- fc->atypes = xcalloc(nattrs + 1, sizeof(*fc->atypes));
- for (int i = 0; i < nattrs; i++) {
- char *bn = basename(files[i]);
-
OK, removed one underscore from the macro name, rewrite the init code and added
two test cases that deal with already installed file attributes.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2734#issuecomment-1941456054
You are
@ffesti pushed 1 commit.
e1dea8eafaf3f4da91e7ba132f9e953eec3a9665 Add more test cases
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2734/files/7c64e73308a328d3aad40c118024f799503bc96f..e1dea8eafaf3f4da91e7ba132f9e953eec3a9665
You are receiving this because you are
@ffesti pushed 1 commit.
7c64e73308a328d3aad40c118024f799503bc96f Local File Attrs: Remove one
underscore
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2734/files/ab3a293498ec59129d3551e76e444e964b9f0985..7c64e73308a328d3aad40c118024f799503bc96f
You are receiving
@ffesti pushed 1 commit.
7023620eb258af338b1e53b3806b8f66ad9384d7 Local File Attrs: Remove one
underscore
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2734/files/fb9b6ec25e2e72daa7944175e64c2928104cd016..7023620eb258af338b1e53b3806b8f66ad9384d7
You are receiving
@ffesti pushed 1 commit.
fb9b6ec25e2e72daa7944175e64c2928104cd016 Local File Attrs: Remove one
underscore
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2734/files/5ff3074187b888f9ff62416d9495fe36f7890468..fb9b6ec25e2e72daa7944175e64c2928104cd016
You are receiving
> One more thing wrt the macro name: I wonder if this is a case where it should
> _not_ have those leading underscores. The generator itself is full of double
> underscore names, but the newly added macro here is something directly
> intended for packager use in a spec. I dunno, it may even be
We now use our own script (sysuser.sh) instead of systemds
systemd-sysusers.
Resolves: #2857
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2903
-- Commit Summary --
* Adjust User/Group handling Documentation
-- File
I agree, may be just a few sentences per item or may be even only one and the
link to the rest of the manual for details.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2897#issuecomment-1938330342
You are receiving this because you
I would have sworn we actually did prevent that. I remember people being
unhappy about it. I remember this being added before. But may be my mind is
playing tricks on me.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
List of things to talk about:
- Upstream tarball + patches to see what are the packager's changes
- SRPM has all needed to rebuild the package on its "home" distributing -
assuming the distribution ships all (devel and tooling) packages
- nosource as an exception
- Optimized for updates -
Merged #2405 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2405#event-11756200361
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
@ffesti pushed 1 commit.
4d06f5559d55db81176a336b1f2b4259ecfa89e2 Allow to specify a default for bcond
features in a macro file
--
View it on GitHub:
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:
@ffesti pushed 1 commit.
fd34246f90bd101274c18adae485c1b430dcf5d6 Allow to specify a default for bcond
features in a macro file
--
View it on GitHub:
Nah, I am not asking to do more. I am wondering if you should do less.
I am also wondering what version of RPM you are using.
You can try switching to the sqlite backend, although I don't have any
information about the ndb backend being less reliable.
If you encounter breakage regularly there is
@ffesti pushed 1 commit.
7bd59e2a6146da8765a091dad197a7bcd1df4013 Update
docs/manual/conditionalbuilds.md
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2405/files/5eee9f7e9194288a7fde10f095861fa0364ebdad..7bd59e2a6146da8765a091dad197a7bcd1df4013
You are receiving
@ffesti commented on this pull request.
> @@ -91,5 +91,16 @@ macros which is nicer in other situations, e.g.:
Always test for the `with`-condition, not the `without`-counterpart!
+## Overrinding Defaults
+
+For distributions it can be useful to overwrite the build conditionals on a
global
Do you have anything in place to mitigate these issues. Like rebuilding the
rpmdb on boot or in some cron job. I have seen people actually messing up their
database this way by methods that where still helpful in the bdb days.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Yes.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2405#issuecomment-1929403698
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint mailing list
OK, renamed to `bcond_override_default`. This is hopefully used sparingly
enough that the additional typing won't kill anyone.
I added some documentation to the Conditional Build page. This should answer
the questions above. But someone please prove read them.
--
Reply to this email directly
@ffesti pushed 1 commit.
dbb795984108e325841e8ca5c5c053c3dcd67731 Allow to specify a default for bcond
features in a macro file
--
View it on GitHub:
So is there an actual breakage you are seeing regularly? What database back end
are you using?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2828#issuecomment-1929225609
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this
Ok, renamed back to `__local_file_attrs`. I squashed the patches and improved
the docs a little bit. From my POV this is now complete. Can someone please
prove read the docs? Thanks!
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@ffesti pushed 1 commit.
5ff3074187b888f9ff62416d9495fe36f7890468 Add %__local_file_attrs macro
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2734/files/57334a2b0b0ad7d84e8e398bf6c6e6a8b53d2481..5ff3074187b888f9ff62416d9495fe36f7890468
You are receiving this because
> > You are also kinda confused about RPMs and SRPMs.
>
> I don't think I am. Or at least I don't know why you think so.
That's what a confused person would say...
Merging RPMs and SRPMs is not something we will pursue and it doesn't make any
sense. There is no point in merging SRPMs as they
Even longer answer: One could create a tool to do that with the rpm API. But I
really don't see a a reason to do so. You are also kinda confused about RPMs
and SRPMs. I don't think you really want to merge binary RPMs but get rid of
packages in distgit - which is the expensive part as far as I
Short answer: No
Longer answer: No, but one could create one, but you really do not want to.
Other answer: Yes, but no the way you want.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2887#discussioncomment-8368857
You are
Meditating a bit more over the name: May be "bcond_default" wasn't as bad as I
first thought as the macro does not override the users cli choice but only the
packagers default in the spec file. May be this is used seldomly enough to
afford "bcond_override_default"?
--
Reply to this email
@ffesti pushed 4 commits.
1df57c45c5cceee5c8b11170c2247dba529ad945 Allow to specify a default for bcond
features in a macro file
60a44efd320ded6880bc2d30bb925fe3edf4be12 Rename to bcond_override()
4c5d1f850ef0900df5ea6ecfe1d129c6a64f6284 Add test case
20f501d1ad08a4182326a9ef682b525c709b5a03
Guess we want `%__bcond_default` and `%bcond_default` for declaring the
`%bcond_default_foo` macro even if that is slightly silly.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2405#issuecomment-1919596356
You are receiving this
Well turns out this actually works. But may be not the way you expected... and
that's why we need docs.
As far as I understand this `%bcond_default` is just a helper macro (and should
be prepended with `__`) and the user/distro is supposed to declare
%bcond_default_foo manually. With that
I think the issue here that they can be both overriding existing ones or being
an add-on. This makes it difficult to find a good name that covers both cases.
OK, technically the macro doesn't override existing file attrs.
Overriding/defining the macros does. So here we are registering file attr
Well, sub package definitions are normal preambles that can contain everything
the main preamble can. But that doesn't mean those (e.g. `Source:`) directives
are somehow attached to that sub package. Global directives are global no
matter where they are.
The build scripts also are global.
I think I like "override" better. Probably because it emphasizes the out of
order operation.
We also need to add this to `manual/conditionalbuilds.md` as soon as we decided
on a name.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
This looks pretty good now.
I wonder if the examples in the commit message would better be moved into a
test case.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2859#issuecomment-1918773263
You are receiving this because you are
Thanks for the patch!
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2813#issuecomment-1904302993
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint
Merged #2813 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2813#event-11558737419
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
Thanks for the patch!
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2858#issuecomment-1904268768
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint
Merged #2858 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2858#event-11558516273
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
OK, I replaced the word "local" as its meaning is just too vague here.
"Packaged" discourages using file attributes that are just on the machine
without being shipped or being installed from another package. While this is
technically possible this is something we clearly don't want to
@ffesti pushed 2 commits.
2468b76d5b7e4bae8c55ddabb188d0d2f4807dbf Filter duplicate file attributes
57334a2b0b0ad7d84e8e398bf6c6e6a8b53d2481 Add documentation for
__packaged_file_attrs
--
View it on GitHub:
OK, just to write down how the current system works:
The `fileattrs/*.attr` are read in at the beginning with all other macro files.
The macros in there can be over written by the spec file - or by `%load` ing
the `.attr` file in the Sources.
RPM goes through the list of file attrs (currently
Docs still assume that systemd_sysusers is to be used.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2857
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
@ffesti pushed 1 commit.
5059816af9185cc7c3f19ad729b4dc657f912cde Rename __local_file_attrs to
__packaged_file_attrs
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2734/files/cd4bd81ad1c446c119a27eec77b2828b5ea1624a..5059816af9185cc7c3f19ad729b4dc657f912cde
You are
I think the issues is reproducibility and correctness. If you fix the
dependency generator in your package you don't want to old - possibly broken -
deps still in your package, just because the old package is still on your build
system.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Hmm, I guess we are taking about two different use cases. You are thinking
about a dependency generator that is in the package only and not installed
ever. For that you want a unique name that won't ever clash with installed file
attributes.
I am thinking about actually shipping the dependency
May be except the link text?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2853#issuecomment-1897972464
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Nice find. This is obviously an issue. I just wonder whether the link should be
fixed or if the file should be re-named.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2853#issuecomment-1896498945
You are receiving this because you are
Looks basically correct. Unless this was left out on purpose. Panu?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2852#issuecomment-1896198092
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
Looks good to me.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2843#issuecomment-1896120720
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint
OK, just hard coding one file attribute doesn't seem like a good idea. I added
a macro that allows you to register an arbitrary number of local file
attributes and generators. I am still wondering if we need a mechanism to avoid
executing generators twice when the package is already installed
@ffesti pushed 1 commit.
cd4bd81ad1c446c119a27eec77b2828b5ea1624a Add %__local_file_attrs macro
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2734/files/61bd40a9df5170da6182e560d172fb16f4e3213b..cd4bd81ad1c446c119a27eec77b2828b5ea1624a
You are receiving this because
@ffesti converted this issue into discussion #2845.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/589#event-11498460864
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
There is `rpmdb --verifydb`. With the new rpmdb backends (sqlite and ndb)
issues with the database should be incredibly rare compared to the old bdb
days. If you are still experience rpmdb issues you are likely doing something
wrong. May be disable measures that still are left over from the bdb
OK, "ending itself" is a bit over dramatic... rpmChrootSet instantly returns if
there is now chroot so rpmugFree() is never called at all.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2843#issuecomment-1893557584
You are receiving
Yes, this here seems save. Thanks for the patch!
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2839#issuecomment-1893553825
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
Merged #2839 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2839#event-11497627945
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
I wonder if this leaks memory. We create a new struct for each thread. Yes,
this is freed in rpmChrootSet but that is relying a lot on the right call
order.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2843#issuecomment-1893419277
Closed #2823.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2823#event-11428661154
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
*urgs* this was created as branch in the main repo by the GH UI (and though
can't be force pushed...). Created an new PR from my private repo. Closing this
here.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Updated version of #2836 which was created as branch in the main repo by the GH
UI (and though can't be force pushed...)
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2836#issuecomment-1882838761
You are receiving this because you are
Have a bit of structure for the bug reports to tell people what information is
expected/necessary.
Point people to discussions for RFEs and have RFE tickets only be created after
a course of action has been decided on.
Resolves: #2752
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online
Resolves: #2752
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2823#issuecomment-1862864964
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint mailing
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2823
-- Commit Summary --
* Create Issue templates for Bug reports and RFEs
-- File Changes --
A .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.md (32)
A
Merged #2815 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2815#event-11234566928
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
Merged #2814 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2814#event-11234532220
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2815
-- Commit Summary --
* Fix markdown formatting in man page
-- File Changes --
M docs/man/rpmdb.8.md (2)
-- Patch Links --
For normal debug output the basename of the files are sufficient as when
debugging is enabled the directories are also printed. But here the warning is
given without a debug flag so we need the full context right there.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
I wonder if we can just have some extension tags to easier access the parts of
`sourcerpm` that do the parsing for you. That would also work for old packages
(if only with the new rpm binary)
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Those generators are something we would happily hand over to a Perl community
maintained perl-rpm-macros package.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2221#issuecomment-1842586288
You are receiving this because you are
I don't think we will get really machine parseable error reports as many errors
are just spit out by random scripts. Also errors will almost always stop the
build. So there will only be the first real error being reported. But the
error reporting can be better.
--
Reply to this email
See also https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479198 which is a similar
issue also including debuginfo not working outside of `%buildsubdir`
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2078#issuecomment-1831710406
You are
Merged #2783 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2783#event-11068948077
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
RPM will report `PACKAGE needs XX MB more space on the /XXX filesystem` if the
files system is read only no matter how much "free" space there is on the
system. This is confusing and RPM should actually give a hint to the user that
the issue is that the file system is not writable.
Originated
Closed #577 as completed.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/577#event-10965418970
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
As stated above we'd rather not have weak/optional BuildDependencies. Having
predictable builds is a value on it's own. Closing.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/577#issuecomment-1812150848
You are receiving this because
With the latest changes to the `%setup` macro this may now be easier and should
be looked at again.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/551#issuecomment-1812148572
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this
This can probably be done as a plugin nowadays.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1178#issuecomment-1812090168
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
Closed #1120 as completed.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1120#event-10898285096
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
Well, we already have `%pretrans` scriptlets which allow the packagers to do
arbitrary stuff. We don't need a second mechanism like that. Labeling the files
needing special treatment is a possible solution for the symlink problem but is
not something we need a separate ticket for. Closing
--
Have templates for at least Bug Report and RFE. Point to the Discussions in the
later.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2752
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
I agree that there should be more control over what files go where and the
current means given to the packagers are not that great. Having more special
code for creating sub packages is not something we want, though. We'd rather
give the packager the means to do that in the spec - or the build
Closed #1448 as completed.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1448#event-10843864415
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
Configure traditionally sets it to %{_prefix}/com which RPM has followed so
far. But this directory is not used anywhere and everybody changes the location
to /var/lib. As we are only changing the macro and not the configure default
this should be relatively save to do.
Resolves: #2092
You can
Closed #1768 as completed.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1768#event-10843533706
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
Looks like the conclusion in 2021 was that `Obsoleted-by:` is not the solution.
Closing.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1768#issuecomment-1790663062
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Thanks for the fixes!
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2737#issuecomment-1786683577
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint
Merged #2737 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2737#event-10816892415
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
I am still a bit puzzled on what this can do that you can't do with a simple
macro definition. I mean I have a rough idea. But may be the docs should make
a bit more of an effort to explain what to use in which case.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
101 - 200 of 1502 matches
Mail list logo
