Various fixes to the documentation
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1685
-- Commit Summary --
* Add favicon to documentation and fix header
* Fix typos and broken markup
* Remove reference to what is now
@ffesti pushed 3 commits.
fb7e7ac375d18de48c9bbc1cdc273921db8a5031 Add favicon to documentation and fix
header
24ad6a7fae5b0dce4bf32afb120692195b6546fa Fix typos and broken markup
7c1b40063c4e3a0e56f2e8d2c77bacb8fe0b9d42 Remove reference to what is now the
same file
--
You are receiving
Thanks for the fix!
--
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/1686#issuecomment-843951017___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Merged #1686 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/1686#event-4765640841___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Merged #1685 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/1685#event-4765649172___
Rpm-maint mailing list
The pull request should only have the one relevant patch. Please rebase the
patch to the current master branch.
The patch is also missing a justification for the change. This should be part
of the commit message. But even ignoring the commit message I don't quite see
what you are trying to
After considering to expose more of libarchive's functionality like many
compression methods and archive formats I opted to only add an option for
uncompressed output - as requested.
Is the PR what you had in mind?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to
Most language abbreviations are just two characters but some are longer.
Allow an arbiraty number of character instead of exactly two in the names
of .qm files (QT translations). This brings the handling of .qm files in
line with all other file types.
Resolves: #1642
You can view, comment on, or
da55723907418bfb3939cd6ddd941b3fdb4f6887 add a paragraph to the in tree
documentation and dynamic build requires are also mentioned elsewhere (e.g. in
doc/manual/buildprocess.md).
Rather than making a separate page just for rpm.org we should sync up the
in-tree docs with the rpm.org web page:
Closed #1029.
--
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/1029#event-4661421993___
Rpm-maint mailing list
about build dependencies
No idea how this could survive that long...
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1665
-- Commit Summary --
* Delete horribly outdated documentation
-- File Changes --
D
@ffesti pushed 1 commit.
39db22fefe5c55477d02b5d6ce7194a042ac3094 Delete horribly outdated
"documentation"
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
We have copied the documentation found on http://rpm.org/documentation.html to
`doc/manual/`, But there are some documents that are only in the git repository
and not on http://rpm.org. There is also no process to keep those places in
sync.
We need a way to turn the in-tree documentation into
Merged #1662 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/1662#event-4662071582___
Rpm-maint mailing list
OK, now there should be all issues raised so far being addressed. The plugin
now only gives a warning via `rpmlog` if the connection to dbus cannot be
obtained. From my POV this can be merged by squashing all commit into the first
one - or I can squash them first if that is prefered.
--
You
I understand the issue of symbols of the plugin vs system symbols as both may
be linked to different versions of a library or symbols may collide otherwise.
I am just not quite sure how or if at all this relates to RTLD_LAZY vs
RTLD_NOW. So while the change may be OK I wonder if the commit
Looks like the new file does not get automatically picked up by automake and
needs to be added to `EXTRA_DIST` in `tests/Makefile.am`.
Generally changes to the content (even if just rewording) and changing the
format as a whole should be done in separate patches but it's not a big deal
here.
Oh, and thanks for the patch! Your attention to details like this is
appreciated!
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1528
-- Commit Summary --
* Remove undesired use of the color white
* Use main database instead of master database
-- File Changes --
M build/parsePreamble.c (12)
@ffesti commented on this pull request.
> +return RPMRC_OK;
+}
+
+static rpmRC dbus_announce_tsm_pre(rpmPlugin plugin, rpmts ts)
+{
+int rc;
+
+rc = open_dbus(plugin, ts);
+if (rc != RPMRC_OK)
+ return rc;
+return send_ts_message(plugin, "StartTransaction", ts,
If $TAPE is set tar uses the tape drive instead of stdout as default.
The rpm2archive test assumed that tar will just use stdout no matter what.
Force this behaviour per command line option.
Resolves: rhbz#1902844
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
Closed #931.
--
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/931#event-4266145879___
Rpm-maint mailing list
With #1328 merged I am not sure if we really want to add another feature to
control changelog behaviour right now. Closing.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Closed #1418 via #1515.
--
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/1418#event-4266021478___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Closed #545 via f67d239ccd709d44f5258a5ead01502a0b437d48.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Merged #1515 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/1515#event-4266021470___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Merged #1478 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/1478#event-4266370988___
Rpm-maint mailing list
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/1478#issuecomment-769830494___
Rpm-maint mailing list
I have no idea how you found this... but yes, nice catch!
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Merged #1604 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/1604#event-4525791119___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Merged #1611 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/1611#event-4525797908___
Rpm-maint mailing list
I guess I really need to write a proper design document...
When I think about distribution level sub package creation I think about
something very close to an brp-script - most likely a literal brp-script. Not
that I am a big fan of the way brp scripts are currently run. But I'd rather
improve
The patch looks good. But I wonder how useful the new formats really are. I
have difficulty coming up with another use case other than what's in the test
case. That doesn't mean I am against adding them. But the whole discussion
started with packages having tags not yet supported by the
When it comes to the distribution automagically generating sub packages I agree
that the package need to be able to over write the behaviour. But I wonder if
this really should be done on the "automatic sub packages off/on" level.
Similar to what we have with debuginfo sub packages I'd rather
I wonder if moving %check to a later time instead of running it earlier does
the trick. If we first package the files and run %check afterwards it cannot
influence the package contents but still has access to the buildroot.
Yes, this comes at the price of failing the build after doing all of the
Closed #1614.
--
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/1614#event-4572854542___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Well, the page says "Draft" for a reason. 4.17.0-alpha is not tagged because it
is not out yet. All actual releases are tagged in the git repository. Note that
we did not always do alpha releases in the past. RPM is such a central
component of the distribution that we don't really expect people
The "Remove the need for special print syntax in Lua interactive mode" patch
does not really seem to cut it. `isassign` does not allow for white space but
also matches `a==5`. But the whole idea of printing everything is also ill
fated as there are compount statements like loops und if clauses.
May be it is worth peaking into the actual lua shell sources. I'd expect that
there should be a way to retrieve the value of the last expression somehow
using the lua C API.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Merged #1624 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/1624#event-4573869635___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Closed #1616 via #1624.
--
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/1616#event-4573869641___
Rpm-maint mailing list
While I like the overall idea of adding type hints to the binding I am not a
big fan of the content of python/rpm/_rpm.pyi. This basically duplicates the
API implementation in the C based API and is very easy to get out of sync.
Having this generated automatically during build time from the C
Do we really want to call `rpmpluginsCallFsmFilePost()` for all files in case
of failure? Or should be not call it at all in this case.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Minor nit pick: The name and usage of the new `stage` member in the last patch
isn't as obvious at probably should be. Also the numbers used are nicely
unrelated to the stages listed in the commit message. May be having named
constant instead of random numbers makes this more readable.
--
You
If I had imagined the tool would be used in such a central role I might had
added a few more options right from the start. Adding those features should
pretty easy though. Feel free to bug me if you need help.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this
Closed #1149.
--
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/1149#event-4324748371___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Closed #1368.
--
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/1368#event-4324585421___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Yes, this is intentional. All files in the docdir get automatically marked as
docs. If there is some specific use case where this creates problems please
re-open.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
I guess the overall direction of rpm development is to rather add more lua than
adding more to the macro language. So I am closing this here as this is not
likely to happen any time soon... well any time actually.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to
While this is easy to implement this is probably not the right trade off. The
regular minimize writes feature already saves a lot. We'd rather not allow rpm
to take chances when it comes to correctness of the operation for a relatively
little speed up.
--
You are receiving this because you
Closed #1080.
--
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/1080#event-4324886601___
Rpm-maint mailing list
@ffesti commented on this pull request.
> @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+'\" t
+.TH "RPM-DBUS-ANNOUNCE" "8" "03 Jun 2020" "Red Hat, Inc."
+.SH NAME
+rpm-plugin-dbus-announce \- DBus plugin for the RPM Package Manager
+
+.SH Description
+
+The plugin writes basic information about rpm transactions to the
@ffesti commented on this pull request.
> +static rpmRC dbus_announce_init(rpmPlugin plugin, rpmts ts)
+{
+struct dbus_announce_data * state = rcalloc(1, sizeof(*state));
+rpmPluginSetData(plugin, state);
+return RPMRC_OK;
+}
+
+static rpmRC open_dbus(rpmPlugin plugin, rpmts ts)
+{
@ffesti commented on this pull request.
> + fprintf(stderr, "Connection Error (%s)\n", err.message);
+ dbus_error_free();
+ }
+ if (state->bus) {
+ rc = dbus_bus_request_name(state->bus, "org.rpm.announce",
+
This was still missing from the Spec syntax documentation
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1539
-- Commit Summary --
* Add section for %generate_buildrequires to the manual
-- File Changes --
M
@ffesti commented on this pull request.
> +state->logging = 1;
+
+/* ...don't log test transactions */
+if (rpmtsFlags(ts) & (RPMTRANS_FLAG_TEST|RPMTRANS_FLAG_BUILD_PROBS))
+ state->logging = 0;
+
+/* ...don't log chroot transactions */
+if (!rstreq(rpmtsRootDir(ts),
While many smaller things are fixed now. This still needs a run through the
error handling.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
My concerns have been addressed. Looks really good now!
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
The "Streamline + consolidate the hardlink handling logic" patch still makes my
head ache but I think it is fine. Other three patches look nice and simple in
comparison...
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Yes %setup is only executed after all macros have been expanded. So there is
not really a way to do that and relying on $PWD is your best option.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Closed #1687.
--
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/1687#event-5167695363___
Rpm-maint mailing list
OK, to be more clear: This needs to be fixed by someone with such machine at
hand. It shoudn't be too hard. Patches are welcome.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Closed #1713.
--
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/1713#event-5167514653___
Rpm-maint mailing list
This is fixed by #1714. Closing.
--
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/1713#issuecomment-900110489___
Rpm-maint
While the overall idea of checking the return of the DB query for the priority
is the right one this patch has several issues. I'll try to come up with
something along the same lines that avoid the issues (returing without freeing
resources, breaking the transaction, using fprint instead of
OK, it looks like this is going to get fixed in the kernel. Closing this here.
In case the kernel fix won't make feel free to re-open the discussion.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Closed #1682.
--
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/1682#event-5167721940___
Rpm-maint mailing list
OK, it looks like this is going to get fixed in the kernel. Closing this here.
In case the kernel fix won't make feel free to re-open the discussion.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Closed #1740.
--
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/1740#event-5167720271___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Closed #1061.
--
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/1061#event-5199882161___
Rpm-maint mailing list
It looks like this has landed in Fedora already. With the Python macros being
in a separate package now I am closing this here assuming it is in there
already or has to me merged there.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it
Resolves: #1636
Related: #1638
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1763
-- Commit Summary --
* Dont segfault on missing priority tag
-- File Changes --
M lib/rpmtriggers.c (7)
-- Patch Links --
Closed #1592.
--
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/1592#event-5161889493___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Not sure if the example above is really helping in clearing this up. But the
basic reason is that Spec files are turing complete and can do all kind of
things. This includes things depending on the sources. So not having them can
change the result - with or without a visible error. So we
This seems to be fixed or at least does no longer happen with the current
Fedora kreport package.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Closed #1205.
--
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/1205#event-5162400595___
Rpm-maint mailing list
OK, without more details there is nothing we can do. Closing.
Feel free to reopen, with more details attached.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Closed #1637.
--
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/1637#event-5161904506___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Closed #1752 via #1775.
--
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/1752#event-5297512359___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Merged #1775 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/1775#event-5297512353___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Merged #1774 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/1774#event-5298166705___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Thanks for the fix!
--
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/1774#issuecomment-918960758___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Merged #1773 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/1773#event-5298194335___
Rpm-maint mailing list
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/1773#issuecomment-918965020___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Those where not converted to integers for to lookup though not converted
to the actual file name.
Thanks to Vít Ondruch for pointing this out, suggesting the fix and
insisting on a test case!
Resolves: #1766
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
Here you go!
--
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/1766#issuecomment-920852860___
Rpm-maint mailing list
@ffesti pushed 1 commit.
65604d9688090f2695abfab6135502376da26801 %autopatch: Fix patch number
parameters
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
Yes, this indeed seems to be the issue. No idea how this was ever working. May
be the array access in lua got stricter.
If you want proper credit for the fix please create a PR from the patch or
attach it here as proper git commit. Otherwise I am fine with just creating one
myself.
In the mean
Closed #1772.
--
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/1772#event-5310448132___
Rpm-maint mailing list
task-thunderbird should just have an Obsolete to the outdated version and
require the new one. It does not need to be required as obsoleting packages get
installed automatically as soon as the obsolete matches.
Anyway, we are not implementing rich Obsoletes any time soon. But I will keep
you
Go files are not an issue here. Rpmbuild (`brp-strip`) classifies the files
using the `file` utility and passes everything that is `ELF.*, not stripped` to
the `strip` utility. One could argue this is an issue in the `strip` utility -
or `file`. But as a workaround we can exclude `*.go` files
If there is a way to tell the guile files from normal ELF files by the `file`
output that'd be even better.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Obsoletes do look like dependencies but they are a different thing. They do
alter the update path of a package basically saying "This package changed name
and the line of updates continues here". As such they are matched against
package names only and not against provides (as the new package
The reason for this behaviour is that RPM checks if the file is available at a
different location as a symlink. But I am not 100% sure if all those checks are
really necessary but it is quite possible that just one stat call is not
sufficient.
--
You are receiving this because you are
Added transaction id to the message and added a description of the data send in
the man page.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@ffesti pushed 1 commit.
b69c86c279247a6580c6cb33025041873c2658c6 Add dbus-announce plugin
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
On 7/29/21 11:51 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 09:37:53AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 07:04:03PM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>> So... personally I think we should restart many more things than
>> we currently do. Even in systemd
While we might change the way we list releases on rpm.org may change in the
(not too far) future I don't think it's worth keeping this ticket open just for
that. For now https://rpm.org/timeline.html is the place to look. Closing.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this
Closed #1683.
--
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/1683#event-5142414204___
Rpm-maint mailing list
The compiler is tripping over this line
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/blob/master/misc/fts.c#L1124
The file is the implementation for the
[fts](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/fts.3.html) functions for systems
not supporting them. So the actual issue is that your system
901 - 1000 of 1570 matches
Mail list logo
