[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFC: Removing unneeded internal macros (such as %__ranlib) (#1211)
I was looking into the macros which RPM ships and there are many things like aforementioned %__ranlib which is not used in the RPM at all but has been there forever (at least from 1998). >From what I understand, %__* is supposed to be something which can affect RPM >itself, the %_* is for internal variables for macros and %* is for users. Is >it time to remove those which are not used by RPM and make distributions to >set them up if they need them? Preferably not with double-underscore prefix. -- 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/1211___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFC: Removing unneeded internal macros (such as %__ranlib) (#1211)
Also we probably should rethink `%_(build|host|target)_*` macro. They are not really used by RPM for anything, rpmPlatform() has its own auto-detection anyway. I guess they were meant for RPM to support cross-compilation, but this never happened from what I know. Probably best would be to get rid of old cruft and when cross-compilation is the thing for RPM - do it properly? -- 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/1211#issuecomment-626279037___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFC: Removing unneeded internal macros (such as %__ranlib) (#1211)
> For no real value, yes but still they do are used in the wild and so the > potential for breakage is quite wide… Of course, but it is not different from changing other behaviors of RPM. Those macros are not documented, they are explicitly described as *private to RPM* so I think making such change in next version of RPM (4.17) can be affordable. -- You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1211#issuecomment-626291865___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFC: Removing unneeded internal macros (such as %__ranlib) (#1211)
Basically these macros do not seem to belong to RPM at all:
```diff
--- a/macros.in
+++ b/macros.in
@@ -26,35 +26,18 @@
%__awk @AWK@
%__bzip2 @__BZIP2@
%__cat @__CAT@
-%__chgrp @__CHGRP@
%__chmod @__CHMOD@
-%__chown @__CHOWN@
-%__cp @__CP@
-%__cpio@__CPIO@
-%__file@__FILE@
%__gpg @__GPG@
-%__grep@__GREP@
%__gzip@__GZIP@
-%__id @__ID@
-%__id_u%{__id} -u
%__install @__INSTALL@
-%__ln_s@LN_S@
%__lrzip @__LRZIP@
%__lzip@__LZIP@
-# Deprecated, use %__xz instead.
-%__lzma%__xz --format=lzma
%__xz @__XZ@
%__make@__MAKE@
%__mkdir @__MKDIR@
%__mkdir_p @__MKDIR_P@
-%__mv @__MV@
%__patch @__PATCH@
-%__restorecon @__RESTORECON@
%__rm @__RM@
-%__rsh @__RSH@
-%__sed @__SED@
-%__semodule@__SEMODULE@
-%__ssh @__SSH@
%__tar @__TAR@
%__unzip @__UNZIP@
%__zstd@__ZSTD@
@@ -67,17 +50,7 @@
#==
# Build system path macros.
#
-%__ar @AR@
-%__as @AS@
-%__cc @__CC@
-%__cpp @CPP@
-%__cxx @CXX@
-%__ld @__LD@
-%__nm @__NM@
-%__objcopy @__OBJCOPY@
%__objdump @__OBJDUMP@
-%__ranlib @RANLIB@
-%__remsh %{__rsh}
%__strip @__STRIP@
#==
@@ -149,9 +122,6 @@
# The interpreter used for build scriptlets.
%_buildshell /bin/sh
-# The path to the bzip2 executable (legacy, use %{__bzip2} instead).
-%_bzip2bin %{__bzip2}
-
# The location of the rpm database file(s).
%_dbpath %{_var}/lib/rpm
@@ -227,9 +197,6 @@ package or when debugging this package.\
%__global_requires_exclude_from%{?_docdir:%{_docdir}}
%__global_provides_exclude_from%{?_docdir:%{_docdir}}
-# The path to the gzip executable (legacy, use %{__gzip} instead).
-%_gzipbin %{__gzip}
-
# The Unix time of the latest kept changelog entry in binary packages.
# Any older entry is not packaged in binary packages.
%_changelog_trimtime 0
@@ -278,9 +245,6 @@ package or when debugging this package.\
# Path to top of build area.
%_topdir %{getenv:HOME}/rpmbuild
-# The path to the unzip executable (legacy, use %{__unzip} instead).
-%_unzipbin %{__unzip}
-
#==
# Optional rpmrc macros.
# Macros that are initialized as a side effect of rpmrc and/or spec
@@ -343,16 +307,6 @@ package or when debugging this package.\
#
%_install_langsall
-# The value of CLASSPATH in build scriptlets (iff configured).
-#
-#%_javaclasspath all
-
-# Import packaging conventions from jpackage.org (prefixed with _
-# to avoid name collisions).
-#
-%_javadir %{_datadir}/java
-%_javadocdir %{_datadir}/javadoc
-
# Set ModularityLabel: for packages being build
#
```
--
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/1211#issuecomment-626277055___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] BuildRequires does not support boolean operators (#1216)
Can you provide a reproducer? We use rich dependencies in BuildRequires at least in 2000 packages in Fedora. -- 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/1216#issuecomment-628197916___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Automatic (sub)package generators (#329)
Oh yeah, this way we can solve problem described in #1073 but having some script which will put license thing into the `$pkgname.license`. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/329#issuecomment-626306785___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Automatic (sub)package generators (#329)
So I guess this is waiting for me to put my thoughts here…
# Features (extras)
* In Rust, `Cargo.toml` contains information about all "features" which should
be in their own subpackages, like `%package devel+$FEATURE`.
* In Python, `egg-info` or `dist-info` or similar contain info about "extras"
which should be in their own subpackages like `%package -n
python3-%{pypi_name}+$FEATURE`.
For both cases:
* Summary/Description is %{summary} + some small comment
* %files is the %ghost for the files which generate dependency information
---
There are basically these cases where I think autosubpackages are needed:
* library - depending on SONAME, generate package (derived from SONAME) and the
devel part for it
* debuginfo - the whole debuginfo thing should be replaced by such mechanism
(so that it can be split from RPM)
* translations - somebody already came up with this few days ago to the IRC,
but in short we just need to generate separate subpackage (akin to
debuginfo-per-package) with translations
Things to not forget:
* Way how to inject some additional dependency or a file to subpackage (this
probably can be simply done by placing some files in %{buildroot} in some
specific places in some specific format
* Anything we do here should be possible to disable/override
---
I guess we need something like @ikeydoherty is describing about file pattern
matching (which we already have thanks to dependency generators), so probably
if we just extend that syntax to make them output some specially formatted
attributes (json? some subset of specs?) and then merge it.
So let's take case with some rust package which has a binaries, shared
libraries, devel stuff (with multiple features) and some custom utils subpkg.
That would mean that in buildroot there will be:
* `/usr/bin/foo`
* `/usr/lib64/libfoo.so` (SONAME is `libfoo.so.1`)
* `/usr/lib64/libfoo.so.1`
* `/usr/lib64/libfoo.so.1.0.0`
* `/usr/share/cargo/registry/foo-1.0.0/Cargo.toml` (with feature `a`)
The full spec would have something like (`auto:` prefix is what user should not
write, but would be auto-generated, omitting anything what dependency
generators would generate):
```
auto: # Any files which will not be used in other subpackages will go into the
main package
auto: %global _unmatched_files_in_main_package 1
…
Name: rust-foo
Summary: Something very useful
…
auto: %files
auto: %{_bindir}/foo
…
auto: %package -n libfoo-1
auto: Summary: %{summary} - libfoo.so.1
auto: %files -n libfoo-1
auto: %{_libdir}/libfoo.so.1
auto: %{_libdir}/libfoo.so.1.0.0
…
auto: %package -n rust-foo-devel
auto: Summary: %{summary} - Rust development files
auto: %files -n rust-foo-devel
auto: %{_datadir}/cargo/registry/foo-1.0.0/
…
auto: %package -n rust-foo+default-devel
auto: Summary: %{summary} - Rust development files for "default" feature
auto: %files -n rust-foo+default-devel
auto: %ghost %{_datadir}/cargo/registry/foo-1.0.0/Cargo.toml
…
auto: %package -n rust-foo+a-devel
auto: Summary: %{summary} - Rust development files for "a" feature
auto: %files -n rust-foo+a-devel
auto: %ghost %{_datadir}/cargo/registry/foo-1.0.0/Cargo.toml
…
%package doc
%files doc
%doc html
…
```
Now customization part is coming, I need to add %license into the
`rust-foo-devel` package, so:
```diff
-auto: %files -n rust-foo-devel
+%files -n rust-foo-devel
+%license LICENSE
```
should not throw error that package was not defined, but rather check it at the
end of build, after packages were generated.
Same if I decide to override summary of some subpackage, it should simply merge
them, keeping user-written changes with highest priority:
```diff
-auto: %package -n libfoo-1
-auto: Summary: %{summary} - libfoo.so.1
+%package -n libfoo-1
+Summary: Custom summary - libfoo.so.1
```
This means that for text fields we should override, but for arrays (like files)
we should append.
OTOH we probably should not allow such customizations in this way, but rather
have each generator output everything needed in lua or to the filesystem and
create special section `%subpackages` where there will be files like
`$pkgname.(summary|files)` generated by new generators. at that point it would
be very similar to the %generate_buildrequires section so that you can do
whatever you need with those files. I think this would be my preferred idea.
Thoughts?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/329#issuecomment-626306079___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Automatic (sub)package generators (#329)
Forgot to mention that %subpackages section should store files in the
%{buildroot} too, so that there is possibility to write generators which would
depend on whole state of subpackages (current problem with dependency
generators).
--
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/329#issuecomment-626306278___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Automatic (sub)package generators (#329)
> A lot of those things are already handled Fedora-side in our fonts and go > packaging macros. Sorry, I'm not interested in this black magic which nobody except you understand. I am interested in user-friendly solution which is supposed to be implemented in RPM. > You end up with a huge list of subvariables, that are only set in special > cases, so the average spec is kept small and maintainable. Exactly because of this. I don't want to have overcomplicated macros, I want simple configuration which I can tune to support different kinds of behaviors for different ecosystems. > https://pagure.io/fonts-rpm-macros/blob/009ccace3f337f3410cf0b4b789af692fce766d7/f/rpm/lua/srpm/fonts.lua#_135 I did not open a link, but I see that it points to line 135. I don't want to have anything in lua which is more than 10 lines. Better to not have lua at all involved 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-software-management/rpm/issues/329#issuecomment-626315533___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Automatic (sub)package generators (#329)
> It is user friendly. It is not maintenance friendly because it workarounds > rpm deficiencies. A lot of the complexity is simulating arrays from > individual suffixed variables when rpm does expose an array element. That is exactly why I said having new section like `%subpackages` where anybody can do something like: ``` echo "MIT" > subpkg1.license sed -i -e "/^useless-thing.pdf$/d" libfoo.files ``` instead of dealing with arrays in lua or any other macros. No? -- 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/329#issuecomment-626316905___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFC: Removing unneeded internal macros (such as %__ranlib) (#1211)
@pmatilai in Fedora specs, rough numbers are: ``` %_javadir - 209 %__sed - 168 %_javadocdir - 114 %__cp - 113 %__mv - 76 %__cc - 72 %__ln_s - 24 %__id_u - 20 %__ar - 19 %__cxx - 15 %__grep - 7 %__file - 4 %__as - 3 %__ranlib - 2 %__chgrp - 2 %__restorecon - 1 %__cpp - 1 %_unzipbin - 0 %__ssh - 0 %__semodule - 0 %__rsh - 0 %__remsh - 0 %__objcopy - 0 %__nm - 0 %__lzma - 0 %__ld - 0 %__id - 0 %_gzipbin - 0 %__cpio - 0 %__chown - 0 %_bzip2bin - 0 ``` -- You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1211#issuecomment-626528797___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFC: Removing unneeded internal macros (such as %__ranlib) (#1211)
Most of __id_u occurrences are from BuildRoot definition. The javadir and javadocdir are overriden by javapackages, so I'd proposed to keep: ``` %__sed %__cp %__mv %__cc %__cxx %__cpp ``` the rest IMO can be dropped without problems. -- You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1211#issuecomment-626529831___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFC: Removing unneeded internal macros (such as %__ranlib) (#1211)
> Note that %__remsh (and through that, %__rsh and %__ssh) are actually used by > rpm itself (in %___build_cmd) for remote execution of build scripts (a kind > of cross-build setup). hmm, probably I did not notice that. > The selinux stuff can probably go without further ado, ditto with the > id-stuff, including chown/chgrp which you can't do as a regular user anyway > (btw, where are you seeing %__chgrp used, I didn't find any?) my bad, I made a typo and it should be %__chown, the %__chgrp is empty. > As for the compiler stuff %__ld belongs in the same mental group as > cc/cxx/cpp, and actually %__as too. Ar, ranlib, objcopy and nm are in the > same general direction but far more obscure and probably could go. Fair enough, I'll send PR then. -- You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1211#issuecomment-626613356___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] macros: Drop some unused internal macro (#1212)
@ignatenkobrain pushed 1 commit. e0d63c40c4eef27b45791130858bf6e97c985922 macros: Drop internal macros which are not used in RPM and Fedora -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1212/files/ccd4fa0c72d83784170b154592c0356b5795d496..e0d63c40c4eef27b45791130858bf6e97c985922 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFC: Removing unneeded internal macros (such as %__ranlib) (#1211)
>
> Note that %__remsh (and through that, %__rsh and %__ssh) are actually used by
> rpm itself (in %___build_cmd) for remote execution of build scripts (a kind
> of cross-build setup).
Ah, that is trivial.
```
801:%___build_cmd %{?_sudo:%{_sudo} }%{?_remsh:%{_remsh}
%{_remhost} }%{?_remsudo:%{_remsudo} }%{?_remchroot:%{_remchroot} %{_remroot}
}%{___build_shell} %{___build_args}
```
it uses one underscore while I was grepping for two underscores...
So it is actually not used at all :)
--
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1211#issuecomment-626614149___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] macros: Drop some unused internal macro (#1212)
Those are either not used or almost not used in whole collection of Fedora spec files. Neither they are used anywhere in RPM internally. References: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1211 Signed-off-by: Igor Raits i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1212 -- Commit Summary -- * macros: Drop some unused internal macro -- File Changes -- M configure.ac (12) M macros.in (36) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1212.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1212.diff -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1212 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFC: Removing unneeded internal macros (such as %__ranlib) (#1211)
@pmatilai too late , but I will split PR in to small commits. -- You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1211#issuecomment-626622183___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Convenient %version without tilde macro (#1219)
I think `%{upstream_version}` would be better. However, probably in this case,
we should just define %{pypi_version}, %{semver_version} because those have
different rules.
--
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/1219#issuecomment-628480076___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Automatic (sub)package generators (#329)
> I guess the easiest way to provide this is a spec file section that is not > evaluated at parse time but is parsed after the build. We might want to > disallow some things there but it will basically allow declaring sub > packages. These could also be created by macros or by scripts processing the > build root. I think this is most straight way and is also most useful, because in order to generate subpackages you need to do it after %install when all files are already installed. -- 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/329#issuecomment-629161299___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] WIP: RFC: Buildsystem overhaul (meson) (#1209)
@DimStar77 , > Just to chime in here as well: openSUSE has the 'distro bootstrap' split and > tries to keep it under control. It's right that python3 is already in that > chain (we build python3 is a minimal set with as few deps as possible, and an > enhanced set, in two runs) I am curious, what depends on it apart from glibc (I guess)? > meson If you have Python, no other deps. > ninja Easy-peasy, C++. > re2c Technically this is optional since ninja ships pre-generated sources. -- 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/1209#issuecomment-625898177___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] %{name} is not properly evaluated in sources and %_sourcedir (#1234)
So I have discussed this privately with @decathorpe and the issue here is in rpmdev-spectool as I guessed. Next time, please open issues with as much information as possible and a minimal reproducer. Ref: https://pagure.io/rpmdevtools/issue/40 -- 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/1234#issuecomment-632007845___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] %{name} is not properly evaluated in sources and %_sourcedir (#1234)
Closed #1234. -- 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/1234#event-3360119174___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpmbuild: Create build tree after parsing a spec file (#1235)
I guess this might affect some kind of %include usage, but the difference between not being able to read file from folder that does not exist or from the folder that does and is empty is not something what we should be worried about I think. -- 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/1235#issuecomment-632014708___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpmbuild: Create build tree after parsing a spec file (#1235)
Build tree macros can use %{name} or any other kind of weird things in
them. The generation of Name or anything like that from the
%{_sourcedir} or anything like this is not something what people do or
should do. Lets just parse spec first and then create any missing
directories for build tree.
Signed-off-by: Igor Raits i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1235
-- Commit Summary --
* rpmbuild: Create build tree after parsing a spec file
-- File Changes --
M rpmbuild.c (14)
-- Patch Links --
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1235.patch
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1235.diff
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1235
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] %{name} is not properly evaluated in sources and %_sourcedir (#1234)
Btw, I have sent https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1235 to
avoid printing warnings in the CLI when using %{name} in the %{_sourcedir}:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1235
--
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/1234#issuecomment-632024345___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpmbuild: Create build tree after parsing a spec file (#1235)
Ehh, it seems that this breaks building from tarball :/ I'll check if I can make it work. -- 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/1235#issuecomment-632016378___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] %{name} is not properly evaluated in sources and %_sourcedir (#1234)
Probably you can paste the spec file here and method how to reproduce? Probably it is `rpmdev-spectool` does something wrong with it… -- 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/1234#issuecomment-631991192___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] macros: Drop internal macros which are not used in RPM and Fedora (#1212)
Fine with me, did not want to get this in 4.16 anyway :) -- 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/1212#issuecomment-634048644___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add %postbuild section / Allow dynamic sub packages (#1239)
```
RPM build errors:
line 223: %package -n rust-libc-devel: package rust-libc-devel already
exists
fish: Job 2, “~/Projects/upstream/rpm/rpmbuil…” terminated by signal SIGSEGV
(Address boundary error)
```
Segfault if the package redefinition happens is not expected.
---
```
error: line 44: Too many names: %description -n rust-libc-devel %{_description}
```
It seems that the `%{_description}` macro is not getting expanded. But it is
defined in a spec.
---
And the last thing is that `%postbuild` gets executed during `rpmbuild -bs`
which can lead to very interesting problems when run in unclean environment.
--
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/1239#issuecomment-635219979___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Remove deprecated beecrypt and NSS crypto backends (#1245)
@pmatilai I think we need to deprecate it in 4.17 and ditch it in 4.18 while keeping bdb_ro only. -- 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/1245#issuecomment-635286229___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Remove deprecated beecrypt and NSS crypto backends (#1245)
:rocket: :+1: -- 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/1245#issuecomment-635278798___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Remove deprecated beecrypt and NSS crypto backends (#1245)
@pmatilai oh, in that case - I would ditch bdb backend and possibly enable bdb_ro by default for 4.17 and then in 4.18 disable it by default. -- 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/1245#issuecomment-635344736___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpmbuild: Create build tree after parsing a spec file (#1235)
@pmatilai FYI, this case have been fixed. This PR works fine from my testing. Sorry, forgot to type this before :) -- 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/1235#issuecomment-633422873___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpmbuild: Create build tree after parsing a spec file (#1235)
makes sense, I can rework tarball case to create tempdir and set _specdir there. I guess we can drop creation of sourcedir as well. -- 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/1235#issuecomment-633505916___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add %postbuild section / Allow dynamic sub packages (#1239)
@ignatenkobrain commented on this pull request. > @@ -451,6 +453,7 @@ const char * rpmSpecGetSection(rpmSpec spec, int section) case RPMBUILD_BUILD:return getStringBuf(spec->build); case RPMBUILD_INSTALL: return getStringBuf(spec->install); case RPMBUILD_CHECK:return getStringBuf(spec->check); + //case RPMBUILD_POSTBUILD: return getStringBuf(spec->postbuild); any reason this is commented out? -- 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/1239#pullrequestreview-417602986___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add %postbuild section / Allow dynamic sub packages (#1239)
Some bikeshedding here: I'd call it `%generate_spec` because that's what it essentially is for. -- 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/1239#issuecomment-633491347___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add %postbuild section / Allow dynamic sub packages (#1239)
@ignatenkobrain commented on this pull request.
> +while (1) {
+ if ((rc = _readLine(spec, 0, 1)) > 0) {
+ res = PART_NONE;
+ break;
+ } else if (rc < 0) {
+ res = PART_ERROR;
+ break;
+ }
+ if (!strncmp(spec->line, "%%end", 5)) {
+ spec->line++;
+ res = PART_EMPTY;
+ break;
+ }
+ appendStringBufAux(spec->postbuild, spec->line, 0);
+}
+printf("XXX\n%s\nXXX\n", getStringBuf(spec->postbuild));
at least I know that you are using good old printf-everywhere when writing new
code :D
--
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/1239#pullrequestreview-417602663___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpmbuild: Create build tree after parsing a spec file (#1235)
As you can see, I'm touching rpmbuild code, morning else. So this should not break. -- 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/1235#issuecomment-636421070___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpmbuild: Create build tree after parsing a spec file (#1235)
@pmatilai fixed and rebased. -- 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/1235#issuecomment-636714949___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] macros: force add files to git index (#1246)
@ignatenkobrain approved this pull request. LGTM -- 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/1246#pullrequestreview-422424536___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] scripts/pythondistdeps: Various updates and fixes (no test suite) (#1242)
I would move `import re` to the top imports and just be done with it. -- 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/1242#issuecomment-634120267___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpmbuild: Create build tree after parsing a spec file (#1235)
@pmatilai hopefully should be fixed and rebased. -- 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/1235#issuecomment-634501079___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: %undefine_all (#1314)
@mlschroe works for me too :) -- 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/1314#issuecomment-662318724___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Files in %_docdir are not passed to dependency generators (#1297)
Just curious, what's your use-case? -- 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/1297#issuecomment-652382807___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Support threading for zstd compression. (#1303)
> it compresses a bit worse I was testing it on xonotic-data and it was 873M in single-threaded compression and the same size in multi-threaded mode. -- 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/1303#issuecomment-658028859___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Document: "rpmbuild -br" always returns 11 when "--nodeps" is used (#963)
> no matter if all build requires are installed because rpmbuild does not check them because `--nodeps` is specified :) So for rpmbuild none are installed. -- 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/963#issuecomment-658698922___ 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 eclude files from %doc (#1298)
I think it would be quite useful to implement this and should not be very hard, in theory... Still, you should just wipe those files and not use %exclude for that. I think that is on the roadmap that it will throw unpackaged files if you %exclude files and do not put them anywhere. -- 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/1298#issuecomment-653492447___ 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 eclude files from %doc (#1298)
I did take quick look into the code base: for `%doc` the `addSpecialFile()` is
used that just inserts file entries. That does not copy files into the
%{_docdir}. Rather, it is done from `processPackageFiles() ->
processSpecialDir()` at which point it already packages the RPM. The `%exclude`
is using `addFile()` with statp argument as NULL that indicates that
file/directory does not exist.
Not sure what would be the best solution to this problem code-wise.
--
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/1298#issuecomment-653501043___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Support threading for zstd compression. (#1303)
@ignatenkobrain commented on this pull request. >AS_IF([test "$enable_zstd" = "yes"], [ if test "$have_zstd" = "no"; then AC_MSG_ERROR([--enable-zstd specified, but not available]) fi ]) + PKG_CHECK_MODULES([ZSTD], [libzstd], [have_zstd=yes], [have_zstd=no]) I think it is much easier to have here `libzstd >= 1.3.8` rather than custom C preproc check. -- 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/1303#pullrequestreview-446554479___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Support threading for zstd compression. (#1303)
@ignatenkobrain commented on this pull request.
LGTM with small nitpicks
> goto err;
}
+
+ if (threads > 0)
If I read https://facebook.github.io/zstd/zstd_manual.html correctly, even if
you set it to `0`, it will use single thread which makes this if unneeded.
> @@ -1100,7 +1101,12 @@ static rpmzstd rpmzstdNew(int fdno, const char *fmode)
flags &= ~O_ACCMODE;
flags |= O_RDWR;
continue;
- break;
+ case 'T':
I think it would be nice to support setting it to -1, same as for lzma:
```
if (threads == -1)
threads = rpmExpandNumeric("%{getncpus}");
```
> + if (c >= (int)'0' && c <= (int)'9')
+ threads = strtol(s-1, (char **), 10);
Just curious if it would make sense to change lzopen_internal() to follow the
same logic? If so, could you push a separate commit for 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/rpm/pull/1303#pullrequestreview-446799809___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Support threading for zstd compression. (#1303)
@ignatenkobrain commented on this pull request. > + ++s; + c = *s; ```suggestion c = *s++; ``` -- 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/1303#pullrequestreview-446814593___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Support threading for zstd compression. (#1303)
@ignatenkobrain commented on this pull request. > goto err; } + + if (threads > 0) hmmm, thinking about it more.. ``` /* These parameters are only useful if multi-threading is enabled (compiled with build macro ZSTD_MULTITHREAD). ``` And checking code, yeah - it will return and error. so should we instead change it to `> 1`? -- 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/1303#discussion_r453209459___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Support threading for zstd compression. (#1303)
@marxin I've tried this on my laptop and it does not seem to work? ``` $ /usr/bin/time ~/Projects/upstream/rpm/rpmbuild -bb xonotic-data.spec -D "_sourcedir $PWD" -D "_binary_payload w19T8.zstdio" ... 289.90user 3.08system 4:54.67elapsed 99%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 155348maxresident)k 0inputs+5456184outputs (0major+72889minor)pagefaults 0swaps ``` -- 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/1303#issuecomment-657091568___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Support threading for zstd compression. (#1303)
@ignatenkobrain commented on this pull request. > goto err; } + + if (threads > 0) + if (ZSTD_isError (ZSTD_CCtx_setParameter(_stream, ZSTD_c_nbWorkers, threads))) + rpmlog(RPMLOG_WARNING, "zstd library does not support multi-threading"); ```suggestion rpmlog(RPMLOG_WARNING, "zstd library does not support multi-threading\n"); ``` -- 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/1303#pullrequestreview-446814815___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Support threading for zstd compression. (#1303)
@ignatenkobrain commented on this pull request. > goto err; } + + if (threads > 0) + if (ZSTD_isError (ZSTD_CCtx_setParameter(_stream, ZSTD_c_nbWorkers, threads))) hmmpf, this always gives me an error on Fedora Rawhide: ``` warning: zstd library does not support multi-threading ``` With `ZSTD_getErrorName()` I get `Unsupported parameter`. -- 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/1303#pullrequestreview-446815348___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Support threading for zstd compression. (#1303)
@ignatenkobrain commented on this pull request. > goto err; } + + if (threads > 0) + if (ZSTD_isError (ZSTD_CCtx_setParameter(_stream, ZSTD_c_nbWorkers, threads))) Oh my, Fedora ships libzstd without MT support. ignore this one. -- 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/1303#discussion_r453216291___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Support threading for zstd compression. (#1303)
@ignatenkobrain commented on this pull request.
> goto err;
}
+
+ if (threads > 0)
```suggestion
if (threads == -1)
threads = rpmExpandNumeric("%{getncpus}");
if (threads > 0)
```
--
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/1303#pullrequestreview-446817519___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Support threading for zstd compression. (#1303)
With my suggestions, and a proper build of libzstd in Fedora it works as expected, it fully utilizes my system. Testing on `xonotic-data` which is 873M. ``` before: 284.05user 3.03system 4:48.64elapsed 99%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 153540maxresident)k 88inputs+5456312outputs (1major+80373minor)pagefaults 0swaps after: 578.54user 5.56system 1:36.86elapsed 602%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 1409788maxresident)k 104inputs+5455928outputs (1major+386345minor)pagefaults 0swaps ``` -- 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/1303#issuecomment-657102812___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Support threading for zstd compression. (#1303)
@ignatenkobrain approved this pull request. LGTM with very small suggestion. -- 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/1303#pullrequestreview-446818885___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Support threading for zstd compression. (#1303)
@ignatenkobrain commented on this pull request.
> goto err;
}
+
+ if (threads == -1)
+ threads = rpmExpandNumeric("%{getncpus}");
+ if (threads > 1)
After all I think
```suggestion
if (threads > 0)
```
should be used.
--
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/1303#pullrequestreview-446818865___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Always fail build on dependency generator failures (#1183) (#1271)
:tada: Would be nice to get that into 4.16. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1271#issuecomment-645323467___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpmbuild should report missing files for all subpackages (#1277)
Can you elaborate more please? What missing / unpacked files, waht subpackages, what report? -- 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/1277#issuecomment-646655800___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Revert "Always fail build on dependency generator failures (#1183)" (#1286)
I think we should keep it for master and revert fo 4.16 -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1286#issuecomment-648649214___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RPM Translation subpackage(s) (#1276)
Generally you should try out #1239 , but for that you need to find out few things. How do you detect a binary that will want to load some specific translations? Is it just some guess or should be up to packager to fill in or? -- 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/1276#issuecomment-647477780___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix completely broken prefix search on sqlite backend (#1265)
Seems to fix my problem :) -- 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/1265#issuecomment-641855601___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Make the "rpmbuild debuginfo -g3 .debug_macro" test an expected fail … (#1267)
@ignatenkobrain approved this pull request. -- 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/1267#pullrequestreview-428370928___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] metainfo.attr: Fix execution of the generator (#1259)
Please backport to 4.16.x -- 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/1259#issuecomment-640211823___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] metainfo.attr: Fix execution of the generator (#1259)
Somehow it wasnt noticed before. Fixes: 9464926456125dacb8046767f1fe4235471986e9 Signed-off-by: Igor Raits i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1259 -- Commit Summary -- * metainfo.attr: Fix execution of the generator -- File Changes -- M fileattrs/metainfo.attr (2) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1259.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1259.diff -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1259 ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add OrderWithRequires dependency generation (#1257)
> When a package contains a systemd unit, %systemd_* macros are usually used; > it is usefull to add "OrderWithRequires: systemd" in this case to ensure > that systemd is installed before that package. I think I disagree here, it is only some specific cases where this needs to be used. cc @keszybz --- Other than that, LGTM. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1257#issuecomment-640214135___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] error: Couldn't exec metainfo(): No such file or directory (#1261)
Sent patch yesterday https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1259 -- 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/1261#issuecomment-640417518___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] error: Couldn't exec metainfo(): No such file or directory (#1261)
Backported to rawhide & fixed in 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/issues/1261#issuecomment-640492804___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] error: Couldn't exec metainfo(): No such file or directory (#1261)
Closed #1261. -- 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/1261#event-3419175160___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] %transfiletriggerin does not work on Fedora 33 (#1260)
``` ❯ sudo rpm -ivh /home/brain/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/newsflash-1.0~rc1-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm --debug --rpmfcdebug [sudo] password for brain: D: == /home/brain/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/newsflash-1.0~rc1-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm D: loading keyring from pubkeys in /var/lib/rpm/pubkeys/*.key D: couldn't find any keys in /var/lib/rpm/pubkeys/*.key D: loading keyring from rpmdb D: PRAGMA secure_delete = OFF: 0 D: PRAGMA case_sensitive_like = ON: 0 D: read h#1690 Header SHA256 digest: OK Header SHA1 digest: OK D: added key gpg-pubkey-9570ff31-5e3006fb to keyring D: Using legacy gpg-pubkey(s) from rpmdb D: /home/brain/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/newsflash-1.0~rc1-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm: Header SHA256 digest: OK D: /home/brain/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/newsflash-1.0~rc1-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm: Header SHA1 digest: OK ufdio: 6 reads,11265 total bytes in 0.09 secs D: Plugin: calling hook init in systemd_inhibit plugin D: added binary package [0] D: found 0 source and 1 binary packages D: == +++ newsflash-1.0~rc1-1.fc33 x86_64/linux 0x2 D: read h# 209 Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 9570ff31: OK Header SHA256 digest: OK Header SHA1 digest: OK D: Requires: ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) YES (db provides) D: Requires: ld-linux-x86-64.so.2(GLIBC_2.3)(64bit)YES (db provides) D: Requires: libc.so.6()(64bit)YES (db provides) D: Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.17)(64bit) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.18)(64bit) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.2)(64bit) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) YES (db provides) D: read h# 444 Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 9570ff31: OK Header SHA256 digest: OK Header SHA1 digest: OK D: Requires: libcairo-gobject.so.2()(64bit)YES (db provides) D: read h# 443 Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 9570ff31: OK Header SHA256 digest: OK Header SHA1 digest: OK D: Requires: libcairo.so.2()(64bit)YES (db provides) D: read h#1997 Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 9570ff31: OK Header SHA256 digest: OK Header SHA1 digest: OK D: Requires: libcrypto.so.1.1()(64bit) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit)YES (db provides) D: Requires: libdl.so.2()(64bit) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libdl.so.2(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)YES (db provides) D: read h# 1 Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 9570ff31: OK Header SHA256 digest: OK Header SHA1 digest: OK D: Requires: libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)YES (db provides) D: Requires: libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit) YES (db provides) D: read h#1349 Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 9570ff31: OK Header SHA256 digest: OK Header SHA1 digest: OK D: Requires: libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit)YES (db provides) D: read h# 269 Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 9570ff31: OK Header SHA256 digest: OK Header SHA1 digest: OK D: Requires: libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) YES (db provides) D: read h# 224 Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 9570ff31: OK Header SHA256 digest: OK Header SHA1 digest: OK D: Requires: libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit)YES (db provides) D: read h#1370 Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 9570ff31: OK Header SHA256 digest: OK Header SHA1 digest: OK D: Requires: libhandy-0.0.so.0()(64bit)YES (db provides) D: Requires: libhandy-0.0.so.0(LIBHANDY_0_0_0)(64bit) YES (db provides) D: read h# 532 Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 9570ff31: OK Header SHA256 digest: OK Header SHA1 digest: OK D: Requires: libjavascriptcoregtk-4.0.so.18()(64bit) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libm.so.6()(64bit)YES (db provides) D: Requires: libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) YES (db provides) D: Requires: libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.27)(64bit) YES (db provides) D: read h# 935 Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 9570ff31: OK Header SHA256 digest: OK Header SHA1 digest: OK D: Requires: libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit)YES (db provides) D: Requires: libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] %transfiletriggerin does not work on Fedora 33 (#1260)
Also I checked `stat /usr/share/icons/hicolor/icon-theme.cache` and that does not change during the RPM run. But if I run command from trigger manually, it updates that file. -- 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/1260#issuecomment-640221416___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add _without_check macro (#1256)
I think this should set _with_check unless _without_check is defined already. Basically to have `%bcond_without check` by default without having to put it in all spec files. But still need to make sure that somebody defines `%bcond_without check`, this code won't override it. -- 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/1256#issuecomment-640229941___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Disable Python hash seed randomization in brp-python-bytecompile (#1320)
@hroncok -- 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/1320#issuecomment-663508390___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] pythondistdeps: Switch to importlib.metadata (#1317)
@hroncok @torsava take a look please :) -- 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/1317#issuecomment-662881689___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Docs: Revamp BUILD OPTIONS section in rpmbuild(8) (#1318)
@ignatenkobrain commented on this pull request. > @@ -256,6 +266,18 @@ options are currently set in \fIrpmrc\fR and \fImacros\fR configuration file(s). +.SS "DYNAMIC BUILD REQUIREMENTS" +.PP +When the %generate_buildrequires stage is executed and some of the resulting +requirements are not satisfied, \fBrpmbuild\fR exits with code 11 and does not +create the source package. +Instead, a package ending with \fIbuildreqs.nosrc.rpm\fR is created, which has +all the build requirements, including the newly generated ones. This is not fully correct. It has `all the build requirements that were possible to generate at that point of time`, we need to point out for people that sometimes they will need to run `-br`, install deps and then run `-br` again and it might generate new dependencies. -- 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/1318#pullrequestreview-453961504___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Docs: Revamp BUILD OPTIONS section in rpmbuild(8) (#1318)
@ignatenkobrain commented on this pull request. > @@ -256,6 +266,18 @@ options are currently set in \fIrpmrc\fR and \fImacros\fR configuration file(s). +.SS "DYNAMIC BUILD REQUIREMENTS" +.PP +When the %generate_buildrequires stage is executed and some of the resulting +requirements are not satisfied, \fBrpmbuild\fR exits with code 11 and does not +create the source package. +Instead, a package ending with \fIbuildreqs.nosrc.rpm\fR is created, which has +all the build requirements, including the newly generated ones. yes, that section is executed during each built, so if it has some check `test -x /usr/bin/foo ...`, then once foo will be available, it might generate new set of requires. that's why mock does `rpmbuild -br` + `dnf builddep` until it stops generating any new dependencies. -- 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/1318#discussion_r459325559___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Docs: Revamp BUILD OPTIONS section in rpmbuild(8) (#1318)
@ignatenkobrain commented on this pull request. > +to run this command (followed by new dependency resolution) repeatedly until > it +no longer exits with code 11. ```suggestion to run this command (followed by installation of the generated dependencies) repeatedly until no new dependencies are generated. ``` Probably something like 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/1318#pullrequestreview-454722041___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Always close libelf handle (#1313)
@ignatenkobrain approved this pull request. -- 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/1313#pullrequestreview-451414999___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: %undefine_all (#1314)
So the `%define`/`%global` is a stack-based, however sometimes you want to undefine variable no matter how many times it was defined. I think `%undefine_all` would be the best name. -- 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/1314___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Support threading for zstd compression. (#1303)
@ignatenkobrain commented on this pull request. > @@ -1072,6 +1072,7 @@ static rpmzstd rpmzstdNew(int fdno, const char *fmode) char *t = stdio; char *te = t + sizeof(stdio) - 2; int c; +int threads = -1; ```suggestion int threads = 0; ``` to satisfy @ffesti -- 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/1303#pullrequestreview-452511259___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Support threading for zstd compression. (#1303)
@ignatenkobrain approved this pull request. >From my POV it is good to go and we can follow up with improvements like >auto-detection of cores. -- 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/1303#pullrequestreview-454383007___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Dynamic Spec generation (#1485)
cc @davide125 -- 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/1485#issuecomment-758602337___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
