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

I've no objections except that the cat is out of the bag already: existing users of %{arm} are, out of necessity, relying on it to mean just the 32bit arm versions. Changing that to include aarch64 would almost certainly break stuff and force people to change what's been working for years. --

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

In general we want to keep rpm buildable on recent RHEL which in this case means RHEL-7, and that in turn means Lua 5.1. But compat stuff for older than that can go, as far as I'm concerned. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or vie

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

Closed #171. -- 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/171#event-991302904___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm

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

MJW also says not needed, closing. -- 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/171#issuecomment-285035471___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@l

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Bump file digests to SHA256 by default, finally (0cd74ad)

On 03/08/2017 06:04 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > shouldn't default mark be moved? > > — > You are receiving this because you authored the thread. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub >

Re: [Rpm-maint] [PATCH] generateBuildIDs: Don't warn or error for object files without build-id.

On 03/09/2017 10:34 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote: From: Mark Wielaard Only loadable ELF images (executables, shared libraries, kernel modules) should have build-ids. So don't warn or error out when an object file is found without one. Signed-off-by: Mark Wielaard Applied, thanks. - Panu

Re: [Rpm-maint] [PATCH] generateBuildIDs: Don't warn or error for object files without build-id.

On 03/09/2017 11:29 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote: On Thu, 2017-03-09 at 12:22 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 03/09/2017 10:34 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote: From: Mark Wielaard Only loadable ELF images (executables, shared libraries, kernel modules) should have build-ids. So don't warn or erro

Re: [Rpm-maint] [PATCH] build/files.c: Unset __debug_package implies missing build-ids aren't fatal.

On 03/09/2017 04:52 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote: From: Mark Wielaard Historically we have only checked build_ids when __debug_package was defined. So don't terminate the build if __debug_package is unset, even when _missing_build_ids_terminate_build is. Only warn. Signed-off-by: Mark Wielaard A

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Don't include git refs in ChangeLog (PR #2802)

Merged #2802 into master. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2802#event-11153690959 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mail

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Don't leak local git refs in ChangeLog (Issue #2647)

Closed #2647 as completed via #2802. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2647#event-11153691221 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ R

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Build all manuals regardless of enabled features (PR #2804)

Merged #2804 into master. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2804#event-11189983346 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mail

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFC: Strip quote characters in macro expansion if we do not split the result (PR #2788)

Fun stuff :grin: Thanks for the patch! -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2788#issuecomment-1846665550 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFC: Strip quote characters in macro expansion if we do not split the result (PR #2788)

Merged #2788 into master. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2788#event-11190164556 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mail

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] docs/macros.md: Fix expansion shorthand (PR #2739)

Oh, indeed. Thanks for the patch! -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2739#issuecomment-1846671438 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ R

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] docs/macros.md: Fix expansion shorthand (PR #2739)

Merged #2739 into master. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2739#event-11190215541 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mail

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] fix: resource leak: f (PR #2787)

Closed #2787. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2787#event-11190281837 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] fix: resource leak: f (PR #2787)

Thanks but there's no leak here because this is just a run-once test-program, the OS will take care of the descriptors on exit. If this is somehow important to you then feel free to resubmit with the following changes: - refactor it to use "goto exit" idiom to free resources once instead of thre

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Extract static tests for easier release bumps (PR #2803)

Heh, I was so used to the old procedure that the idea of somehow improving it never crossed my mind :sweat_smile: "static" as a target name is problematic though, "static" in the build system context usually means static linkage. Maybe "pinned", or as per the the README, or "check-pinned" to m

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Bumb CI to Fedora 39 (PR #2799)

Yep, the CI distro needs to be pinned to a specific version, otherwise chaos will follow. Things like new gcc breaking the previously building code due to a new warning. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2799#issuecomment-1

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Question about dependency between build-stage and stripping (Issue #2800)

@pmatilai converted this issue into discussion #2805. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2800#event-11191454424 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Extract static tests for easier release bumps (PR #2803)

Pinned is not really descriptive but at least it wont be confused with something else in the build system domain. But yup, perhaps we can come up with something actually descriptive. Names are hard :laughing: -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Extract static tests for easier release bumps (PR #2803)

For other random ideas, perhaps something better would be in the direction of what it actually does, eg "version-diff", or what it relates to: preparing for release (release-prep) or such. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/

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

@pmatilai pushed 4 commits. 03dfaa56dd67073cbbe27fd125167bc79acda55c Extract static tests for easier release bumps a939bee8957e01ba8ece72c16727909f94d138fb Use rpmSpecGetSection() internally where appropriate 159a96eff15edd4defb52399b22f7edaffbfb354 Store spec section string buffers as an ar

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

@pmatilai commented on this pull request. > +%buildsystem_python_build +``` + +## Supporting new build systems + +Supporting new build system types is just a matter of declaring a few +macros for the build scriptlet sections relevant to the build system. + +Scriptlet | Mandatory

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

@pmatilai commented on this pull request. > @@ -1352,5 +1352,16 @@ end end } +# buildsystem defaults +%buildsystem_default_prep() %autosetup -p1 Documented in the last push. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2774#

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

Added docs for the global defaults + some other tweaks in that department, and added a cmake buildsystem example. I think this is ready to go now. As with any new feature there's likely to be some rough edges, but those are best found in hands of the users rather than sitting in a draft somewh

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Extract static tests for easier release bumps (PR #2803)

Leafing through the mental dictionary of handy words... Mutable! It fits the bill pretty perfectly as these results are *expected to change* at certain times, whereas all the other tests do not. So perhaps "update-mutable"? -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Extract static tests for easier release bumps (PR #2803)

Yeah, mutable and immutable are generic concepts and used in multiple places already. So if you really want to pinpoint it, "update-mutable-tests" :smile: -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2803#issuecomment-1849773127 You a

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFC: Strip quote characters in macro expansion if we do not split the result (PR #2788)

Oh. I did actually notice the RFC, but it seemed like a reasonably complete patch so thought why not. The best way to ensure PRs dont get accidentally merged is to create it as a draft PR, that way it's enforced at GH level. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFC: Strip quote characters in macro expansion if we do not split the result (PR #2788)

Do you want me to revert it for the time being? -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2788#issuecomment-1851590761 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Test-suite cleanups (PR #2809)

Side-products from doing something else :sweat_smile: You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2809 -- Commit Summary -- * Split relocate install test to sub-cases for readability * Avoid unnecessary rebuilding in

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Test-suite cleanups (PR #2809)

Merged #2809 into master. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2809#event-11222067094 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mail

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] invalid OpenPGP signature with Sequoia for existing RPM (Issue #2351)

It only works if you actually follow the instructions. Look more carefully. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2351#issuecomment-1851856266 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: _

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Examine Compressed Headers (Issue #2220)

You can't. So header compression on package level would have to be an optional feature. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2220#issuecomment-1851861360 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Mess

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

Eek, no. That Fedora specific hack is not coming anywhere near upstream. Sorry but I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for the use-case of installing Fedora 17 by current rpm versions... -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] 4.20 unbuildable on macOS due to Linux-specific extensions (Issue #2807)

If rpm *depends* on a non-POSIX extension then it generally is a bug. Such cases just need to be tracked independently, but in brief: - rpm-sort was ported from elsewhere and I guess strchrnul() use went unnoticed in review. It needs needs to be fixed not to use that, and in the meanwhile not be

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

Those releases are something like ten years out of support by now. If you need it, the patch is out there if you need it. That's open-source power for you. Now, this issue here is about a very specific case regarding the symlink detection logic in rpm, that actually has zero to do with the old F

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Is there a way to determine if a package is provided by OS repos or custom built? (Discussion #2808)

The package signature is the strongest indicator of origin there is. Otherwise it gets very very gray: if you download a package from a repo and then install locally, the connection to the repo was lost. Or, if you copy a package from one repo to another, the package does not change but the repo

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Portability fixes (PR #2812)

Should fix couple of items brought up in #2807 You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2812 -- Commit Summary -- * Fix hard dependency on libelf (cmake transition fallout) * Fix hard dependency on strchrnul() GNU e

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Don't warn about missing user/group on skipped files (PR #2814)

There's no reason to complain about missing user/group for entities we don't create at all. It's cosmetical only, but "regressed" in the 4.17 fsm robustness rewrite. Reported in https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-18037 You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https:/

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Support for 'm' in sysusers file? (Issue #2816)

Supporting 'm' would be nice of course. It was left out of the initial implementation due to lack of time/energy to think about how to properly implement it, rather than a "never" decision. The implicit user/group creation is indeed something that would cause problems when an explicit entry exi

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] 4.19.1: broken `update-pot` target (Issue #2817)

Why on earth are you specifically running 'update-pot' in the first place? And, if you expect somebody to look at this, supply the entire reproducer. Ie, all the cmake commands on a pristine source tarball. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-m

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix false positives from Lua scriptlet runaway child detection (PR #2818)

Commit a8107659ef3dd4855729bf65aa4d70f784cb5a5f moved the detection to parent using waitpid(), but this causes it to complain on any process in the same process group. In the usual rpm context we don't have any, but we can't very well tell API users not to have any children. rpmlog() in the chi

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix false positives from Lua scriptlet runaway child detection (PR #2818)

@pmatilai pushed 1 commit. 55d10808d5b4e62c41868992e096c46de63b9373 Fix Lua scriptlet runaway child detection -- View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2818/files/a3d49ce8bb92711f60ce1532a4fb135df693df7a..55d10808d5b4e62c41868992e096c46de63b9373 You are receivin

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix regression in Lua scriptlet runaway child detection (PR #2818)

@pmatilai pushed 1 commit. aa60ce20af0e4d520eaf4948dc2b839fe824936f Fix regression in Lua scriptlet runaway child detection -- View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2818/files/b515e0c94ed70313bbed9662fb6fcdec94ddc763..aa60ce20af0e4d520eaf4948dc2b839fe824936f Yo

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix regression in Lua scriptlet runaway child detection (PR #2818)

Merged #2818 into master. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2818#event-11259039794 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mail

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] 4.19.1: broken `update-pot` target (Issue #2817)

> In first line of the provided output is ONE command which needs to be > executed. It does not need anything build env specific biits. It's one command run in some unspecific context. You've reported several tickets where you've been using cmake in a very different manner than what we do and e

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] `rpmspec` default output unexpected (Issue #2819)

That'd be a bug, or rather, a regression. .src is only a valid arch for a source rpm. So 'rpmspec -q' can never legitimately return an .src arch, but 'rpmspec -q --srpm' *must* return either src or nosrc. Thanks for reporting! -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://gith

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] 4.19.1: broken `update-pot` target (Issue #2817)

Actually both of you: what exactly are you doing that you run into this? Clearly, the paths in the rpm-l10n repo were wrong but the release tarball from ftp.rpm.org has been built locally and for Fedora multiple times by different people and doesn't exhibit any such errors. Which makes me wonder

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RPM 4.19.1 bugfix update (Issue #2793)

Closed #2793 as completed. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2793#event-11273902174 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint m

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] 4.20 unbuildable on macOS due to Linux-specific extensions (Issue #2807)

Oh, looking at the GLOB_ONLYDIR a bit closer: it is and always was an optimization only, so we can simply check for its availability and avoid use if it's not present. Which actually makes it trivial to fix. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-m

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Portability fixes (PR #2812)

@pmatilai pushed 1 commit. 9f9870ee7199c0a94f6d0c064c404864fbfc3bae Fix hard dependency on non-POSIX GLOB_ONLYDIR flag -- View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2812/files/33c47c27f408ee75e8d6d2f97113f0215a1376d9..9f9870ee7199c0a94f6d0c064c404864fbfc3bae You are

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] 4.19.1: broken `update-pot` target (Issue #2817)

Well yes, it's not something you're expected to run on a release tarball. So this is really going in circles, again. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2817#issuecomment-1862283412 You are receiving this because you are sub

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] 4.20 unbuildable on macOS due to Linux-specific extensions (Issue #2807)

Overall that looks just like more cmake transition fallout, uff. I'll look into it. Thanks for testing + reporting! PRIVATE vs PUBLIC depends on whether said linkage is private to the library or not, this is relevant for (other) software using these libraries. For example, librpm has PUBLIC lin

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix unconditional uses of Linux-specific extensions (PR #2812)

@pmatilai pushed 6 commits. c11aebe2820b8a8680f2ab7d90b997ad41841c39 Fix hard dependency on libelf (cmake transition fallout) fa740c9d567874caf84ff7d3bcaa01d7884ba37e Fix hard dependency on strchrnul() GNU extension f2c88904bae8863dc341fd3c71468ee74d540503 Fix unconditional dependency on non

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] 4.20 unbuildable on macOS due to Linux-specific extensions (Issue #2807)

Pushed fixes for most of the above issues to #2812. The intl case is a little more complicated. For one, we only check for Intl package, but never actually use it for anything :facepalm: and this only works because glibc has this all built it. I'll need to think about that (and preferably find

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] 4.20 unbuildable on macOS due to Linux-specific extensions (Issue #2807)

Does the following make it buildable with ENABLE_NLS? ``` diff --git a/CMakeLists.txt b/CMakeLists.txt index 24dfcbb95..596f353b4 100644 --- a/CMakeLists.txt +++ b/CMakeLists.txt @@ -220,6 +220,9 @@ endif() if (ENABLE_NLS) find_package(Intl REQUIRED) + include_directories(${Intl_I

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix unconditional uses of Linux-specific extensions (PR #2812)

@pmatilai pushed 2 commits. a626d6f228e0b8c4af30917841f9d3cc79f422f1 Cosmetics: fix rpmio cmake indentation style ccb6cb06801f287b77ccbfd95f83da3fd68b8e69 Fix libintl linkage and include directories (cmake transition fallout) -- View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/r

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] 4.20 unbuildable on macOS due to Linux-specific extensions (Issue #2807)

Thanks for testing! That's also a fine reminder of how global includes and the like get problematic real fast, so I ended up pushing a target-based version to the PR instead. So unless I screwed something up, the PR should be compilable on a whole bunch of platforms where >= 4.19.0 previously

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpmbuild double-free (Issue #2826)

Thanks for the report and backtrace. The rpmug thread-unsafety is of course painfully obvious, that it ends up called during the threaded packaging operation less so because the call happens from librpm side. It's curious that nobody has run into this before now. The core issue has been there si

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

All that data is in the header, which you cannot split without breaking signatures and digests. Which you want to be able to verify even for installed packages too. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2827#issuecomment-1873

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

@pmatilai converted this issue into discussion #2829. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2827#event-11368466735 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpmbuild double-free (Issue #2826)

The height of embarrasment with this crash is that rpm has zero use for the uid/gid info in this case, we could just skip the rpmug lookups entirely because the uid/gid is never written to the archive, only the names are. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com

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

@pmatilai commented on this pull request. > +**To Reproduce** +Steps to reproduce the behavior: +1. Start condition e.g. installed packages +2. Command (line) executed +3. Error encountered + +Please link or attach the packages or spec files involved. + +**Expected behavior** +A clear and concis

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

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

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] 4.20 unbuildable on macOS due to Linux-specific extensions (Issue #2807)

> include/rpm/rpmcli.h:10:10: fatal error: 'popt.h' file not found > > Added to python/CMakeLists.txt: > target_include_directories(_rpm PRIVATE ${POPT_INCLUDE_DIRS}) Actually popt needs to be a public include directory for rpm because of that rpmcli.h include, I didn't realize/remember we had su

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] 4.20 unbuildable on macOS due to Linux-specific extensions (Issue #2807)

Hmm, actually there shouldn't be any need for rpmbuild.h to include rpmcli.h either. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2807#issuecomment-1876732638 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix unconditional uses of Linux-specific extensions (PR #2812)

@pmatilai pushed 3 commits. 052e8f4d8778330e6e4c7b418bae33953187e640 Fix libintl linkage and include directories (cmake transition fallout) 2dd2f95806440eb4f59916112160511e58bb300d Drop unnecessary rpmcli.h include from rpmbuild.h 0adda3dac4d511f36b7c6d7ec061035b6def3793 rpmcli.h forces a pub

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] 4.20 unbuildable on macOS due to Linux-specific extensions (Issue #2807)

Pushed another update to the PR, hopefully that covers these final bits too. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2807#issuecomment-1876776814 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add support for "pinned" tests (PR #2803)

Three weeks should be enough think-time for this and since I didn't come up with anything... -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2803#issuecomment-1876872414 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. M

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add support for "pinned" tests (PR #2803)

Merged #2803 into master. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2803#event-11388155549 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mail

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

Oops, there was an unrelated extra commit from work related to #2803, must've gotten my local branches mixed up... -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2774#issuecomment-1876881461 You are receiving this because you are subscr

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: file trigger scriptlet arguments (Issue #2755)

Aggregate is what I thought of when writing the description, I don't see anything else making much sense. But, it's not like I've given this any deep meditation. Usefulness is all that matters for the arguments, otherwise we could just as well not bother :sweat_smile: -- Reply to this email d

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: file trigger scriptlet arguments (Issue #2755)

The thing to ponder about is whether there are other arguments that should be passed in addition or in stead of these. The only "vision" or "design" behind this ticket description is "something close enough to other scriptlets that someone familiar with should feel at home". Which may leave some

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

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

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add missing include (PR #2831)

The patch is correct of course, but I'm curious: what cmake version is failing due to this? Because the project is certainly building fine on several platforms/distros as is. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2831#issuecomm

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] 4.19 unbuildable on macOS due to Linux-specific extensions (Issue #2807)

Excellent! :partying_face: And again, thank you for reporting, suggesting fixes and testing. This is how it works :+1: It's also worth noting that absolutely nothing at all here was specific to macOS, just more fallout from the cmake switch. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on Git

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix unconditional uses of Linux-specific extensions (PR #2812)

As per https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2807#issuecomment-1877296382 mission accomplished. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2812#issuecomment-1880742543 You are receiving this because you are subscribe

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix unconditional uses of Linux-specific extensions (PR #2812)

Merged #2812 into master. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2812#event-11415830473 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mail

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] 4.19 unbuildable on macOS due to Linux-specific extensions (Issue #2807)

As per above report, fixed by #2812 -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2807#issuecomment-1880745280 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: _

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] 4.19 unbuildable on macOS due to Linux-specific extensions (Issue #2807)

Closed #2807 as completed. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2807#event-11415849160 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint m

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Documentation refers to %prein and %postin, which do not seem to be supported (Issue #2834)

They're just copy-paste/thinkos because the tags have the *in part, but %pre and %post don't. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2834#issuecomment-1880766241 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] %missingok is undocumented (Issue #2833)

There's just one flag for it all (`RPMFILE_MISSINGOK`) so `%config(missingok)` equals `%config %missingok`. The standalone `%missingok` was only added in 2016 (8efe51e8c24b7739f0bf7680e21083c8964633f5) so relatively late. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] document un-numbered Patch lines (Issue #2821)

I'm afraid it's undocumented except for the release notes: https://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.15.0 The meaning of a numberless `Patch:` has varied over the years. Initially it was equal to Patch0, then was a special entry of its own, and then, because it was already broken and ambiguous, it was hi

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

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

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add missing include (PR #2831)

Huh. That's where our CI is building every PR on the project, and what I use locally. Without seeing any errors from this. Can you provide a full reproducer for getting to that failure, I'd like to try and understand what's going on here. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: h

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add missing include (PR #2831)

This seems pretty bizarre, all I get is ``` [...] -- Looking for sys/auxv.h -- Looking for sys/auxv.h - found -- Looking for major -- Looking for major - found -- Performing Test found -- Performing Test found - Success [...] ``` And that's how it goes in all our CI builds, Fedora packages and so

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add missing include (PR #2831)

Oh okay, arm64, that's a difference. But then it doesn't happen on Fedora koji builds on that platform, eg here: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/rpm/4.19.1/1.fc39/data/logs/aarch64/build.log Could be a difference in installed packages perhaps, maybe there's a cmake module that "lea

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add missing include (PR #2831)

Merged #2831 into master. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2831#event-11418620125 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mail

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Documentation refers to %prein and %postin, which do not seem to be supported (Issue #2834)

And yup, most of rpm documentation is either really old, or really recent, with a circa 20 year gap in between. I try to leave some old stuff around just for the historical context/curiosity, but that statement about %pre rarity is just wrong and needs to go. -- Reply to this email directly or

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Documentation refers to %prein and %postin, which do not seem to be supported (Issue #2834)

OTOH, %pre should become rare again once the native user/group handling starts getting actually used. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2834#issuecomment-1882534469 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this

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

It may be considered legacy in Fedora but I disagree. It's not going anywhere. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2374#discussioncomment-8061517 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message

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

See https://web.archive.org/web/20070621191805/https://www.redhat.com/archives/rpm-list/2001-April/msg00283.html -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2374#discussioncomment-8061569 You are receiving this because you are

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

File-based self-dependencies are not going anywhere in general, because rpm uses that info for its own purposes. Besides, they serve as a dependency generation sanity check, and avoid surprises when (not if) packages get split to smaller pieces. Whether those %config() deps in particular serve

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

%readme as a spec directive may be obsolete, but there's no reason to drop support for the virtual file attribute. On the contrary, if it was properly integrated with %doc it would be nice to 'rpm --show-readme mypackage' instead of having to chase around in /usr/share/doc. -- Reply to this em

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpm 4.19 multi x86-64 arch versions (Discussion #2825)

The arch levels are not a new feature, just new sub-architectures. Think i386 getting expanded to i486, i586 and i686 back then, and similar levels exist on arm already. The rpm arch only works as package level differentiator and to ensure you can't install a package eg for level 4 on a level 3

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Update format documentation in the manual (PR #2835)

@pmatilai commented on this pull request. > # Package format -This document describes the RPM file format version 3.0, which is used -by RPM versions 2.1 and greater. The format is subject to change, and -you should not assume that this document is kept up to date with the -latest RPM code.

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Update format documentation in the manual (PR #2835)

@pmatilai commented on this pull request. > @@ -23,17 +23,20 @@ package file is divided in 4 logical sections: . Payload -- compressed archive of the file(s) in the package (aka "payload") ``` -All 2 and 4 byte "integer" quantities (int16 and int32) are stored in -network byte order. When

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Update format documentation in the manual (PR #2835)

@pmatilai commented on this pull request. > ``` 0008: 00 01 72 70 6d 2d 32 2e..rpm-2. ``` -The next two bytes (8-9) form an int16 that indicates the architecture -the package was built for. While this is used by file(1), the true -architecture is stored as a string in the Header.

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Update format documentation in the manual (PR #2835)

@pmatilai commented on this pull request. > -header structure: - -``` - NameTag Header Type - --- - SIZE1000INT_32 - MD5 1001BIN - PGP 1002BIN -``` - -The MD5 signature is 16 bytes, and the PGP signature varies

<    5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   >