After the c5f82d3f6223ebd0c5cc0a07ea60393ae7284929 is integrated, the SIGTERM
signal is blocked. When the installation or uninstallation script is executed,
the script is suspended if an infinite loop occurs. For example, if the script
is `"timeout 20 tail --pid=1 -f /dev/null"`. Theoretically,
I found that cb6aa82dbc10d554f8d234e934ae7c77e39a3ce2 fixed the problem.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2738#issuecomment-1785249430
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
Closed #2738 as completed.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2738#event-10808097119
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
@JetXujing pushed 1 commit.
3d5a74fcfc4fa3e08aded910ccca4c0c5622cf24 tests: fix the print with --eval
.'%undefine xxx'.
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2203/files/42a2b16004ef64c0393ab0d549029c80e4658ae9..3d5a74fcfc4fa3e08aded910ccca4c0c5622cf24
You
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/commit/aec8bdb53a3013eabf16368e17a65ab69c2136ee
introduced function changes, which cause the output of the following command
is changed.
`rpm --define %foo() %{expand:%define xxx 1} %{echo:%xxx} %{expand:
%global xxx 2} %{echo:%xxx} --eval .%foo.
As there is no actual problem, it is closed temporarily.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2203#issuecomment-1286880410
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
Closed #2203.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2203#event-7640114387
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
@pmatilai please take a look
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2240#issuecomment-1290124894
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Some files are configured with %ghost and %config(noreplace) in spec. As a
result, the files will not be replaced after the first installation, even if
the package upgraded to a new version, which is expected. In this case,
however, the new version of the file is not backed up as .rpmsave or
@pmatilai please take a look
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2203#issuecomment-1257367881
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
> Some obscure corner-cases changing behavior is kinda expected in this kind of
> cleanup. Is there some real-world usage which breaks because of this,
> something that can't be trivially fixed?
Through test cases, I found that the
@JetXujing pushed 2 commits.
5b99fb2eb74e2a46b13de8762d2c1f838471ad71 Revere Change %undefine macro to
"func" style now that we can
42a2b16004ef64c0393ab0d549029c80e4658ae9 tests: add test about %define in a
nested level and %undefine in --eval
--
View it on GitHub:
In fact, "xxx-" is undefine instead of "xxx" after
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/commit/aec8bdb53a3013eabf16368e17a65ab69c2136ee
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2203#issuecomment-1256906200
You are
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/commit/aec8bdb53a3013eabf16368e17a65ab69c2136ee
introduced function changes, which cause the output
of the following command is changed.
rpm -D %foo() %{expand:%define xxx 1} %{echo:%xxx} -E
+%undefine xxx-
The result of the command is +- before
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2254
-- Commit Summary --
* tests: add test for parseForVerify
* tests: add test for Obsoletes
-- File Changes --
A tests/data/SPECS/test-obsoletes.spec (19)
A
> The two AT_XFAIL_IF macro tests are problematic because they try to test
> behavior that is actually undefined, and so there is no particular output
> that _is_ expected.
I think there should be a specific output of `--eval. '%undefine xxx'.` , it
should be `..`. Now the output is `. `,
I also used gdb for tracking and found that the return para value(time) of
`dateToTimet` did not change under different time zone settings.
```
if (dateToTimet(date, , _words)) {
...
```
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
:48:39 UTC 2022 xujing
- test.
```
2. rpm -qp --changes /root/rpmbuild/RPMS/aarch64/test-1.0-3.aarch64.rpm
```
[root@localhost SPECS]# rpm -qp --changes
/root/rpmbuild/RPMS/aarch64/test-1.0-3.aarch64.rpm
* Fri 20 May 2022 06:48:39 PM CST xujing
- test.
```
3. change time zone to `CST` about
@JetXujing commented on this pull request.
> @@ -276,7 +279,11 @@ static int doBuildRequires(rpmSpec spec, int test)
exit:
freeStringBuf(sb_stdout);
-free(output);
+if (output) {
Thank you for the tip, I've made the relevant changes.
--
Reply to this email directly or view
> > When `checkSep(EVR, '-', emsg)` or `checkSep(EVR, ':', emsg)` or
> > `checkEpoch(EVR, emsg)` returns RPMRC_FAIL, and
> > `_wrong_version_format_terminate_build` is defined as 0, the checkDep()
> > will returns RPMRC_OK and emsg is set.
>
> Oh, indeed. We could just remove
Yes, I agree with you. When there are too many submissions in a PR, one
problematic submission will block other submissions. Considering that the
repair code is simple and is a leak problem of rpmbuild, I put them in a PR to
prevent too many PRs.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on
@JetXujing pushed 1 commit.
76fa5ee9a4b55bcb9498b084471b2bf86d28a0c0 Fix memleak when running
%generate_buildrequires
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2293/files/63d6d70d869296fd8fe95bd73466bed6ae72a133..76fa5ee9a4b55bcb9498b084471b2bf86d28a0c0
You are
@JetXujing pushed 5 commits.
ae4e1fad3c30beae27b53721e048c8ca9d7fcf52 Fix BANames leak in handlePreambleTag
b1c328fae840ee5553df9d85d59dc4f8426abda5 Fix prog leak in parseScript
ac5b93c101ffeb83f72357b59d86810b5197de8c Fix elf leak in getElfColor
e9bf10bda8fd211bdce46a96fbb9d4f41717a608 Fix
@JetXujing pushed 1 commit.
3c34043f4e519e3010c120f10f39cc2f4eeeb52f Fix fileleak when urlGetFile fails in
rpmInstall
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2311/files/148528244a9b8843c412422d8d2ba6be92454fc0..3c34043f4e519e3010c120f10f39cc2f4eeeb52f
You are
In the latest version, the RPM file installation is reconstructed. Can you
confirm whether the latest version involves this problem or provide detailed
reproduction steps.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
IST) {
+ rpmlog(RPMLOG_WARNING, "xujing: %8s (%s [%d]) %s\n", __func__,
+ dest, fd, (rc < 0 ? strerror(errno) : ""));
+ fd = openat(dirfd, dest, O_WRONLY|O_CREAT, 0200);
+}
+
if (fd < 0)
rc = RPMERR_OPEN_FAILED;
```
--
Reply to this email di
I tried to modify the %install and the installation still failed, but it was
due to symlink failure.
```
%install
mkdir %{buildroot}/sbin/
touch %{buildroot}/sbin/aaa
%if %{with sbinsymlinks}
mkdir -p %{buildroot}/usr/sbin/
cd %{buildroot}/usr/sbin/
ln -sv ../../sbin/aaa .
%endif
```
```
I reconfirmed the rpmrebuild code. The spec file automatically generated by
rpmrebuild does not configure defattr. It seems that this scenario does not
exist unless manually configured.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
rpm2archive doesnt have any checking for legitimate command line which may
cause rpm2archive blocked. Adding options check in rpm2archive now. For
details, see https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2210.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
The spec file may contain the following information:
if "xxx" is not defined, the aaa.patch will not be packed into src.rpm. When I
download the src.rpm and build in an environment
@JetXujing pushed 2 commits.
3938cefacedbfd1ae40ff356c9d8d43e173da902 fix file leak when install src rpm
which is URL
374adb562e29c1ad736e39e07dd859decb0cd5e9 fix h->blob leak when install src rpm
--
View it on GitHub:
> > @pmatilai PTAL
>
> All PR's will get looked at, in time. Please avoid these kind of personal
> pings unless it's actually personal, ie there's something that requires a
> response from that person specifically.
I'm sorry. I'll follow this rule in the future.
--
Reply to this email
when rpm install a package, the Header from tryReadHeader in rpmInstall is
leaked.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2289
-- Commit Summary --
* fix Header leak in rpmInstall
-- File Changes --
M
@pmatilai PTAL
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2289#issuecomment-1325906444
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint mailing
@JetXujing pushed 1 commit.
23f92b49b757f1449f6889bdcce2f5e40f613b71 fix eiu->sourceURL leak in rpmInstall
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2289/files/12ecef95db39c45f3f70cb20e63e2ebb7560f222..23f92b49b757f1449f6889bdcce2f5e40f613b71
You are receiving
> > "emsg" is leaked in some cases when running rpmbuild, because "emsg"
> > may be alloced and be set when checkDep returns RPMRC_OK.
>
> If emsg is allocated when checkDep() returns without an error, then perhaps
> _that_ should be fixed instead I think. What's the case where that happens, I
fix some resource leaks in some cases when running rpmbuild or rpm2cpio.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2293
-- Commit Summary --
* fix BANames leak in handlePreambleTag
* fix emsg leak in parseRCPOT
*
Header h is alloced in rpmReadPackageFile but not freed when
running rpm2cpio. Fix it.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2304
-- Commit Summary --
* Fix Header leak when running rpm2cpio
-- File Changes --
> The OS will clean up all manner of other things too, but still we close those
> file descriptors etc anyway. I certainly prefer leak-free exit even on simple
> non-looping command line tools.
I totally agree with that. Although the OS automatically cleans up, leaks can
be ignored to some
> I think we should update the documentation to indicate what it actually does
> (`%attr` overrides `%defattr`, it doesn't indicate it won't change anything).
Do you want to express %defattr overrides %attr?
I think we can consider %attr overwriting %defattr, and this problem seems to
be
Thank you for your reply, based on the
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/739 discussion, it doesn't
seem necessary to revise it.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2253#issuecomment-1316867537
You are
> Commit message should probably give a bit more background. It should mention
> the ticket it fixes but not rely on the information in the ticket still being
> available.
Thanks for your reply, I've added commit message
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@JetXujing pushed 1 commit.
84ecb642ef5965fd3dc565b1299f39a3aea74a49 fix rpm is blocked when open fifo file
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2261/files/cd361d59bd2ce67f38631f817001e0cda437f24b..84ecb642ef5965fd3dc565b1299f39a3aea74a49
You are receiving
@JetXujing pushed 1 commit.
9b55215c72a5e6209d530d9bf237c0c5e015febc fix *sbp leak when running rpmbuild
with --quiet
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2293/files/3986afaef7859503da09f942cfcb89d775fb8307..9b55215c72a5e6209d530d9bf237c0c5e015febc
You are
Closed #2253 as completed.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2253#event-7900136815
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
@JetXujing pushed 1 commit.
b86f687a047906e6561aed1faf1dad078073d949 fix memleak when running
%generate_buildrequires
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2293/files/9b55215c72a5e6209d530d9bf237c0c5e015febc..b86f687a047906e6561aed1faf1dad078073d949
You are
@JetXujing pushed 6 commits.
0fcd5d6032cab4e3b124decae76988eeed9af8cf Fix BANames leak in handlePreambleTag
c564b1b988f57f481895f3e4cad203dbbe9b4b99 Fix emsg leak in parseRCPOT
05959b6a43a0fd316499d25e12f4a1f31dc09caf Fix prog leak in parseScript
3233e97615bedfa771ee41363330968e71260a1a Fix
> Didn't look at the patches too closely yet, but:
>
> * Please capitalize commit messages properly, including the summary line. As
> in, start sentences with a capital letter.
> * Avoid piling on large number of commits to a single PR, it makes reviewing
> harder even if they're just tiny
@JetXujing pushed 1 commit.
5a8297fbc57cf74537e0821e58560434ea1e43ad fix *sbp leak when running rpmbuild
with --quiet
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2293/files/d7a90cad20c6a651c36f4201079124067b04d6b9..5a8297fbc57cf74537e0821e58560434ea1e43ad
You are
Can we add processing similar to rpmkeys: Check whether the option is
supported, if not, print related information and exit.
I'd be happy to contribute if it's available.
```
[root@localhost ~]# rpmkeys --nosuch
rpmkeys: --nosuch: unknown option
```
--
Reply to this email directly or view it
I mean, rpm can consider copying lead instead of regenerating lead which seems
can be worked fine.
The other way, I think we can add documentation to explain it, because few
people pay attention to lead and lead has no actual effect, so it is OK not to
modify it.
Is there any other good
Is there any solution to fix the problem? If not, can we consider adding
information description in rpm?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1266#issuecomment-1333121955
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to
Are there any other questions? Please review them. Thanks
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2304#issuecomment-1335165897
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
Are there any other questions? Please review them. Thanks
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2293#issuecomment-1335165690
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
@ffesti PTAL
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2261#issuecomment-1324462841
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint mailing
@JetXujing pushed 2 commits.
310bad24176e0213af7e5333de491abb1c3a5e81 fix file leak when src rpm in URL
format is used for installation
b70d28c65e88afe96f4ce6085aa476e4d173f826 fix h->blob leak when install src rpm
--
View it on GitHub:
> You can't reference some local files in the commit message ([fix file leak
> when install src rpm which is
> URL](https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2289/commits/3938cefacedbfd1ae40ff356c9d8d43e173da902)).
> You need to include the content if it is appropriate. Or describe
@JetXujing commented on this pull request.
> @@ -241,6 +241,8 @@ Header headerFree(Header h)
}
h->index = _free(h->index);
}
+if (h->blob)
Thank you for your comments. I've made changes.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
The arch element does not exist because the name in rpmlead_s is obtained from
`headerGetAsString(h, RPMTAG_NEVR)` in rpmLeadFromHeader and arch element is
not saved. In addition, 3255273ae0fabd03c9738249a29c9c1e15f28f6 seems fine, and
I don't quite understand how the arch element is changed.
> See the comment in rpmLeadFromHeader (as I wrote):
>
> ```
> /* FIXME: should grab these from header instead (RhBug:717898) */
> rpmGetArchInfo(NULL, );
> rpmGetOsInfo(NULL, );
> ```
>
> So you'll get the arch from the host where you created or deleted a
> signature,
> copies over the lead data verbatim when creating or deleting signatures
Thanks for the reply, I know what you mean, this does seem to be a problem. But
why not consider copying the lead data word for word when creating or deleting
signatures? Is there any other problem?
--
Reply to this
I tried to manually execute the test case and found that verifying conflicta
and conflictb alone was as expected.
```
[root@localhost testing]#
FAKECHROOT_BASE=/root/rpmbuild/BUILD/rpm-4.18.0/tests/rpmtests.dir/363/testing
fakechroot rpm --define "_buildhost testhost" --define "_topdir /build"
I get the same results as you, without -- force.
```
[root@localhost ~]# rpm -ivh /tmp/test-1.0-1.noarch.rpm
Verifying... # [100%]
Preparing... # [100%]
file /usr/sbin/aaa conflicts between attempted installs of test-1.0-1.noarch
and
I make a patch to fix it.
[https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2261](url)
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2195#issuecomment-1301983612
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
> Is it possible to open the FIFO file in non-blocking mode when it is detected?
I find that when opening a file in non-blocking mode, -1 is returned in this
case, so this is not a good idea.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
fix
[https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2195](https://gitee.com/link?target=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Frpm-software-management%2Frpm%2Fissues%2F2195)
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2261
--
@JetXujing pushed 1 commit.
1275994c92b1cfb4831d285fc12dd2ef2aa514d3 tests: add test for Obsoletes
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2254/files/aba4fa3281fba07be3a10a039c844bb91295a31b..1275994c92b1cfb4831d285fc12dd2ef2aa514d3
You are receiving this
@JetXujing commented on this pull request.
> @@ -1371,3 +1371,21 @@ runroot rpm -q --whatprovides /
],
[])
AT_CLEANUP
+
+AT_SETUP([rpm -U with Obsoletes])
+AT_KEYWORDS([install])
+AT_CHECK([
+RPMDB_INIT
+
+runroot rpmbuild -bb --quiet /data/SPECS/test-obsoletes.spec
+runroot rpm -i --nodeps
@JetXujing commented on this pull request.
> @@ -631,3 +631,21 @@ runroot rpm -Va --nodeps --nouser --nogroup
],
[])
AT_CLEANUP
+
+AT_SETUP([test for %verify in %files])
+AT_KEYWORDS([verify])
+AT_CHECK([
+RPMDB_INIT
+
+runroot rpmbuild \
+ --quiet -bb /data/SPECS/test-parseForVerify.spec
@JetXujing commented on this pull request.
> @@ -1371,3 +1371,21 @@ runroot rpm -q --whatprovides /
],
[])
AT_CLEANUP
+
+AT_SETUP([rpm -U with Obsoletes])
+AT_KEYWORDS([install])
+AT_CHECK([
+RPMDB_INIT
+
+runroot rpmbuild -bb --quiet /data/SPECS/test-obsoletes.spec
+runroot rpm -i --nodeps
> Additionally, do remark in the commit messages the reason for adding these
> tests: they are simply previously uncovered cases.
Thank you for your comments. I have made relevant changes. Please review the
changes.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@JetXujing commented on this pull request.
> @@ -1371,3 +1371,21 @@ runroot rpm -q --whatprovides /
],
[])
AT_CLEANUP
+
+AT_SETUP([rpm -U with Obsoletes])
+AT_KEYWORDS([install])
+AT_CHECK([
+RPMDB_INIT
+
+runroot rpmbuild -bb --quiet /data/SPECS/test-obsoletes.spec
+runroot rpm -i --nodeps
@JetXujing pushed 2 commits.
087be9967ee867da7ceac9326f50498065ea9f59 tests: add test for %verify in %files
8bd8742fec1a6956106b632aab4db9cba8415a5a tests: add test for Obsoletes
--
View it on GitHub:
@JetXujing pushed 1 commit.
aba4fa3281fba07be3a10a039c844bb91295a31b tests: add test for Obsoletes
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2254/files/8bd8742fec1a6956106b632aab4db9cba8415a5a..aba4fa3281fba07be3a10a039c844bb91295a31b
You are receiving this
I have a spec as follows:
[root@localhost SPECS]# cat test.spec
```
Name: test
Version: 1.0
Release: 1
Group: Testing
License: GPL
Summary: Simple rpm demonstration.
%description
Simple rpm demonstration.
%prep
%build
%install
mknod %{buildroot}/test-block b 1 2
%files
/test-block
```
1.
The brd module is automatically loaded after fsmOpenat() the block file.
```
if (!rc && fd == -1 && !S_ISLNK(fp->sb.st_mode)) {
/* Only follow safe symlinks, and never on temporary files */
fd = fsmOpenat(di.dirfd, fp->fpath,
@pmatilai PTAL
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2195#issuecomment-1305520794
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint mailing
I found that CST and CEST seem to be invalid settings in my system, and when I
set it to CST6CDT, the problem no longer exists.
But I also have another question, why should the time zone length be limited to
less than 10, many time zones may exceed 10, is this reasonable?
In
@pmatilai PTAL
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2254#issuecomment-1305596821
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint mailing
1. rpmbuild -ba test-fsmMkfifo.spec
```
[root@localhost SPECS]# cat test-fsmMkfifo.spec
Name: hello
Version: 1.0
Release: 1
Group: Testing
License: GPL
Summary: Simple rpm demonstration.
Source0: hello-1.0.tar.gz
%description
Simple rpm demonstration.
%prep
%build
%install
mkfifo
Is it possible to open the FIFO file in non-blocking mode when it is detected?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2195#issuecomment-1298178199
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
@JetXujing pushed 2 commits.
03b8785f5dba0975c73253b1da6943b1a0d58baa tests: add test for parseForVerify
8c63ec4ff6d8c9ae37c9f7334cd0a4fcf3c06b5a tests: add test for Obsoletes
--
View it on GitHub:
@pmatilai please check it
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2261#issuecomment-1302911904
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
1. rpmbuild --with=sbinsymlinks -bb test.spec
```
[root@localhost SPECS]# cat test.spec
%bcond_without sbinsymlinks
Name: test
Version: 1.0
Release: 1
License: MIT
Summary: Test
BuildArch: noarch
%description
Test
%prep
%build
%install
mkdir -p %{buildroot}/usr/sbin/
touch
@JetXujing commented on this pull request.
> @@ -1371,3 +1371,21 @@ runroot rpm -q --whatprovides /
],
[])
AT_CLEANUP
+
+AT_SETUP([rpm -U with Obsoletes])
+AT_KEYWORDS([install])
+AT_CHECK([
+RPMDB_INIT
+
+runroot rpmbuild -bb --quiet /data/SPECS/test-obsoletes.spec
+runroot rpm -i --nodeps
@JetXujing pushed 1 commit.
caa146ce57e85fd85161e184dff8fb232e742123 tests: add test for Obsoletes
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2254/files/1275994c92b1cfb4831d285fc12dd2ef2aa514d3..caa146ce57e85fd85161e184dff8fb232e742123
You are receiving this
When Non-privileged user was used to build the "rpm" package, the file deletion
failed during the final rmbuild cleanup phase. The problem is caused by the
lack of write permission on the testing directory.
```
...
[ 209s] Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files
It is confirmed that this problem is caused by
b34333fa021c0ee7215714eeef96d1a2843ea08e.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2380#issuecomment-1418443920
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
When I try to add a plugin that uses strcmp, a core occurs. The stack is as
follows:
```
#0 ...
#1 rpmpluginsCallFsmFilePost()
#2 fsmDoMkdir()
#3 ensureDir()
#4 rpmPackageFilesInstall()
#5 rpmpsmUnpack()
...
#13 rpmInstall()
#14 main()
```
I tried to analyze it and found that the second
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2612
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
Actually, the ndb database is seldom faulty. There is a high probability that
the database is abnormal due to abnormal power-off or abnormal mount directory.
If you think it is not appropriate to back up the database, you can consider
closing the issue.
--
Reply to this email directly or view
Backing up the database is not a perfect solution, but I've been plagued by
corrupted databases that I can't locate for a long time, and the only solution
I can think of is to back up the database. It would also be nice if there was
some other way to deal with possible database issues or
I'm using ndb database, I often encounter the following problems: 1. The
problem of verification failure; 2. A rpm package cannot be queried by running
the "rpm -qa" command, but can be queried by running the "rpm -q" command.
Sometimes, the "rpm --rebuilddb" command can be used to rectify the
Closed #2828 as completed.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2828#event-11849567215
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint
> You mean 'rpm --verify'? What errors?
No,
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2828#issuecomment-1952432415
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
I think the database is abnormal because the verification fails when I run the
rpm command, or the "rpm -qa" command cannot find the kernel package, but the
"rpm -q" command can find the kernel package. According to the result, the
problem is caused by the database. However, this does not mean
I'm sorry I don't have any good ideas. I just thought of backing up the
database.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2828#issuecomment-1931076797
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message
Background:
During the daily use of the RPM, the RPM database is abnormal. However, the
cause is unknown. In some cases, the `rpm --rebuilddb` cannot ensure the
complete recovery of the database. For recoverability and locatability, I think
database backup functionality can be added for the
In addition, can we provide a command or script to quickly determine whether
the database is damaged? At present, there seems to be no concise way to judge,
generally by `rpm -qa` to roughly judge.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Fedora：
Fedora release 39 (Thirty Nine)
Version：
rpm-4.19.0-1.fc39.aarch64
Reproduction Procedure：
1. mkdir /root/repo && cd repo
2. creating a list of RPM packages to be downloaded:
```
[root@localhost repo]# cat list
abseil-cpp
c-ares
cyrus-sasl-lib
gflags
glibc-common
gnutls
grpc
http-parser
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
