Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Package upgrades break if hardlinks got added (#1278)

2020-06-23 Thread Fabian Vogt
Thanks for the quick fix! -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1278#issuecomment-648050421___ Rpm-maint mailing

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Package upgrades break if hardlinks got added (#1278)

2020-06-22 Thread Fabian Vogt
Just found out that this only happens with `%_minimize_writes` enabled, as otherwise even unchanged files are recreated correctly as hardlinks. ``` D: create 100644 2 ( 0, 0) 0 /usr/file1;5ef086f0 D: touch 100644 2 ( 0, 0) 8 /usr/file2 ``` vs. ``` D: create 100644

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Package upgrades break if hardlinks got added (#1278)

2020-06-22 Thread Fabian Vogt
I ran the commands again without `--force` and edited the post accordingly. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Package upgrades break if hardlinks got added (#1278)

2020-06-22 Thread Fabian Vogt
Yes. I only used `--force` so that I can use the same commands for install, upgrade and downgrade. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Package upgrades break if hardlinks got added (#1278)

2020-06-19 Thread Fabian Vogt
The algorithm used for installing hardlinks does not handle the case where a package upgrade includes additional names for an inode. It iterates the list of files from the beginning until the end and only writes content and metadata for the last occurence of an inode. For upgrades, there is no

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add a version parsing and comparison API to librpmio (#1221)

2020-05-27 Thread Fabian Vogt
Just to make sure, this behaviour change of `rpm.vercmp` in lua is backwards-compatible, right? I would assume so, as any segment is also a valid EVR, but there might be some edge case. Currently we're doing the parsing "by hand" in lua:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] WIP: RFC: Buildsystem overhaul (meson) (#1209)

2020-05-08 Thread Fabian Vogt
> Besides the tests, and the fact that autotools is the devil I know and > prefer, rpm sits really early in the bootstrap chain, and adding significant > extra burden there is not acceptable. If glibc or gcc adopt some > non-autotools based build-system, I'm willing to reconsider. glibc