Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Disable Python hash seed randomization in brp-python-bytecompile (#1320)

2020-07-24 Thread Igor Raits
@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] Docs: Revamp BUILD OPTIONS section in rpmbuild(8) (#1318)

2020-07-24 Thread Igor Raits
@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] Support threading for zstd compression. (#1303)

2020-07-23 Thread Igor Raits
@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] Docs: Revamp BUILD OPTIONS section in rpmbuild(8) (#1318)

2020-07-23 Thread Igor Raits
@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)

2020-07-23 Thread Igor Raits
@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] pythondistdeps: Switch to importlib.metadata (#1317)

2020-07-23 Thread Igor Raits
@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] RFE: %undefine_all (#1314)

2020-07-22 Thread Igor Raits
@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


[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: %undefine_all (#1314)

2020-07-21 Thread Igor Raits
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)

2020-07-21 Thread Igor Raits
@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] Always close libelf handle (#1313)

2020-07-20 Thread Igor Raits
@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


Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Document: "rpmbuild -br" always returns 11 when "--nodeps" is used (#963)

2020-07-15 Thread Igor Raits
> 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] Support threading for zstd compression. (#1303)

2020-07-14 Thread Igor Raits
> 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] Support threading for zstd compression. (#1303)

2020-07-11 Thread Igor Raits
@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/1303#pullrequestreview-446819322___
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)

2020-07-11 Thread Igor Raits
@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)

2020-07-11 Thread Igor Raits
@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] Support threading for zstd compression. (#1303)

2020-07-11 Thread Igor Raits
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)

2020-07-11 Thread Igor Raits
@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)

2020-07-11 Thread Igor Raits
@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)

2020-07-11 Thread Igor Raits
@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)

2020-07-11 Thread Igor Raits
@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)

2020-07-11 Thread Igor Raits
@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)

2020-07-11 Thread Igor Raits
@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)

2020-07-11 Thread Igor Raits
@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)

2020-07-11 Thread Igor Raits
@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)

2020-07-10 Thread Igor Raits
@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] Sync python dependency conversion with pyreq2rpm. (#1299)

2020-07-06 Thread Igor Raits
Merged #1299 into master.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1299#event-3516927285___
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)

2020-07-03 Thread Igor Raits
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] Allow to eclude files from %doc (#1298)

2020-07-03 Thread Igor Raits
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] Files in %_docdir are not passed to dependency generators (#1297)

2020-07-01 Thread Igor Raits
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] Revert "Always fail build on dependency generator failures (#1183)" (#1286)

2020-06-24 Thread Igor Raits
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)

2020-06-22 Thread Igor Raits
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] rpmbuild should report missing files for all subpackages (#1277)

2020-06-19 Thread Igor Raits
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] Always fail build on dependency generator failures (#1183) (#1271)

2020-06-17 Thread Igor Raits
: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] Make the "rpmbuild debuginfo -g3 .debug_macro" test an expected fail … (#1267)

2020-06-10 Thread Igor Raits
@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] Fix completely broken prefix search on sqlite backend (#1265)

2020-06-10 Thread Igor Raits
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] error: Couldn't exec metainfo(): No such file or directory (#1261)

2020-06-08 Thread Igor Raits
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)

2020-06-08 Thread Igor Raits
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


Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] error: Couldn't exec metainfo(): No such file or directory (#1261)

2020-06-08 Thread Igor Raits
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] Add _without_check macro (#1256)

2020-06-07 Thread Igor Raits
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


[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] %transfiletriggerin does not work on Fedora 33 (#1260)

2020-06-07 Thread Igor Raits
```
❯ 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)

2020-06-07 Thread Igor Raits
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 OrderWithRequires dependency generation (#1257)

2020-06-07 Thread Igor Raits
> 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] metainfo.attr: Fix execution of the generator (#1259)

2020-06-07 Thread Igor Raits
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)

2020-06-07 Thread Igor Raits
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] macros: force add files to git index (#1246)

2020-06-02 Thread Igor Raits
@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] rpmbuild: Create build tree after parsing a spec file (#1235)

2020-06-01 Thread Igor Raits
@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] rpmbuild: Create build tree after parsing a spec file (#1235)

2020-05-30 Thread Igor Raits
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] Remove deprecated beecrypt and NSS crypto backends (#1245)

2020-05-28 Thread Igor Raits
@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] Remove deprecated beecrypt and NSS crypto backends (#1245)

2020-05-28 Thread Igor Raits
@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)

2020-05-28 Thread Igor Raits
: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] Add %postbuild section / Allow dynamic sub packages (#1239)

2020-05-28 Thread Igor Raits
```
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] rpmbuild: Create build tree after parsing a spec file (#1235)

2020-05-27 Thread Igor Raits
@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] scripts/pythondistdeps: Various updates and fixes (no test suite) (#1242)

2020-05-26 Thread Igor Raits
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] macros: Drop internal macros which are not used in RPM and Fedora (#1212)

2020-05-26 Thread Igor Raits
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] rpmbuild: Create build tree after parsing a spec file (#1235)

2020-05-25 Thread Igor Raits
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)

2020-05-25 Thread Igor Raits
@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)

2020-05-25 Thread Igor Raits
@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] Add %postbuild section / Allow dynamic sub packages (#1239)

2020-05-25 Thread Igor Raits
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] rpmbuild: Create build tree after parsing a spec file (#1235)

2020-05-25 Thread Igor Raits
@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] %{name} is not properly evaluated in sources and %_sourcedir (#1234)

2020-05-21 Thread Igor Raits
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)

2020-05-21 Thread Igor Raits
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] rpmbuild: Create build tree after parsing a spec file (#1235)

2020-05-21 Thread Igor Raits
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)

2020-05-21 Thread Igor Raits
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)

2020-05-21 Thread Igor Raits
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)

2020-05-21 Thread Igor Raits
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] %{name} is not properly evaluated in sources and %_sourcedir (#1234)

2020-05-21 Thread Igor Raits
Looking into the fedora version of spec, `rpmspec -P` shows:

```
Source:
https://pagure.io/fonts-rpm-macros/archive/3.0.3/fonts-rpm-macros-3.0.3.tar.gz
```

which is somewhat different from what you mentioned above.

-- 
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-631992529___
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)

2020-05-21 Thread Igor Raits
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] RFE: Automatic (sub)package generators (#329)

2020-05-15 Thread Igor Raits
> 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] RFE: Convenient %version without tilde macro (#1219)

2020-05-14 Thread Igor Raits
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] BuildRequires does not support boolean operators (#1216)

2020-05-13 Thread Igor Raits
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] macros: Drop some unused internal macro (#1212)

2020-05-11 Thread Igor Raits
@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)

2020-05-11 Thread Igor Raits
@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


[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] macros: Drop some unused internal macro (#1212)

2020-05-11 Thread Igor Raits
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)

2020-05-11 Thread Igor Raits
> 

> 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


Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFC: Removing unneeded internal macros (such as %__ranlib) (#1211)

2020-05-11 Thread Igor Raits
> 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] RFC: Removing unneeded internal macros (such as %__ranlib) (#1211)

2020-05-11 Thread Igor Raits
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)

2020-05-11 Thread Igor Raits
@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] RFE: Automatic (sub)package generators (#329)

2020-05-10 Thread Igor Raits
> 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] RFE: Automatic (sub)package generators (#329)

2020-05-10 Thread Igor Raits
> 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)

2020-05-10 Thread Igor Raits
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)

2020-05-10 Thread Igor Raits
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)

2020-05-10 Thread Igor Raits
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] RFC: Removing unneeded internal macros (such as %__ranlib) (#1211)

2020-05-10 Thread Igor Raits
> 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)

2020-05-10 Thread Igor Raits
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)

2020-05-09 Thread Igor Raits
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


[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFC: Removing unneeded internal macros (such as %__ranlib) (#1211)

2020-05-09 Thread Igor Raits
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] WIP: RFC: Buildsystem overhaul (meson) (#1209)

2020-05-08 Thread Igor Raits
@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