Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Sending multiple identical options to a macro will leak them to the next macro accepting the same option (Issue #3056)
Yes, it's because the engine pushes the macro with each option but only pops it once. I guess we could modify freeArgs that it pops until the level is clear, or we could change setupArgs so that it pushes just once. But see also https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2449 that asks of a saner handling of multiple identical option. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3056#issuecomment-2072388595 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Adapt tests to current state of the "legacy" parser (PR #3055)
We define two new test macros RPMOUTPUT_SEQUOIA and RPMOUTPUT_LEGACY to make it easier to write parser dependent test output in the test cases. You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3055 -- Commit Summary -- * Adapt tests to current state of the legacy parser -- File Changes -- M tests/CMakeLists.txt (1) M tests/rpmi.at (2) M tests/rpmsigdig.at (152) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3055.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3055.diff -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3055 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3...@github.com ___ 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 the "Primary Binding" pgp signature type (PR #3051)
Yes, I agree. On the plus side, I don't think the "legacy" parser needs anything else, so no more of those pull requests... -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3051#issuecomment-2069420196 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add the "Primary Binding" pgp signature type (PR #3051)
This type is needed to verify the primary binding signature embedded in subkey binding signatures. You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3051 -- Commit Summary -- * Add the Primary Binding pgp signature type -- File Changes -- M include/rpm/rpmpgp.h (1) M rpmio/rpmpgpval.h (1) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3051.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3051.diff -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3051 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3...@github.com ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Move OpenSSL code to newer API (PR #2723)
AFAICT the code in question was never released, so there's nothing to fix on your side. (I already fixed it in the "legacy" parser repo) -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2723#issuecomment-2063893785 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Relax openssl version requirement (PR #3045)
Not exactly. It is because you removed all the non-digest code from digest_openssl.c. (Florian updated the signature verification code to no longer use deprecated functions, that's why he had to bump the required version.) -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3045#issuecomment-2063470614 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Relax openssl version requirement (PR #3045)
And also delete the no longer needed include statements. You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3045 -- Commit Summary -- * Relax openssl version requirement -- File Changes -- M rpmio/CMakeLists.txt (2) M rpmio/digest_openssl.c (2) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3045.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3045.diff -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3045 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3...@github.com ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Move OpenSSL code to newer API (PR #2723)
I think you broke DSA signatures: it calls `EVP_PKEY_verify` with `padded_sig` which is constructed from just `sig->r`. But `constructDSASignature` (called at the beginning) takes `sig->r` and `sig->s` and creates a DSA_SIG from it. I'm pretty sure PKEY_verify to be passed something DER encoded instead... We need a testcase for DSA signatures... -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2723#issuecomment-2059096444 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ 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 signing with ECDSA keys (PR #3034)
Ok, done. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3034#issuecomment-2056819462 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ 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 signing with ECDSA keys (PR #3034)
@mlschroe pushed 1 commit. 2e3cf5f4629a6f3372451dabe35b58fdf69692bd Add testcases for Ed25519 and NIST P-256 -- View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3034/files/a7a9a1df6f972282d472bf58ea0d89895f0a30a6..2e3cf5f4629a6f3372451dabe35b58fdf69692bd You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ 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 signing with ECDSA keys (PR #3034)
I can add both an ed25519 and an nist p-256 key test. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3034#issuecomment-2056750547 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ 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 signing with ECDSA keys (PR #3034)
Maybe we should put all unknown algorithms into the DSA slots. I think the distinction was just done so that very old rpm versions didn't trip when they saw a non-rsa signature. Another reason could have been to allow both signing with the old RSA/MD5 (for compat reasons) and the new DSA/SHA1 combos. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3034#issuecomment-2051697365 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ 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 signing with ECDSA keys (PR #3034)
See also 23770e1a4f28c56a31fe600cae332c77333b60b6 -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3034#issuecomment-2051692148 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Allow signing with ECDSA keys (PR #3034)
Key import and verification already works, its just that rpm does not know where to put the signature. You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3034 -- Commit Summary -- * Allow signing with ECDSA keys -- File Changes -- M sign/rpmgensig.c (1) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3034.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3034.diff -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3034 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3...@github.com ___ 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 c++ guards to internal headers and sources as needed (401d845)
This breaks the build if IMA support is not configured and there is no imaevm.h header file. You need to put a `#ifdef WITH_IMAEVM` around the `#include "rpmsignfiles.h"` in sign/rpmgensig.c -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/commit/401d845d99bd4cd2449a61c12519db1dca6c681d#commitcomment-140723237 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add the "issuer fingerprint" subpacket type (PR #3026)
This subpacket is an alternative to the issuer keyid subpacket. It contains the pubkey version plus the complete fingerprint. I would prefer to drop all the subpacket definitions from the rpm code, as rpm has no business dealing with subpackets. Unfortunately `pgpValString(PGPVAL_SUBTYPE, val)` is in the public API... You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3026 -- Commit Summary -- * Add the issuer fingerprint subpacket type -- File Changes -- M include/rpm/rpmpgp.h (1) M rpmio/rpmpgpval.h (1) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3026.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3026.diff -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3026 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3...@github.com ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] PGP key identifiers use binding signature's creation time, not certificate creation time (Issue #2004)
You can't trust keys.openpgp.org to only return key material for the query, so you need to check the returned data to make sure it doesn't contain an extra pubkey. It would be safe if rpmkeys had a `--freshen` option that makes sure no new pubkeys are imported. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2004#issuecomment-2042078749 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ 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 support for setting the build time and clamping to the build time (PR #2944)
Oh wait, I can do this myself. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2944#issuecomment-2042071468 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ 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 support for setting the build time and clamping to the build time (PR #2944)
In the light of the xz attack, could you please remove me from the list of people that have direct push rights to the rpm code? I don't see why I would need it because everything is done with pull requests, and it's just increasing the attack surface. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2944#issuecomment-2042064834 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] PGP key identifiers use binding signature's creation time, not certificate creation time (Issue #2004)
I don't get that. Currently rpm will not import anything at all if the keyid is already known. I'm not even talking about what rpm --import does (it should probably merge pgp packets), I'm just talking about how the pseudo-package rpm generates is named. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2004#issuecomment-2039539846 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] PGP key identifiers use binding signature's creation time, not certificate creation time (Issue #2004)
And you should certainly not ask a keyserver for keys you want to import into the rpm database. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2004#issuecomment-2039437101 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] PGP key identifiers use binding signature's creation time, not certificate creation time (Issue #2004)
I know that. It does not need to be 100% correct (it obviously can't). The use case is to have a different release when the expire time of a key is extended. For example, SUSE has those keys: build-rsa-307e3d54-44201d5d.asc build-rsa-307e3d54-4be01a65.asc build-rsa-307e3d54-53287cdc.asc build-rsa-307e3d54-5aaa90a5.asc build-rsa-307e3d54-61dc47d0.asc -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2004#issuecomment-2039434118 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] PGP key identifiers use binding signature's creation time, not certificate creation time (Issue #2004)
Yes. The old code was very stupid in that regard, it just took the time from the first signature. It didn't even check if the signature really was a self-signature. My proposal is to add a "pgpDigParamsModificationTime()" that returns the maximum of all self-signature creation time (they can all be verified). That's pretty much what the old code should have done since the beginning. We could use that time to simulate a "release date" for the key -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2004#issuecomment-2039411272 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Bring back the test of the buildtime macro (PR #3020)
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3020 -- Commit Summary -- * Bring back the test of the buildtime macro -- File Changes -- M tests/rpmbuild.at (22) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3020.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3020.diff -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3020 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3...@github.com ___ 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 support for setting the build time and clamping to the build time (PR #2944)
I accidentally merged this by pushing to the wrong remote. I'm really sorry about this. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2944#issuecomment-2039325097 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ 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 support for setting the build time and clamping to the build time (PR #2944)
@mlschroe pushed 0 commits. -- View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2944/files/36e2f4259ccfdf3ccf6ae271edb5fc052b0b..aa7c57c0b820a407ffd9b2ad00f990f698505df6 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ 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 support for setting the build time and clamping to the build time (PR #2944)
Closed #2944. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2944#event-12370608022 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] PGP key identifiers use binding signature's creation time, not certificate creation time (Issue #2004)
...since the keyring changes done in 2008. I'm so out of touch with rpm... -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2004#issuecomment-2034700620 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] PGP key identifiers use binding signature's creation time, not certificate creation time (Issue #2004)
OTOH rpm only looks at the keyid to check if the key is already present since some time... -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2004#issuecomment-2034511695 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ 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 building rpm without OpenPGP support (PR #2984)
Ah, I missed that. Then please ignore me ;-) -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2984#issuecomment-2034198154 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ 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 building rpm without OpenPGP support (PR #2984)
Why wouldn't it make sense? Sequoia needs to do digesting anyway to verify the signatures, it might as well expose the functionality. Securitywise it is bad design if two implementations are used. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2984#issuecomment-2034182714 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ 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 building rpm without OpenPGP support (PR #2984)
You really should use Sequoia for digesting. It makes no sense to use openssl/libgcrypt in rpm and something else in sequoia. If it's not already exposed, can you please add expose digesting functionality in Sequoia? -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2984#issuecomment-2034101985 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] PGP key identifiers use binding signature's creation time, not certificate creation time (Issue #2004)
It needs to get a new release when the key us updated, otherwise the rpm --import will just do nothing. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2004#issuecomment-2034037416 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] PGP key identifiers use binding signature's creation time, not certificate creation time (Issue #2004)
I.e. pgpDigParamsCreationTime() is somewhat misnamed, it does not the key creation time. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2004#issuecomment-2033982940 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] PGP key identifiers use binding signature's creation time, not certificate creation time (Issue #2004)
This somehow slipped my radar. The "time" used in rpm is not supposed to be the key creation time, but the last time the key was changed. I don't think you should break this. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2004#issuecomment-2033958348 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] PGP key identifiers use binding signature's creation time, not certificate creation time (Issue #2004)
Reopened #2004. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2004#event-12337884161 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Get rid of pgpGrab() (PR #3013)
Note that pgpGrab() is in the public API. I could not find any usage outside of rpm, though. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3013#issuecomment-2031922210 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Get rid of pgpGrab() (PR #3013)
rpmvs.c is the only one using it in the rpm source and it can be trivially rewritten. You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3013 -- Commit Summary -- * Get rid of pgpGrab() -- File Changes -- M include/rpm/rpmpgp.h (16) M lib/rpmvs.c (4) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3013.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3013.diff -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3013 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3...@github.com ___ 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 segfaults when importing keys downloaded from keys.openpgp.org (Issue #3001)
Fixed with https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpmpgp_legacy/commit/31c2f3d017372ee11b6c7403f13889736757c046 -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3001#issuecomment-2031713736 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ 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 segfaults when importing keys downloaded from keys.openpgp.org (Issue #3001)
Yeah, that's also what I was going to implement. The userid seems to be optional. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3001#issuecomment-2031710562 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Macro documentation does not mention `{body}` syntax for macro definitions (Issue #2976)
I think the original intend was to make the macro definitions look like bash function definitions. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2976#issuecomment-2031386866 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Macro documentation does not mention `{body}` syntax for macro definitions (Issue #2976)
The code in doDefine() supports multiline macros, it's that nasty rdcl() function that is to blame here. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2976#issuecomment-2031383183 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ 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: ensure unwritable buildroot during %check (Issue #3010)
There's not much you can do against a malicious upstream. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3010#issuecomment-2031325567 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ 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 support for setting the build time and clamping to the build time (PR #2944)
@mlschroe pushed 1 commit. c9579db452e4d4c6996d30419889f831c15c68b3 Support clamping the file mtime to the build time -- View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2944/files/be088c0aa13707a14962d649823b696b3d5a2c7e..c9579db452e4d4c6996d30419889f831c15c68b3 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ 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 support for setting the build time and clamping to the build time (PR #2944)
I've updated the pull request. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2944#issuecomment-2023034485 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ 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 support for setting the build time and clamping to the build time (PR #2944)
@mlschroe pushed 1 commit. be088c0aa13707a14962d649823b696b3d5a2c7e Support clamping the file mtime to the build time -- View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2944/files/ee365274c42530286a09dad1fc83144ef478b25a..be088c0aa13707a14962d649823b696b3d5a2c7e You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Set the charset of the libarchive strings to utf8 (PR #2993)
Our headers are always useing utf8 and the pax standard also requires utf8 strings. So do this nasty little locale switching to make libarchive not depend on the active locale. You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2993 -- Commit Summary -- * Move C_LOCALE setting in front of config.h generation * Set the charset of the libarchive strings to utf8 * rpm2archive: fix error handling in process_package -- File Changes -- M CMakeLists.txt (14) M tools/rpm2archive.c (67) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2993.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2993.diff -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2993 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2...@github.com ___ 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 the internal OpenPGP parser (Issue #2414)
Yes, I'll take the ownership for now. Thanks. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2414#issuecomment-2017947916 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpm2archive -f pax cannot handle utf8 filenames (Issue #2972)
I'll open a pull request for this. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2972#issuecomment-2017876840 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ 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 support for setting the build time and clamping to the build time (PR #2944)
Ok, let's move on with this. Time for some bike shedding. Proposal 1: add `%clamp_mtime}` with supported values `buildtime`, `source_date_epoch` Proposal 2: add `%mtime_policy` with supported values `clamp_to_buildtime`, `clamp_to_source_data_epoch` I added proposal 2 because the original pull request from Jan supported setting all the files to the build time. So we could add a `set_to_buildtime` feature in the future if we want this. Opinions? -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2944#issuecomment-2015488831 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpm2archive -f pax cannot handle non-utf8 filenames (Issue #2972)
That makes things a bit easier, so we just need to teach libarchive that it should accept utf8. I'll adapt the title of this issue ;-) -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2972#issuecomment-2003579832 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpm2archive -f pax cannot handle non-utf8 filenames (Issue #2972)
Why "legacy"? Does the current code reject non-utf8 file names? -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2972#issuecomment-2003513183 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpmarchive should get an option to extract the archive into the file system (Issue #2979)
I think pretty much everybody that uses rpmarchive just does it to pipe it into tar/cpio to extract the content. How about adding an option so that it can directly extract the content? -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2979 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpm2archive -f pax cannot handle non-utf8 filenames (Issue #2972)
And this is about file names, I think "upstream rpm" treats those pretty much as binary as they are created by the build process and not part of the spec file. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2972#issuecomment-2003345754 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpm2archive -f pax cannot handle non-utf8 filenames (Issue #2972)
It just warns about the unknown attribute. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2972#issuecomment-2003338390 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] `define(name, body)` documentation does not align with implementation (Issue #2962)
It's kinda sad that this strips the leading spaces:
```
rpm -E "%{lua:macros.define({'foo', ' 1 '})}" -E "x%{foo}x"
>1 <
```
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2962#issuecomment-1999675441
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Macro documentation does not mention `{body}` syntax for macro definitions (Issue #2976)
I noticed that there is no documentation for this construct
```
$ rpm --define 'foo { bar }' --eval '>%{foo}<'
> bar <
```
Should we document it? Or is that feature deprecated? Does anybody use it at
all?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2976
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpm2archive -f pax cannot handle non-utf8 filenames (Issue #2972)
It's not much work to not use libarchive for writing. The only two formats that can be used for archive writing are cpio and pax (all the others have too many limitations). Writing cpio is easy and writing a pax tar file is also not hard (reading a tar file is where it gets really messy because of all the different implementations). Is that something you would be interested in? -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2972#issuecomment-1999363220 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpm2archive -f pax cannot handle non-utf8 filenames (Issue #2972)
I find it very surprising that bsdtar's output depends on the current locale, but that seems to be the case: ``` $ echo hello > micro_µ $ bsdtar -cf - . | bsdtar -tf - ./ ./micro_µ $ LC_CTYPE=de_DE@euro bsdtar -cf - . | bsdtar -tf - ./ ./micro_µ $ LC_CTYPE=de_DE@euro bsdtar --options hdrcharset=BINARY -cf - . | bsdtar -tf - ./ ./micro_µ ``` -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2972#issuecomment-1999298329 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpm2archive -f pax cannot handle non-utf8 filenames (Issue #2972)
Btw, it cannot handle UTF8 filenames as well, as it checks the current locale which is not initialized and thus 7 bit ascii... -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2972#issuecomment-1999274523 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpm2archive -f pax cannot handle non-utf8 filenames (Issue #2972)
Oh, and the error handling in rpm2archive is completely broken... -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2972#issuecomment-1999270285 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpm2archive: fix hardling handling in cpio output (PR #2975)
In the newc cpio format the content of hardlinked files is supposted to be stored with the last hardlink and not the first. Fixes issue #2974 You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2975 -- Commit Summary -- * rpm2archive: fix hardling handling in cpio output -- File Changes -- M tools/rpm2archive.c (10) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2975.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2975.diff -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2975 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2...@github.com ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpm2cpio writes non-compliant cpio archives (Issue #2974)
With the newc format, the content of hardlinked files is supposted to be stored with the last hardlink. This is different from tar, where the content is stored with the first entry. rpm2archive always stores the content with the first hardlink. This does not seem to matter in practice, as both gnu cpio and bsdtar handle this correctly even if it does not match the spec. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2974 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpm2archive -f pax cannot handle non-utf8 filenames (Issue #2972)
In this case archive_write_header() returns ARCHIVE_WARN, which is treated as error in rpm2archive. OTOH I don't think libarchive should mess with the file names, maybe it makes sense to set the hdrcharset to `BINARY` for pax. But that adds a "hdrcharset=BINARY" attribute that GNU tar complains about. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2972#issuecomment-1997290703 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpm2archive -f pax cannot handle non-utf8 filenames (Issue #2972)
It fails because it want to convert the filenames to utf8: $ echo $LC_CTYPE de_DE@euro $ rpm2archive /usr/src/packages/RPMS/x86_64/empty-3.0.0-1.x86_64.rpm > /dev/null Error writing archive: Can't translate pathname './fooöo' to UTF-8 (84) -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2972 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Lua equivalent to `%{echo:...}` and similar (Issue #2967)
You can already do:
```
macros.echo({"hello world"})
```
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2967#issuecomment-1994089448
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
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: read sources checksums from the SPEC file and verify them (#463)
Note that we need to come up with something that works both for `Source:` and `%sourcelist` -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/463#issuecomment-1991682334 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ 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 dependency generators sometimes dying with SIGPIPE (PR #2958)
@mlschroe requested changes on this pull request. You need to set the signal handler to SIG_DFL in the child -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2958#pullrequestreview-1931036967 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] [Question] How to understand the immutable header regions introduced from RPM 4.0 (Discussion #2719)
The offset in the region trailer in the Data section is supposed to be negative for some reason. I.e. the description of the offset in the second table is not correct. Btw, does deleting of tags via dribbles really work? I didn't think it was possible... -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2719#discussioncomment-8706358 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] How to obsolete package once their dependencies are not satisfied? (Discussion #2938)
The default in libsolv (and also what SUSE uses) is actually to remove those packages in distro-sync mode if they get in the way. But dnf turns disables this feature: ``` /* don't erase packages that are no longer in repo during distupgrade */ solver.set_flag(SOLVER_FLAG_KEEP_ORPHANS, 1); ``` This would be much better than --allowerasing, which basically tells libsolv to erase any package if there are dependency problems. I think dnf should get an option to allow orphan erasing. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2938#discussioncomment-8706244 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ 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 sometimes is killed by SIGPIPE with bad dependency generator sciptlets (Issue #2949)
You probably already know this, but rpmbuild is killed by the write() system that writes the filelist to the generator being done after the child has exited. I think the only way to prevent this is to ignore SIGPIPE before calling write(). Everything else like the select() thing we currently do is not race free. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2949#issuecomment-1981020602 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ 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 sometimes is killed by SIGPIPE with bad dependency generator sciptlets (Issue #2949)
For reference: https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1220213 -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2949#issuecomment-1980932247 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpmbuild sometimes is killed by SIGPIPE with bad dependency generator sciptlets (Issue #2949)
This is a bit of a corner case, but I just received a bug report that builds sometimes terminate for a specific package. It turned out the package contained this little gem: ``` %define __perllib_provides /bin/true ``` Anyway, I don't think rpm should be killed by this. Once upon a time getOutputFrom() had code that made it ignore SIGPIPE, but it seems it was removed in commit 375a6b5630b8e37e1d3f0c7ecbe10fe460c4d420 This is probably not urgent to fix, just filing so that you know about this race. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2949 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ 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 %dirname behave like dirname (3) (PR #2945)
See https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/basename.html for testcases ;-) -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2945#issuecomment-1978695068 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ 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 %dirname behave like dirname (3) (PR #2945)
If you strip trailing slashes you also have to do it for %basename -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2945#issuecomment-1978685964 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ 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 support for setting the build time and clamping to the build time (PR #2944)
@mlschroe commented on this pull request.
> @@ -245,6 +245,10 @@ Supplements: (%{name} = %{version}-%{release} and
> langpacks-%{1})\
# Is ignored when SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is not set.
%clamp_mtime_to_source_date_epoch 0
+# If true, make sure that timestamps in built rpms
+# are not later than the build time of the package.
+%clamp_mtime_to_buildtime 0
I was expecting that you write something like this ;-) But I kept it simple to
start the discussion.
There's also Jan Zerebecki who wants to have a way to tell rpm to set all file
mtimes to the build time. (I don't like that personally.) OTOH he could also to
that with a brp script, I guess.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2944#discussion_r1512524554
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Introduce an rpm-controlled per-build directory (PR #2885)
@mlschroe commented on this pull request.
> - goto exit;
+
+ if (!spec->buildDir) {
+ /* Using release here causes a buildid no-recompute test to fail */
+ spec->buildDir =
rpmExpand("%{_top_builddir}/%{NAME}-%{VERSION}-%{_arch}", NULL);
+ /* Override toplevel _builddir for backwards compatibility */
+ rpmPushMacro(spec->macros, "_builddir", NULL, spec->buildDir,
RMIL_SPEC);
+
+ /* A user-oriented, unambiguous name for the thing */
+ rpmPushMacro(spec->macros, "builddir", NULL, spec->buildDir,
RMIL_SPEC);
+ spec->buildRoot = rpmGetPath(spec->buildDir, "/BUILDROOT", NULL);
+ rpmPushMacro(spec->macros, "buildroot", NULL, spec->buildRoot,
RMIL_SPEC
+);
+ char *specparts = rpmGetPath(spec->buildDir, "/SPECPARTS", NULL);
+ rpmPushMacro(spec->macros, "specpartsdir", NULL, specparts,
RMIL_SPEC);
+ free(specparts);
Maybe you should use rpmPushMacroFlags and add the RPMMACRO_LITERAL flag
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2885#pullrequestreview-1914686365
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Introduce an rpm-controlled per-build directory (PR #2885)
@mlschroe commented on this pull request.
> if (initialPackage) {
if (checkForRequiredForBuild(pkg->header)) {
goto exit;
}
- char *buildRoot = rpmGetPath(spec->buildRoot, NULL);
- free(spec->buildRoot);
- spec->buildRoot = buildRoot;
- rpmPushMacro(spec->macros, "buildroot", NULL, spec->buildRoot,
RMIL_SPEC);
- if (*buildRoot == '\0') {
- rpmlog(RPMLOG_ERR, _("%%{buildroot} couldn't be empty\n"));
- goto exit;
+ /* Grab the top builddir on first entry as we'll override _builddir */
+ if (!rpmMacroIsDefined(spec->macros, "_top_builddir")) {
+ rpmPushMacro(spec->macros, "_top_builddir", NULL, "%{_builddir}",
I may be confused, but don't you need to expand %{_buildir} first?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2885#pullrequestreview-1914664132
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
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 support for setting the build time and clamping to the build time (PR #2944)
@mlschroe pushed 2 commits. 2880adc356b3808241ab348c372f190dd48cb624 Add support for a _buildtime macro for setting the build time manually ee365274c42530286a09dad1fc83144ef478b25a Support clamping the file mtime to the build time -- View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2944/files/f53728f9f148c5f4ceeade6c2c93a14bc161ab24..ee365274c42530286a09dad1fc83144ef478b25a You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add support for setting the build time and clamping to the build time (PR #2944)
This makes it easier to reproduce a build that was done without SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH. The two new macros are opt in so that the current functionality is not touched. You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2944 -- Commit Summary -- * Add support for a _buildtime macro for setting the build time manually * Support clamping the file mtime to the build time -- File Changes -- M build/build.c (15) M build/files.c (19) M macros.in (4) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2944.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2944.diff -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2944 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2...@github.com ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Reproducible builds improvements (Discussion #2934)
I think this all has drifted away from the initial proposal. The goal was to be able to improve reproducibility of a given rpm by: - adding a way to specify the buildtime - adding an option to clamp the file mtimes to the buildtime Disregarding the implementation details, do you all think this is worthwhile to have? -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2934#discussioncomment-8643827 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Raise an error when passing arguments to non-parametric macros (PR #2940)
Maybe a warning would be less intrusive. (And what about `%{zzz foo}`?)
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2940#issuecomment-1969148570
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] 4.19.1.1: `rpmbuild --undefine foo` is not working (Discussion #2939)
Your "test-define" example is also not working like you expect. If you add ``` %define test 2 ``` at the top of the specfile and add "%test" to your echo statement, you'll see that it echos "2" even if you call rpmbuild with `--define "test 1"`. Basically --define and --undefine work similar to adding define/undefine to the top of the spec file. So it is not possible to change a %define that comes later on. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2939#discussioncomment-8619441 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Non parametric macro inconsistency (Issue #2932)
True. I'm fine with leaving it the way it is. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2932#issuecomment-1966443986 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Non parametric macro inconsistency (Issue #2932)
Closed #2932 as completed. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2932#event-11935607092 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Non parametric macro inconsistency (Issue #2932)
There are good reasons to leave it the way it is, I just wanted to point out that there's a somewhat undocumented difference. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2932#issuecomment-1966339147 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Non parametric macro inconsistency (Issue #2932)
I stumbled over this:
```
$ rpm --eval '%{?_libdir:foo}'
foo
$ rpm --eval '%{_libdir:foo}'
/usr/lib64
```
Should those two both return `foo`?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2932
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
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 uses pragma case_sensitive_like which is deprecated from sqlite 3.44 (Issue #2925)
We don't use LIKE anymore since commit c9380471adfa9fb06ace251a5f02b348507db345, so maybe we can just remove the pragma? -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2925#issuecomment-1961484365 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Incorrect examples in the embedded lua documentation (Issue #2929)
The examples for getcwd() and getenv() use `!=` as inequality test. That's invalid in lua, it is supposed to be `~=` instead. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2929 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] %{dirname:foo} is returning foo (Issue #2928)
We're testing for it in the test cases so it might be intentional, but is there
any good reason why `%{dirname:foo}` returns `foo` instead of `` or `.`? At
least the documentation says it is a "dirname(1) macro analogue"...
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2928
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Implement --json query format (PR #2913)
@mlschroe approved this pull request. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2913#pullrequestreview-1887945667 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Implement --json query format (PR #2913)
Aaand, if `c` is signed, doesn't the < 0x20 break utf8? -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2913#issuecomment-1948368777 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Implement --json query format (PR #2913)
And shouldn't it be `\\u%04x` instead of `u%04x`? -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2913#issuecomment-1948365421 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Implement --json query format (PR #2913)
Your `\r` escaping has a typo: it uses \t instead of \r. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2913#issuecomment-1948362268 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Implement --json query format (PR #2913)
Seems like it's missing escaping of weird characters like everything < 0x20 (most important`\n`), the `\` and the `"` characters. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2913#issuecomment-1948064464 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Reproducible builds improvements (Issue #2894)
Here's some thoughts about improving reproducible builds with rpm. The goal (for me) is to be able to reproduce a rpm given the source rpm. We currently have the following switches: - `%source_date_epoch_from_changelog` - `%use_source_date_epoch_as_buildtime` - `%clamp_mtime_to_source_date_epoch` This is centered around the sources and not really what I have in mind. I would prefer to keep setting the build time to the current time for normal builds and clamp the mtime to the build time. To reproduce a build, I would need a way to set the build time (and the build host) to the values from the rpm I want to reproduce. So, would a `%clamp_mtime_to_buildtime` macro make sense? Should the getBuildTime() function check if a `%_buildtime` macro is set? (This is somewhat related to pull request #2880. Basically $NEW_SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is the build time.) Thoughts? -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2894 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Enhance the recoverability and location of database exceptions (Issue #2828)
Just as datapoint: SUSE switched to ndb a couple of years ago and I've not heard of any problems with the ndb database. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2828#issuecomment-1931583617 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ 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 macro '%-x**' containing all occurrences of the flag '-x' (PR #2449)
That looks like the correct output to me. Why do you think it doesn't work?
Note that %quote does not add any quotes, the effect is purely internal. Here's
how to make it visible:
```
$ rpm --define '%foo(D:) %{shescape %{**}}' --eval '%foo -D"33 44" argument'
'-D"33' '44"' 'argument'
$ rpm --define '%foo(D:) %{shescape %{**}}' --eval '%foo -D%{quote:33 44}
argument'
'-D33 44' 'argument'
```
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2449#issuecomment-1912091137
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
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 macro '%-x**' containing all occurrences of the flag '-x' (PR #2449)
But the change that documented it was commit a5bd7571358c7974da1c909e331525b13dce1264 by Ralf done March 2023 -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2449#issuecomment-1903870809 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ 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 macro '%-x**' containing all occurrences of the flag '-x' (PR #2449)
(We might be able to change the behavior of %-f so that it includes all occurrences, but even that makes me a bit uneasy.) -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2449#issuecomment-1903859438 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
