Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpmspec: Add some more popt aliases (PR #2600)

@Conan-Kudo approved this pull request. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2600#pullrequestreview-1565047659 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID:

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Making the `Optflags` and `Spec` fields in the SRPM empty for reproducibility (Issue #2602)

As part of the production of SRPMs, RPM injects the C/C++ compiler flags into the `Optflags` tag and a processed spec file into the `Spec` tag. As we can't reasonably use the `Optflags` and `Spec` tags effectively for builds and it creates issues when `noarch` packages are built on different

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: store SBOM data in rpm headers? (Issue #2389)

@mlschroe A lot of the stuff around bundled dependencies are often expressed as `bundled()` Provides either manually or via dependency generators in Fedora. I'm not sure we want to do something different when that works fairly well... -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] CI: Add initial GitHub Actions configuration (PR #2588)

This will also lay the groundwork for us to add macOS CI to RPM, as GitHub Actions offers Mac runners we can use. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2588#issuecomment-1655040608 You are receiving this because you are

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] CI: Add initial GitHub Actions configuration (PR #2588)

@Conan-Kudo pushed 2 commits. 2074852a883335613cd6285f188d73b557c72e78 tests: Do not use interactive mode for mktree.podman "make check" 5467e43fc7a5c0c3f4592cba83328aefb1fedc09 CI: Add initial GitHub Actions configuration -- View it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] CI: Add initial GitHub Actions configuration (PR #2588)

@Conan-Kudo pushed 1 commit. e1249d42d350b473f53d3eda25761a034251bae2 CI: Add initial GitHub Actions configuration -- View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2588/files/2f792c1b7aae0bb9e0f32b1743555663acdf8180..e1249d42d350b473f53d3eda25761a034251bae2 You are

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] CI: Add initial GitHub Actions configuration (PR #2588)

Fixes #2569 You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2588 -- Commit Summary -- * CI: Add initial GitHub Actions configuration -- File Changes -- A .github/workflows/linux.yml (16) -- Patch Links --

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpmbuild: default to LANG=C.utf8 ? (Issue #2587)

We shouldn't make the problem worse, and there are plenty of people using RPM on macOS for various reasons. We will have support for it one way or another. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2587#issuecomment-1654994764

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpmbuild: default to LANG=C.utf8 ? (Issue #2587)

For what it's worth, I think we should _at least_ consider making a build flag to switch RPM to use `C.UTF-8` instead of `C`, and make our CMake default to it for Linux. >From my research, it seems that Darwin/macOS does the "interesting" thing of >overlaying UTF-8 support to the C locale by

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Allow setting platform macro settings externally (PR #2585)

@Conan-Kudo approved this pull request. This is weird, but I can't find anything overwhelmingly wrong with it -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2585#pullrequestreview-1548364281 You are receiving this because you are

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add sysusers.sh script to replace systemd-sysusers (PR #2573)

There's also the missing case for the `root` user, as the default shell for UID 0 is defined to be `/bin/sh`. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2573#issuecomment-1651811249 You are receiving this because you are subscribed

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add sysusers.sh script to replace systemd-sysusers (PR #2573)

@Conan-Kudo commented on this pull request. > + +hasgroup() { + grep "^${1}:" "$ROOT"/etc/group >/dev/null +} + +user() { + local user="$1" + local uid="$2" + local desc="$3" + local group="$4" + local home="$5" + local shell="$6" + + [ "$desc" =

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Allow setting platform macro settings externally (PR #2585)

@Conan-Kudo requested changes on this pull request. > +This is enough for regular Linux distributions, except Yocto. Yocto has +so called Board Support Packages (BSPs) that cover more than the CPU +architectures. These BSPs cover specific single board computer systems. +Examples of such BSP

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix missing includes on macOS (PR #2571)

@Conan-Kudo approved this pull request. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2571#pullrequestreview-1547721323 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: read sources checksums from the SPEC file and verify them (#463)

> Unfortunately the suggested format of `Source(sha256): format` is not > backward compatible with older rpm releases, and having the checksum as an > extra tag (with autonumbering) and if conditions could be error prone and > tricky. Is backward compatibility really an issue if we're talking

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix missing includes on macOS (PR #2571)

@Conan-Kudo approved this pull request. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2571#pullrequestreview-1526434141 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Replace fakechroot with proper container technology (PR #2559)

I have a virtual machine with macOS that I do destructive things in. Occasionally that includes running the test suite, but even just making a build environment for RPM in macOS manually (and avoiding homebrew) is pretty messy, so I do all that work in a dedicated virtual machine. -- Reply to

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Replace fakechroot with proper container technology (PR #2559)

Darwin has `chroot()` like all POSIX systems. I'm not sure if `fakechroot` works on Darwin, but [`fakeroot`](https://salsa.debian.org/clint/fakeroot) is supposed to work on macOS and is [available via homebrew](https://formulae.brew.sh/formula/fakeroot). Darwin also has the sandbox API (which

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] fix "no compatible architectures" in riscv32 (PR #2540)

Yocto will probably wind up using this too, since they support the RPM stack with architectures like this. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2540#issuecomment-1632250845 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Replace fakechroot with proper container technology (PR #2559)

What do we do if we want to run the test suite on non-Linux? Like macOS? -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2559#issuecomment-1632247013 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix missing includes on macOS (PR #2571)

@Conan-Kudo requested changes on this pull request. Looks like this isn't working exactly: >From CI: ``` [ 73%] Building C object CMakeFiles/rpmuncompress.dir/tools/rpmuncompress.c.o /srv/rpm/tools/rpmuncompress.c: In function 'doUntar': /srv/rpm/tools/rpmuncompress.c:101:39: error: passing

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix missing includes on macOS (PR #2571)

@Conan-Kudo approved this pull request. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2571#pullrequestreview-1526020644 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Support generating dependencies for multiple files at once (PR #2537)

The Python generator has always supported multifile, since it was originally written for that case way back when. This will be a sweet speed-up! -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2537#issuecomment-1582302318 You are

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

Actually, maybe we should rename `fat` to `multi` instead and use that to inform RPM that it needs to process per-file architecture information. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2374#discussioncomment-6087757 You

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] License clarification (Issue #2511)

For RPM packaging purposes, the `librpm` subpackage would be `LGPL-2.1-or-later`. Fedora's `rpm-libs` package would be `LGPL-2.1-or-later and GPL-2.0-or-later` while the rest of the binary packages would be `GPL-2.0-or-later`. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

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

I said that mtimes for files in the payload are the only thing that actually matters for clamping to SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH. We absolutely don't want SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH by default affecting package buildtimes. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

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

Wait what? That's what what I said. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2374#discussioncomment-6084512 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Move dbus announce plugin config in /usr/share (PR #2530)

@Conan-Kudo approved this pull request. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2530#pullrequestreview-1461356520 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] plugins/org.rpm.conf does not get installed (Issue #2474)

Actually, it should be `/usr/share/dbus-1/system.d/` -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2474#issuecomment-1511399657 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID:

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

Well, RPM has the "fat" arch for multi-arch RPMs already... -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2374#discussioncomment-5613991 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add RPM_LD_FLAGS to build environment (PR #2481)

@Conan-Kudo requested changes on this pull request. > @@ -750,11 +750,12 @@ Supplements: (%{name} = %{version}-%{release} and > langpacks-%{1})\ RPM_SOURCE_DIR=\"%{_sourcedir}\"\ RPM_BUILD_DIR=\"%{_builddir}\"\ RPM_OPT_FLAGS=\"%{optflags}\"\ + RPM_LD_FLAGS=\"%{?build_ldflags}\"\ I

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add RPM_LD_FLAGS to build environment (PR #2481)

I don't think it's unreasonable for those flags to be exposed out of the gate. It would certainly be nice if there was an extensible way to add more of them, but this patch, as it is, is simple and reasonable to mainline. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Don't rely on pkg-config for Lua (PR #2469)

Have we tried advocating to Lua upstream to include a pkgconfig file recently? If not, maybe that's worth doing, and then we can keep relying on pkgconfig. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2469#issuecomment-1501028061 You

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Enhance requires with version information from the build root. (PR #2372)

In general, I'm wary about this whole approach because it reduces/eliminates the fungibility of compatible library implementations. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2372#issuecomment-1499585799 You are receiving this

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Don't rely on pkg-config for Lua (PR #2469)

If we're doing our own FindLua module, can we still leverage pkgconfig if it's available? -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2469#issuecomment-1498748502 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Resolve --what arguments to package provides (PR #2451)

Thank you so much for finally doing this! 拾 -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2451#issuecomment-1494685753 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Consider available memory and address space for parallel execution (PR #2418)

That's even better.  -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2418#issuecomment-1477683506 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Consider available memory and address space for parallel execution (PR #2418)

`%getmem` could be useful for making `%limit_build` work better in Fedora, so I think it'd be worth having. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2418#issuecomment-1476902969 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Conditionally display VCS tag (PR #2441)

@Conan-Kudo approved this pull request. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2441#pullrequestreview-1349359077 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Populate user and group data in cpio payload again (PR #2430)

@Conan-Kudo approved this pull request. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2430#pullrequestreview-1349357701 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: read sources checksums from the SPEC file and verify them (#463)

I think so, yes. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/463#issuecomment-1474507843 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: read sources checksums from the SPEC file and verify them (#463)

It should be compatible with that too, since it's effectively `Tag(qualifier)` format. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/463#issuecomment-1474183736 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Re: [Rpm-maint] RFC: Relocate RPM and DNF databases to /usr

(Adding the correct Daniel Mach email address, he moved from Red Hat to SUSE last month...) On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 10:11 AM Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 5:01 AM Jaroslav Mracek wrote: > > > > Hello Chris, > > > > On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 5:01 AM Chris Murphy wrote: > >> > >> Hi

Re: [Rpm-maint] RFC: Relocate RPM and DNF databases to /usr

On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 9:05 AM Panu Matilainen wrote: > > On 12/7/21 06:00, Chris Murphy wrote: > > Hi RPM and DNF folks, > > > > I have a draft change proposal for review and comment, i.e. it's not yet > > set to be published to Fedora devel@. It's a bit thin, but I expect to > > fill in more

Re: [Rpm-maint] Porting RPM to Sequoia PGP

On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 10:42 AM Justus Winter wrote: > > Neal Gompa writes: > > > What about DNF? The DNF package manager also uses gpgme right now, and > > one of the larger problems we have right now is that we have no > > unified keyring between DNF and RPM, beca

Re: [Rpm-maint] Porting RPM to Sequoia PGP

On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 11:19 AM Justus Winter wrote: > > Hello, > > I'd like to propose to replace RPM's built-in PGP support with Sequoia. > Sequoia is an OpenPGP implementation written in Rust. We have released > Sequoia 1.5 earlier this week, which is the first version released under > the

Re: [Rpm-maint] converting new format rpms to something installable w/older rpm

On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 12:15 AM L A Walsh wrote: > > I was out of touch from my normal internet connectivity for a few > months and when I got back and d/l'd rpms and tried to use them > I got an error: > > Failed dependencies: rpmlib(PayloadIsZstd) > > I tried building rpm from source, but it

Re: [Rpm-maint] [PATCH] add support for scriptlet deps in generated deps

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 9:41 AM Thierry Vignaud wrote: > > Le mer. 12 sept. 2018 à 14:30, Igor Gnatenko > a écrit : > >> In Mageia, we eg had: > >> 1) manual "requires(post)" or "requires(posttrans): info-install" > >> (info-install being the package containing /sbin/ /sbin/install-info > >>

Re: [Rpm-maint] RPM 4.13.1 released!

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 11:00 AM, Michael Schroeder wrote: > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 04:02:16PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: >> The reason for the "unexpected" rich dependency backport is that we failed >> to add a new rpmlib() dependency tracker when adding these new dependencies,

Re: [Rpm-maint] Reserve ALT RPM tags range

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 5:03 PM, Vladimir D. Seleznev wrote: > Hello, rpm-maint@! > > We in ALT Linux Team implemented some new RPM tags for our RPM package > header and RPM database. Since RPM tags are numerical identifiers and we > want to keep compatibility with

Re: [Rpm-maint] rpm-4.14.0

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Baho Utot wrote: > In rpm version 4.11.2 I define some macros in /etc/rpm/macros. > After compiling and installing version 4.14.0 I have a few questions. > > Is this still the place to define system wide macros? > > If not how does

Re: [Rpm-maint] RFC: SUSE/openSUSE's proposed relocation of /var/lib/rpm

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Colin Walters wrote: > [/me moves to center of thread, pulls out defibrillation machine, *zzzt* > *zzzt*] > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017, at 04:59 AM, Richard Brown wrote: >> >> As we're pressed on time, openSUSE will be going right ahead and moving

Re: [Rpm-maint] RFC: SUSE/openSUSE's proposed relocation of /var/lib/rpm

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Richard Brown wrote: > On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 11:31 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: > >> The database path has always been trivially configurable with a macro >> without having to patch rpm, nobody is taking that away. And because >> it's so trivial

Re: [Rpm-maint] [Rpm-announce] RPM 4.14.0 released!

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 2:44 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote: > On 10/12/2017 11:16 PM, Thierry Vignaud wrote: >> >> On 12 October 2017 at 11:22, Panu Matilainen wrote: >>> >>> >>> In short, RPM 4.14.0 is out now. It's not quite what we originally had in >>>

Re: [Rpm-maint] RFC: SUSE/openSUSE's proposed relocation of /var/lib/rpm

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Richard Brown wrote: > > What do you all think? And if a change like this is on the cards as an rpm > default, where would the likely > location be? > So, I think we should probably expose this as an configure switch, and default to /var/lib/rpm.

Re: [Rpm-maint] [PATCH] RFC: Allow for disabling Berkeley DB support

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 12:38 AM, Darren Hart <dvh...@infradead.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 08:33:46AM +0100, Neal Gompa wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Darren Hart (VMware) >> <dvh...@infradead.org> wrote: >> > Introduce a --disable-bdb

Re: [Rpm-maint] [PATCH] RFC: Allow for disabling Berkeley DB support

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Darren Hart (VMware) wrote: > Introduce a --disable-bdb configuration option which disables the use of > Berkeley DB entirely. Update the various autotools to ensure that at > least one of BDB or NDB is enabled. Existing configuration

[Rpm-maint] RFC: Range dependencies extension to boolean dependencies

It comes up with increasing regularity that we don't have a way to represent ranges of versions for a single dependency (c.f. RHBZ[1] and RPM GitHub[2]). Most language-specific dependency managers (e.g. pip for Python, gem for Ruby, composer for PHP, cargo for Rust, npm for Nodejs, whatever Golang

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Offer LMDB as an alternative engine to BDB for rpmdb (#128)

On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Ralf Corsepius <rc040...@freenet.de> wrote: > On 01/15/2017 04:03 PM, Neal Gompa (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote: > >> I'm not sure how true it is, but it seems to bear out with the number of >> previously BDB users now being LMDB users. > >

Re: [Rpm-maint] Planning for rpm 4.13.0 (-rc2)

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote: > > Hey folks, > > Time to get rpm 4.13.0 out of the door. But in order to do that, we'll need > to cut -rc2 first, there's just too much change to jump right into final. > > The idea is to get -rc2 out next week

Re: [Rpm-maint] [PATCH] RISCV 64-bit (riscv64) support.

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 06:51:43PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> So this sort of works. >> >> However %{_arch} is not defined, for reasons I don't understand. >> >> # uname -a >> Linux stage3

Re: [Rpm-maint] [PATCH] build: fgetc returns int, not char.

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > Returning the value into a char is a mistake on all platforms, but is > particularly bad on RISC-V. On that platform (like ARM) char is > unsigned. Therefore EOF (-1) is returned as 255, and the subsequent > test

Re: [Rpm-maint] Section end markers

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Lubos Kardos wrote: > Hi, > > I went through the bug #564613 [1] and now I am considering add section end > markers to rpm spec syntax. I would add only optional end markers to preserve > backward compatibility i. e. if the end marker is not

Re: [Rpm-maint] PATCH 4/2013 Reimplement setprogname() and getprogname() to be generic and portable

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: > > Thanks! > > I somehow lost interest since --chroot cannot be implemented with > rpm(1) on NetBSD with chroot(2). There is not known a breakage from > NetBSD chroot. Kamil, Two things: * Doesn't --root already use

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm] Rename to pythonX.Ydist, read .dist-info, support legacy pythoneggs()(), and cleanups (#50)

Florian, It should be all nice and fixed up in the GitHub PR. I added an extra patch on top to resolve getopt related issues, so everything should be peachy. :) Thanks for the patch. :) On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Florian Festi wrote: > I think the different cli flags

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm] initial embedded python interpreter support (@rpm5.org derived) (#25)

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 4:22 AM, Vít Ondruch <vondr...@redhat.com> wrote: > Dne 28.11.2015 v 14:37 Neal Gompa napsal(a): > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 5:20 AM, Florian Festi <ffe...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> On 11/19/2015 04:09 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> > Wha

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm] initial embedded python interpreter support (@rpm5.org derived) (#25)

On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 5:20 AM, Florian Festi wrote: > On 11/19/2015 04:09 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > What is the usecase for this? Isn't this just feature bloat? > > I kinda agree that this looks like feature bloat. This patch set needs a > very good justification to go in

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm] Rename pythonXegg to pythonX.Ydist and read .dist-info (#33)

On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 1:00 AM, Thierry Vignaud <thierry.vign...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 21 November 2015 at 17:50, Neal Gompa (ニール・ゴンパ) < > notificati...@github.com> wrote: > >> Per the recommendation of Nick Coghlan and Toshio Kuratomi, pythonXegg(M) >>