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

2021-01-05 Thread Pavel Raiskup
Yes, that's what I meant. Some implicit hook in %prep implementation, or before. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

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

2021-01-05 Thread Pavel Raiskup
Lemme know if you think that some PoC macro in /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d doing exactly this would be useful (as first %prep instruction). -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

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

2021-01-05 Thread Pavel Raiskup
Could RPM hook in a check right before executing `%prep` section if e.g. macro like `%global source_1_sha256 ` is defined? Older RPM implementations would just ignore such macro. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on

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

2020-07-17 Thread Pavel Raiskup
> So for rpmbuild none are installed. I don't see any practical reason to exit status 11 in such case. That's why I filled this issue originally. Since we aren't entirely consistent here, we should document that exit status 11 might be result of the `--nodeps` option. -- You are receiving

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

2020-07-15 Thread Pavel Raiskup
> or missing build deps (11) Yes, and we return 11 also when `--nodeps` is specified (no matter if all build requires are installed). -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Please that `rpmbuild -ba` includes `-br + -bb`, not `-bs + -bb` (#1304)

2020-07-10 Thread Pavel Raiskup
> My guess is you want that rpmbuild man page is more clear Yes. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add %postbuild section / Allow dynamic sub packages (#1239)

2020-07-10 Thread Pavel Raiskup
Is this contribution ever meant to modify the built source RPM content? I.e. can `%postbuild` be (mis-)used so that `rpmbuild -ba` and `rpmbuild -br` both generate a different variant of source RPM? -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Please that `rpmbuild -ba` includes `-br + -bb`, not `-bs + -bb` (#1304)

2020-07-08 Thread Pavel Raiskup
>From the manual page it isn't entirely clear: ``` -baBuild binary and source packages (after doing the %prep, %build, and %install stages). -bbBuild a binary package (after doing the %prep, %build, and %install stages). -bs

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

2020-07-07 Thread Pavel Raiskup
Shouldn't we at least document somewhere what the exit status 11 means then? Ie why we are returning that value? -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: default to dist-git style per-package directories in rpmbuild (#1171)

2020-04-09 Thread Pavel Raiskup
Yes, from mock perspective it shouldn't be huge problem (I guess we'll stop depending on defaults, and pre-define some pattern by macros). Still, having a month or two in advance to have a chance to wrap new mock release is worth it. What is the ETA, and any more details how the new pattern will

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: default to dist-git style per-package directories in rpmbuild (#1171)

2020-04-09 Thread Pavel Raiskup
No thoughts from me ATM. I think mock will have to adapt, whatever change will be done here (mock uses target-chroot rpmbuild). -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

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

2020-03-20 Thread Pavel Raiskup
> We cannot rely on this file if we want rpm to be able to auto-download > sources with any degree of confidence. Why? _Technically_ there shouldn't be a problem. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Noninteractive rpmbuild (#978)

2019-12-17 Thread Pavel Raiskup
I thought that `-f` is better, because of the "reversed" patch semantics reject. But the fix should IMO go to redhat-rpm-config, not to RPM if this was implemented. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Noninteractive rpmbuild (#978)

2019-12-17 Thread Pavel Raiskup
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/mock/issues/432 is probably related -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Noninteractive rpmbuild (#978)

2019-12-17 Thread Pavel Raiskup
Because it uses systemd-nspawn, I guess. -- 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/978#issuecomment-566432700___

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Noninteractive rpmbuild (#978)

2019-12-16 Thread Pavel Raiskup
> And here it hangs and waits for user input. Weird, the patch file should go to patch from stdin ... so there should be clear EOF, and patch shouldn't really wait for anything. Is that bug in patch? -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpmbuild -br returns 11 even though all dependencies are satisfied (#963)

2019-12-02 Thread Pavel Raiskup
Do we have to bind the nosrc.rpm with exit status 11? -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Don't insert rpmlib() dependencies for dynamic buildrequires (#878)

2019-10-14 Thread Pavel Raiskup
> Whether SRPM uses DynamicBuildRequires feature This is can not be answered, though, by looking at the SRPM. It depends on what system the srpm is built on. It is similar to conditional BuildRequires, etc. > Whether SRPM has DynamicBuildRequires inserted into it You mean whether RPM has some

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Don't insert rpmlib() dependencies for dynamic buildrequires (#878)

2019-10-04 Thread Pavel Raiskup
BuildRecommends is semantically wrong, if it happens to be needed then it is needed (not recommended). These problems have no solution on SRPM level. Unless the spec file is preprocessed by rpm, no-one knows whether the package will depend on dynamic buildrequires feature or not. If

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Dynamic Build Dependencies (#593)

2019-03-12 Thread Pavel Raiskup
On Tuesday, March 12, 2019 9:55:29 AM CET nim-nim wrote: > I think there are two different things here, how you format rpmbuild error > output to stdou/err Why we should care about 'rpmbuild' stdout/stderr here? That should be just informative thing. For machines, rpmbuild just fails, and doing

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Dynamic Build Dependencies (#593)

2019-03-12 Thread Pavel Raiskup
@xsuchy wrote: > What exit code rpmbuild returns when a build fails because of > %generate_buildrequires? I'd say it can be non-zero, as mock doesn't necessarily have to expect a "specific" exit status in this case. Yes, specific exit status would make it easier for mock, but I fail to see

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Dynamic Build Dependencies (#593)

2019-03-12 Thread Pavel Raiskup
praiskup commented on this pull request. > +// XXX set flags + +rpmdsPutToHeader(*packageDependencies(spec->sourcePackage, RPMTAG_REQUIRENAME), spec->sourcePackage->header); + +rpmps ps = rpmSpecCheckDeps(ts, spec); + +if (ps) { + rpmlog(RPMLOG_ERR, _("Failed build

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Dynamic Build Dependencies (#593)

2019-03-12 Thread Pavel Raiskup
praiskup commented on this pull request. > +} + +fprintf(fp, "cd '%s'\n", buildDir); + +if (spec->buildSubdir) + fprintf(fp, "cd '%s'\n", spec->buildSubdir); +fprintf(fp, "%s", getStringBuf(spec->buildrequires)); +(void) fclose(fp); + +if (test) { + rc =

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: BuildRequires generator (#104)

2018-10-29 Thread Pavel Raiskup
I proposed somewhere above a %build_requires (with some options, too), but that would probably be too huge overlap, right? Can we operate with brackets or options? Like `%dynamic_requires -t build`? -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: BuildRequires generator (#104)

2018-10-25 Thread Pavel Raiskup
That's interesting think for policy POV, thanks. That would certainly be an issue for FESCO before allowing us to use that in Fedora. But I don't think it is necessarily a blocker for the actual implementation in mock/rpm. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: BuildRequires generator (#104)

2018-10-25 Thread Pavel Raiskup
On Saturday, October 20, 2018 2:51:03 PM CEST nim-nim wrote: > So, with a year of hindsight, I've simplified the requirements to > > 1. run `%prep` > 2. run BuildRequires computation logic (either as part of prep or in a new >`%reqs` section between prep and build) I'd still prefer the

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: BuildRequires generator (#104)

2018-10-25 Thread Pavel Raiskup
On Thursday, October 25, 2018 11:23:58 AM CEST Florian Festi wrote: > There are two options: > [..second option..] This seem much more fragile and dangerous as it > requires root operations being triggered from a non root build. 1. You **wouldn't** trigger root actions (the fact that pm_request

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: BuildRequires generator (#104)

2018-10-25 Thread Pavel Raiskup
Of course, the SRPM format needs to be updated first; so we can store the dynamic build requires "unexpanded" there. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: BuildRequires generator (#104)

2018-10-25 Thread Pavel Raiskup
> But for determining the dynamic BuildRequires (or even just running %prep) you will need additional tools. So the question is where do you get the Requires from for these. You have static `BuildRrequires` for this puprose. Those should be installed first, so the dynamic build requires can be

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix typo in trigger docs (#452)

2018-06-21 Thread Pavel Raiskup
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/452 -- Commit Summary -- * Fix typo in trigger docs -- File Changes -- M doc/manual/triggers (2) -- Patch Links --

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: ensure all %(...) system-wide macros don't pollute stderr (#424)

2018-03-29 Thread Pavel Raiskup
Good one, thanks! ;) And yeah, maybe this is more like "documentation fix" request, or request like "hey, rpm maintainers, please show us exemplary rock-solid macros ...". Because RPM is certainly not responsible for all those kind of errors.. But with all the minimization efforts, those "No

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: ensure all %(...) system-wide macros don't pollute stderr (#424)

2018-03-29 Thread Pavel Raiskup
Some RPM installed `%( shell )` macros pollute stderr (under e.g. `rpmbuild -bs`) if some of their run-time dependencies is missing, e.g.: ``` %python_sitelib %(%{__python} -Es %{_rpmconfigdir}/python-macro-helper sitelib) %python_sitearch %(%{__python} -Es %{_rpmconfigdir}/python-macro-helper

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: BuildRequires generator (#104)

2018-02-17 Thread Pavel Raiskup
> With git clone so easy nowadays I'm pretty sure some of the language > upstreams will bake multi-phase BR solving in their tooling sooner or later > (if not already done). Seeing an existing example would really help to justify the additional complexity. Such problem smells like equivalent

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: BuildRequires generator (#104)

2018-02-17 Thread Pavel Raiskup
On Saturday, February 17, 2018 9:57:13 AM CET nim-nim wrote: > > [snip, mock could ... ] > > - does installroot and installs BuildRequires as usually > > - runs %prep > > - runs %foo_analyzer from %build_requires > > - runs the rest of the build > [snip] > > That would work too, as long as you

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: BuildRequires generator (#104)

2018-02-16 Thread Pavel Raiskup
On Saturday, February 17, 2018 7:40:53 AM CET Jeff Johnson wrote: > If -- as this RFE seems to assume -- you are going to limit the implementation > to "... (Rust, Python, golang) ..." that have alternative non-specfile means > to specify BuildRequires, then all known rpm build systems will

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: BuildRequires generator (#104)

2018-02-16 Thread Pavel Raiskup
On Saturday, February 17, 2018 7:18:47 AM CET Jeff Johnson wrote: > Contrarian examples are trivial to devise. Consider an autoconf based > generated file that builds if (and only if) certain files are detected. > None of those BuildRequires can be automated and generated during a spec > file

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: BuildRequires generator (#104)

2018-02-16 Thread Pavel Raiskup
On Saturday, February 17, 2018 12:08:53 AM CET Jeff Johnson wrote: > @nim-nim: there are classes of BuilRequires: that are not known until after a > build This sounds interesting, don't you have specific example? It rather sounds like bootstrapping issue which the BuildRequires generator isn't

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: BuildRequires generator (#104)

2018-02-12 Thread Pavel Raiskup
If we had `%build_requires -f

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: show command which is executed for dependency generator in debug mode (#338)

2017-12-08 Thread Pavel Raiskup
xref: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443034 -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] build: better warning for non-unique %files section (#91)

2016-09-15 Thread Pavel Raiskup
You can probably use ``` for diffs. Is the 'second' correct? I way about to use `multiple` because the warning can occur several time for each (sub)package. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] build: better warning for non-unique %files section (#91)

2016-09-15 Thread Pavel Raiskup
Background story is in rhbz#1374138, having the warning better spelled before would simplify macro debugging a lot in that case. You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/91 -- Commit Summary -- * build: better

Re: [Rpm-maint] better way to port packages to new architectures

2013-04-12 Thread Pavel Raiskup
On my rawhide box, the config.sub from rpm-build and automake-1.13 seem to support aarch64 already whereas the ones provided by libtool, redhat-rpm-config, and older automakes do not. I would suggest to use automake's version also. It is the place where the config.{guess,sub} files come