Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add a build root policy for removing executable bits from shared libr… (#1395)

2020-11-26 Thread mikhailnov
You first chmod -x and then run brp-strip, how is it going to strip debuginfo from *.so?! -- 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 a build root policy for removing executable bits from shared libr… (#1395)

2020-11-26 Thread mikhailnov
@mikhailnov commented on this pull request. > @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +#!/bin/sh +# If using normal root, avoid changing anything. +if [ -z "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" ] || [ "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" = "/" ]; then + exit 0 +fi + +ELFCLASSIFY=/usr/bin/eu-elfclassify BSD

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] elfdeps: Generate dependencies on non-executable shared libraries (#1393)

2020-11-26 Thread mikhailnov
12.10.2020 12:01, Panu Matilainen пишет: > > A different kind of approach to the issue could be continuing to require > executable bit for requires generation, but have a brp-script strip the > x-bits from all ET_DYN files that are not actually executable. eu-elfclassify > could probably be

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpm --whatrequires does not resolve provides (#1426)

2020-11-09 Thread mikhailnov
Thanks! -- 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/1426#issuecomment-723808513___ Rpm-maint mailing list

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpm --whatrequires does not resolve provides (#1426)

2020-11-07 Thread mikhailnov
There is a package which requires "java-devel": ``` $ rpm -qR wildfly | grep ^java java-devel >= 1:1.7 ``` The package which provides it is the following: ``` $ rpm -q --whatprovides java-devel java-1.8.0-openjdk-devel-1.8.0.252.b02-0.0.ea.x86_64 ``` Now I want to find out why

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] __spec_*_shell macros do not work (#1399)

2020-10-14 Thread mikhailnov
The only place where `%{__spec_build_shell}` is used is the shebang of the build script, but the script is executed by `%__spec_build_cmd`, I think shebang is useless 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] __spec_*_shell macros do not work (#1399)

2020-10-14 Thread mikhailnov
`__spec_*_cmd` do work however. -- 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/1399#issuecomment-708217633___ Rpm-maint

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] __spec_*_shell macros do not work (#1399)

2020-10-14 Thread mikhailnov
I want to define _different_ shells for %prep, %build and %install (because I want to wrap pvs-studio analyzer in strace mode). But it does not work with neither rpm 4.15.1 not 4.16.0 `%global __spec_prep_shell /bin/false` - does nothing, /bin/sh iss till use. `%global __build_shell /bin/false`

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] elfdeps: Generate dependencies on non-executable shared libraries (#1393)

2020-10-10 Thread mikhailnov
It seems strange to me to default to assume-exec=false in the code of `elfdeps`, but turn on `--assume-exec` by default. If we do not want to track executability of ELFs, we would better switch the defaults in the code and allow to add `--no-assume-exec` for example if needed. -- You are

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] elfdeps: Generate dependencies on non-executable shared libraries (#1393)

2020-10-10 Thread mikhailnov
cc @mlschroe -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1393#issuecomment-706605037___ Rpm-maint mailing list

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] elfdeps: Generate dependencies on non-executable shared libraries (#1393)

2020-10-10 Thread mikhailnov
Here you force to generate requires for non-executable files in e.g. /usr/bin or elsewhere, does it make sense? To my mind it does make sense to generate requires and provides for non executable `%_libdir/*.so*` because they are not required to be executable to work. -- You are receiving

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add support for fsverity signatures (#1121)

2020-10-05 Thread mikhailnov
Do I understand correctly that IMA will verify signatures of binaries before running them , but fsverity can verify _any_ file when it is being accessed and block access if the signature is invalid? -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add tag with %{NAME} of SRPM (#1364)

2020-09-22 Thread mikhailnov
Is NEVR format saved in headers? If it was, it could be used when parsing NEVR. -- 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 tag with %{NAME} of SRPM (#1364)

2020-09-19 Thread mikhailnov
There is SOURCEPACKAGE, but it is not used: ``` [root@rosa-2019 metacity]# rpm -q --querytags bash | grep SOURCE NOSOURCE SOURCE SOURCEPACKAGE SOURCEPKGID SOURCERPM [root@rosa-2019 metacity]# rpm -q --qf '%{SOURCEPACKAGE}\n' bash (none) ``` -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add tag with %{NAME} of SRPM (#1364)

2020-09-19 Thread mikhailnov
I am a bit fed up with RPM's inability to show the value of "Name:" tag of the spec from which the package was built. `rpm -q --qf '%{sourcerpm}\n` shows something like `metacity-3.34.1-1.src.rpm` and I have to use strange combinations of comsnds to extract the real name "metacity" from this.

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] 4.15.1: issue with debug info stipping procedure (#1362)

2020-09-19 Thread mikhailnov
you probably miss `-g` in %optflags or do not pass it to the compiler -- 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] rpm -q --whatrequires loosing packages (#1342)

2020-08-21 Thread mikhailnov
I actually don't know how to debug this, especially bdb operations, so posted a link to LiveCD above. Or maybe someone may explain how to debug this. -- 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] rpm -q --whatrequires loosing packages (#1342)

2020-08-21 Thread mikhailnov
``` live@rosa2019 ~ $ export LC_ALL=C live@rosa2019 ~ $ dnf repoquery --whatrequires bootsplash Last metadata expiration check: 0:01:21 ago on Fri Aug 21 23:12:52 2020. Rosa-theme-EE-0:2.0.0-115.noarch bootsplash-themes-0:2.1.0-10.noarch live@rosa2019 ~ $ rpm -q --whatrequires bootsplash no

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Treat /usr/share/gnome/help as docs (#1295)

2020-06-28 Thread mikhailnov
rpmlint thinks that /usr/share/gnome/help is documentation: `FilesCheck.py:188:doc_regex = re.compile(r^/usr(/share|/X11R6)?/(doc|man|info)/|^/usr/share/gnome/help)` and gives a warning that those files are not marked as docs in RPM packages. It seems a good idea to treat help files as

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add OrderWithRequires dependency generation (32e2bc5)

2020-06-09 Thread mikhailnov
Does this mean that constructions like "OrderWithRequires: >= VERSION" are supported? -- 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 OrderWithRequires dependency generation (#1257)

2020-06-09 Thread mikhailnov
OrderWithRequires(pre) would probably be better for the use case which is described in this PR, but OrderWithRequires without pre also worked. This is probably some undocumented behaviour in dependency resolution, probably it tries to install required packages before the package which requires

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add OrderWithRequires dependency generation (32e2bc5)

2020-06-09 Thread mikhailnov
@ffesti I see that you added "RPMTAG_ORDERNAME, RPMTAG_ORDERVERSION, RPMTAG_ORDERFLAGS," ( https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1262/files#diff-ddf4f9f570183f31f3d5ba0a715a954fR1406 ), but I added "RPMTAG_ORDERNAME, RPMTAG_ORDERFLAGS,". I actually did not test

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add OrderWithRequires dependency generation (#1257)

2020-06-09 Thread mikhailnov
Thanks. One question: do I understand correctly that currently there is no way to make a generator of Requires(pre), Requires(post), Requires(postun), OrderWithRequires(pre) etc.? -- 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] Add OrderWithRequires dependency generation (#1257)

2020-06-07 Thread mikhailnov
If there is just a scriptlet which calls `systemctl preset`, in _some_ cases it may silently fail to enable a service which must be enabled. In most cases, I agree, it is not needed, but seems to be not harmful. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add OrderWithRequires dependency generation (#1257)

2020-06-07 Thread mikhailnov
But why? If a package contains a config is /usr/lib/sysusers.d/, why not to ensure that it is installed after systemd-sysusers binary is present and so the scriptlet which creates users can be executed? -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fail the build if %_build_pkgcheck_set failed (#1258)

2020-06-07 Thread mikhailnov
If %_nonzero_exit_pkgcheck_terminate_build is true, then the build fails, otherwise it does not. This regressed and the build never failed -- 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] Fail the build if %_build_pkgcheck_set failed (#1258)

2020-06-07 Thread mikhailnov
RPM build did not fail if rpmlint (%_build_pkgcheck_set) failed when checking binary RPMs (it did fail correctly when rpmlint failed when checking SRPMs) Probably fixes regression introduced by 78f61f273 (Refactor package set checking out of packageBinaries()) You can view, comment on, or merge

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add OrderWithRequires dependency generation (#1257)

2020-06-06 Thread mikhailnov
It was possible to generate Requires, Recommends etc. using external dependency generators. Adding ability to generate OrderWithRequires. Example use case: When a package contains a systemd unit, %systemd_* macros are usually used; it is usefull to add OrderWithRequires: systemd in this case to

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add support for fsverity signatures (#1121)

2020-03-18 Thread mikhailnov
Sounds like system consistency self test, that must be useful -- 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 znver1 arches with 32-bit + 64-bit variants and proper CPU detection (#1035)

2020-03-08 Thread mikhailnov
I meant not function multiversioning (https://docs.01.org/clearlinux/latest/tutorials/fmv.html), but building a separate binary is built with optimizations - https://clearlinux.org/news-blogs/transparent-use-library-packages-optimized-intel-architecture Where needed, building if optimized libs

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add znver1 arches with 32-bit + 64-bit variants and proper CPU detection (#1035)

2020-03-07 Thread mikhailnov
Did anyone measure the real performance gain from having a separate znver1 architecture? It is a lot of maintenance and QA burden, but what is the result? As time goes futher, probably new hardware instructions will apear in modern x86 CPUs, so new arches like znver1 will have to be added. Also

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] %patch from not the start of the line does not work (#1088)

2020-02-27 Thread mikhailnov
Of course I understand that it is not a goal, I wanted to say that another implementation of rpm grammar behaves differently and at the same time I do not understand why it should behave like rpm4 does. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] %patch from not the start of the line does not work (#1088)

2020-02-26 Thread mikhailnov
Example piece of code in `%prep` ``` ( cd asedriveiiie-usb %patch1 -p1 ) ``` Result: ``` DEBUG: + cd asedriveiiie-usb DEBUG: + %patch1 -p1 DEBUG: BUILDSTDERR: /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.A0WUoX: line 45: fg: no job control ``` But it works in rpm5. I had to put `%patch1` to the beginning of the line to

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add ability to calculate filedigests using Streebog-256 and Streebog-… (#1082)

2020-02-24 Thread mikhailnov
RPM 5 did it: https://abf.io/soft/rpm5/blob/master/rpmio/rpmiotypes.h#lc-204 Will the same approach be acceptable in rpm4? -- 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 ability to calculate filedigests using Streebog-256 and Streebog-… (#1082)

2020-02-24 Thread mikhailnov
> The other option would be detaching the digest algorithm enumeration used by > rpm for non-PGP purposes from the OpenPGP values If to make values out of the range specified by the OpenPGP RFC (e.g. 250 and 251 or whatever else), they will still be called `PGPHASHALGO_*`, but may it break

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add ability to calculate filedigests using Streebog-256 and Streebog-… (#1082)

2020-02-21 Thread mikhailnov
mikhailnov commented on this pull request. > @@ -266,6 +266,8 @@ typedef enum pgpHashAlgo_e { PGPHASHALGO_SHA384 = 9, /*!< SHA384 */ PGPHASHALGO_SHA512 = 10, /*!< SHA512 */ PGPHASHALGO_SHA224 = 11, /*!< SHA224 */ +PGPHASHALG

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Process scriplets by dependency generators (#1033)

2020-02-06 Thread mikhailnov
Ok, another hack is possible. I can make a macro ` %__scriptlets_directory`, create that directory inside the buildroot and copy scriptlets there. Then process them with a dependency generator. But, according to docs https://rpm.org/user_doc/dependency_generators.html , a generator cannot make

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Process scriplets by dependency generators (#1033)

2020-02-06 Thread mikhailnov
`rpmMkTempFile()` stores scriptlets in `%_tmppath` (`/var/tmp`), I have made a dependency generator which runs `ls /var/tmp`, it showed that there are no files with scriptlets in %_tmppath at that stage :-( I thought to process them via a generator as a hack. -- You are receiving this because

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Process scriplets by dependency generators (#1033)

2020-02-06 Thread mikhailnov
ALT's rpm-build does have this feature. I am unsecsessfully trying to find where and how they do it. -- 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] Process scriplets by dependency generators (#1033)

2020-02-06 Thread mikhailnov
> They do nothing as far as I know. I'm pretty sure those are just stubs. Thay seems to work, `build/build.c`. For me it is not very clear what code like `(void) fputs(buildPost, fp);` does. And I see that `doScript()` does create temporary files with scriptlets (`rpmMkTempFile()`). That is

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Process scriplets by dependency generators (#1033)

2020-02-05 Thread mikhailnov
``` macros.in:918:#%__spec_autodep_shell%{___build_shell} macros.in-919-#%__spec_autodep_args %{___build_args} macros.in-920-#%__spec_autodep_cmd %{___build_cmd} macros.in-921-#%__spec_autodep_pre %{___build_pre} macros.in-922-#%__spec_autodep_body %{___build_body}

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Process scriplets by dependency generators (#1033)

2020-02-04 Thread mikhailnov
Thanks for explaining. Very bad! I see that scriptlets are not treated as separate files there. Maybe it is possible to send scriptlet text to stdin of a generator? -- 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] Process scriplets by dependency generators (#1033)

2020-02-04 Thread mikhailnov
Here I would appreceate pointing to code that generates dependencies by shebangs for scriplets to see how it works. > Moreover, attempts to identify programs in shell scripts have been > problematic. If this identifies >50% of programs and does not produces a lot of unresolvable Requires,

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Print all build errors and do not stop after the first error (#1020)

2020-02-02 Thread mikhailnov
mikhailnov commented on this pull request. > @@ -3107,7 +3107,7 @@ rpmRC processBinaryFiles(rpmSpec spec, rpmBuildPkgFlags > pkgFlags, int didInstall, int test) { Package pkg; -rpmRC rc = RPMRC_OK; +rpmRC res = RPMRC_OK; How reliable is it

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add znver1 arches with 32-bit + 64-bit variants and proper CPU detection (#1035)

2020-02-02 Thread mikhailnov
Why znver1 only, why only this architecture? It looks a bit strange -- 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] elfdeps: Add full multiarch deps support (#1038)

2020-02-02 Thread mikhailnov
It would be nice to add e2k here -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1038#issuecomment-581179105___ Rpm-maint

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Process scripltlets by dependency generators (#1033)

2020-01-31 Thread mikhailnov
As far as I understand, dependencies for %port/%pre and other scripltets are generated only by schebang. I want to try to generate them for the content of the script itself by feeding the path or content of the script to a dependency generator like `%__script_requires`. But I do not know if it

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Print all build errors and do not stop after the first error (#1020)

2020-01-31 Thread mikhailnov
mikhailnov commented on this pull request. > @@ -3107,7 +3107,7 @@ rpmRC processBinaryFiles(rpmSpec spec, rpmBuildPkgFlags > pkgFlags, int didInstall, int test) { Package pkg; -rpmRC rc = RPMRC_OK; +rpmRC res = RPMRC_OK; Do you mean that not eve

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Print all build errors and do not stop after the first error (#1020)

2020-01-29 Thread mikhailnov
mikhailnov commented on this pull request. > @@ -3107,7 +3107,7 @@ rpmRC processBinaryFiles(rpmSpec spec, rpmBuildPkgFlags > pkgFlags, int didInstall, int test) { Package pkg; -rpmRC rc = RPMRC_OK; +rpmRC res = RPMRC_OK; @pmatilai I agree that *

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Print all build errors and do not stop after the first error (#1020)

2020-01-29 Thread mikhailnov
mikhailnov commented on this pull request. > @@ -3107,7 +3107,7 @@ rpmRC processBinaryFiles(rpmSpec spec, rpmBuildPkgFlags > pkgFlags, int didInstall, int test) { Package pkg; -rpmRC rc = RPMRC_OK; +rpmRC res = RPMRC_OK; `res` is also use

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Print all build errors and do not stop after the first error (#1020)

2020-01-28 Thread mikhailnov
mikhailnov commented on this pull request. > @@ -3107,7 +3107,7 @@ rpmRC processBinaryFiles(rpmSpec spec, rpmBuildPkgFlags > pkgFlags, int didInstall, int test) { Package pkg; -rpmRC rc = RPMRC_OK; +rpmRC res = RPMRC_OK; but I can resto

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Print all build errors and do not stop after the first error (#1020)

2020-01-28 Thread mikhailnov
mikhailnov commented on this pull request. > @@ -3107,7 +3107,7 @@ rpmRC processBinaryFiles(rpmSpec spec, rpmBuildPkgFlags > pkgFlags, int didInstall, int test) { Package pkg; -rpmRC rc = RPMRC_OK; +rpmRC res = RPMRC_OK; rc stands for "return

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Print all build errors and do not stop after the first error (#1020)

2020-01-28 Thread mikhailnov
@mikhailnov pushed 1 commit. e6eb6a3caa22ae4332433b23c440322d6980ddf1 Print all build errors and do not stop after the first error -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1020/files

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Print all build errors and do not stop after the first error (#1020)

2020-01-28 Thread mikhailnov
Example situation: in the spec file, I had: %{_libdir}/pulse/gsettings-helper and I got an error that this file had not been found, but in reality that file existed but in %{_libexecdir}/pulse/gsettings-helper. I had to _guess_ that it exists. According to RPM log, it was not obvious. RPM 5

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Document RPM generator input and output format (#1011)

2020-01-16 Thread mikhailnov
Btw, there is a typo: > Generators can be declare in the file attributes declare -> declared -- 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] Document RPM generator input and output format (#1011)

2020-01-16 Thread mikhailnov
> Um, input and output format haven't changed since beginning of times, the > generator doc says: > "A generator is just an executable that reads file name(s) from stdin and > writes out Provides: or Requires: on stdout" > > It's always been one per line, but added a note about that to the doc

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Document RPM generator input and output format (#1011)

2020-01-15 Thread mikhailnov
Maybe `echo -n ` is used to additionally print `= XXX`, then the output format must be just line-by-line values? -- 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] Document RPM generator input and output format (#1011)

2020-01-15 Thread mikhailnov
I have found what was wrong ("NAME needs to be replaced by the name choosen for the file attribute and needs to be the same as the file name of the macro file itself"). But please document the input and output format. `pkgconfigdeps.sh` uses `echo -n 'value '` and then `echo` an empty line,

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Document RPM generator input and output format (#1011)

2020-01-15 Thread mikhailnov
I have been writing an RPM generator (https://rpm.org/user_doc/dependency_generators.html) and I can't understand which output format it must have. Script is here: https://abf.io/import/devel-rpm-generators/ It simply does not work, no provides/requires are generated, I have looked into

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] xzdio: Add line break to warning (#1007)

2020-01-13 Thread mikhailnov
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1007 -- Commit Summary -- * xzdio: Add line break to warning -- File Changes -- M rpmio/rpmio.c (2) -- Patch Links --

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Incorrect length of unknown filedigest algos (#959)

2020-01-04 Thread mikhailnov
This seems to be related: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/commit/74766d30b95f1575df8a42d185f2643caa235a8b -- 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] Incorrect length of unknown filedigest algos (#959)

2019-11-28 Thread mikhailnov
We have implemented Stribog 256bit filedigest algorithm in RPM 5. Let's dump hashes of files inside it using RPM which has Stribog-256 implemented: ``` [root@rosa-2019 tmp]# rpm -qp --dump grep-3.3-3-rosa2019.0.x86_64.rpm /bin/egrep 28 1574950713