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:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1395#issuecomment-734501309___
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 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 systems will want /usr/local/bin (`./configure --bindir= --prefix=) 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/1395#pullrequestreview-539570683___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


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 used for that...
>
Are dependency generators run after %__spec_install_post / brp-strip?


-- 
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1393#issuecomment-734499098___
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 --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@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


[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 `java-1.8.0-openjdk-devel` was installed and make a 
query:
```
$ rpm -q --whatrequires java-1.8.0-openjdk-devel
no package requires java-1.8.0-openjdk-devel
```

But:
```
$ rpm -q --whatrequires java-devel
wildfly-10.1.0-14.noarch
```

I expected to see `wildfly` in the output of `rpm -q --whatrequires 
java-1.8.0-openjdk-devel`. Is it a bug or a feature?

RPM is 4.16.0:
```
user@ROSA-Nickel ~ $ rpm -q rpm
rpm-4.16.0-6.x86_64
```



-- 
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___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


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:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1399#issuecomment-708218687___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


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 mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/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` does work, but defines shells for all 
sections (%prep, %build, %install).

To my mind `__spec_prep_shell ` is the shell which is used to execute the 
%build script, no? I cannot find where `__spec*shell` macros are used in the 
code, they seem to be dead.

-- 
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___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


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 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-706605898___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


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
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


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 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-706604955___
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 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 directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1121#issuecomment-703518161___
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 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:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1364#issuecomment-697122139___
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 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 to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1364#issuecomment-695352021___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


[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. Why 
can't there be a tag the value of which will be just "metacity"?

-- 
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/1364___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] 4.15.1: 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:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1362#issuecomment-695348482___
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 -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:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1342#issuecomment-678501299___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


[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 package requires bootsplash
live@rosa2019 ~ $ rpm -qR Rosa-theme-EE
/bin/sh
/bin/sh
/bin/sh
bootsplash >= 3.3.0
plymouth-plugin-script >= 0.8.2
plymouth-system-theme
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
live@rosa2019 ~ $
```

`rpm -q --whatrequires bootsplash` must have shown Rosa-theme-EE and 
bootsplash-themes but has not.
BerkelyDB is used for now.

Seems to be a bug.

If it is useful, this is an out of the box issue in this LiveCD: 
https://abf.io/platforms/rosa2019.1/products/273/product_build_lists/34888


-- 
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/1342___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


[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 documentation (for example, if 
someone wants to reduce disk usage
by not installing documentation, he will also not want help files),
so lets add them to the default %__docdir_path
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

  https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1295

-- Commit Summary --

  * Treat /usr/share/gnome/help as docs

-- File Changes --

M macros.in (2)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1295.patch
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1295.diff

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1295
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add OrderWithRequires dependency generation (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:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/commit/32e2bc50cff9db05729349ff6645a0251d5719fb#commitcomment-39775833___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


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

2020-06-09 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 them, but 
I'm not sure.

```
# rpm -E %systemd_ordering
OrderWithRequires(post): systemd 
OrderWithRequires(preun): systemd 
OrderWithRequires(postun): systemd 
```

Implemention of Requires(pre) etc. generators will be ugly because it will 
requires to add each RPMTAG separately. It would be nice if the generator could 
print e.g. `post: xxx` to stdout, but it cannot be implemented with the current 
architecture of generators as far as I understand.
Scriptlets can be converted into files 
(https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1033#issuecomment-583142300),
 it would easify making generators for them.

@Conan-Kudo pointed that most scriptlets are designed to fail silently, e.g. 
scriptlets that call `systemctl` fail silently if systemd is not installed, 
what allows to make a minmal system aithout systemd. Adding 'Requires(pre): 
systemd' will break this usecase. 'OrderWithRequires(pre): systemd' would solve 
that. In some other cases it is useful to make sure that the binary which is 
called is already installed and has all its dependencies satisfied when the 
scriptlet is executed. `bash --rpm-requires` can be used to generate 
(OrderWith)Requires for scriptlets.

Maybe generatore 'Provides: cmd(xxx)' for files inside /sbin /usr/sbin /bin 
/usr/bin and convert the output of `bash --rpm-requires` to 
'OrderWithRequires(scriptlet type): cmd(xxx)'

These are just some thoughts...

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1257#issuecomment-641245796___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add OrderWithRequires dependency generation (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 
%__find_orderwithrequires because I am not sure how it should work, probably 
off the internal dependency generator and define this macro? Which variant is 
correct?

-- 
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/commit/32e2bc50cff9db05729349ff6645a0251d5719fb#commitcomment-39774778___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


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

2020-06-09 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 GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1257#issuecomment-641206157___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


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

2020-06-07 Thread 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 email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1257#issuecomment-640264300___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


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

2020-06-07 Thread 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 directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1257#issuecomment-640263148___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


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:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1258#issuecomment-640224570___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


[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 this pull request online at:

  https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1258

-- Commit Summary --

  * Fail the build if %_build_pkgcheck_set failed

-- File Changes --

M build/pack.c (7)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1258.patch
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1258.diff

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1258
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


[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 
ensure
that systemd is installed before that package.

It will help to avoid adding %systemd_ordering manually to all 
packages using systemd.
Having systemd preinstalled before packages with systemd scriptlets is really 
important,
otherwise those scriptlets fail silently, and the resulting ISO or chroot may 
be broken.

The same makes sense for e.g. systemd-sysusers, systemd-tmpfiles.

An RPM generator using this functionality was implemented: 
https://abf.io/import/order-rpm-generators
Rebuilding packages with systemd stuff in rosa2019.05 using this generator has 
already helped
to improve installation order, e.g. make e.g. openvpn be installed when systemd 
already exists
in a big transaction with ~3500 packages when building a big ISO image.
Before that openvpn was installed when systemd did not exist yet.

P.S. This patch adds %__find_orderwithrequires, maybe that is legacy code that 
should not be changed.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

  https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1257

-- Commit Summary --

  * Add OrderWithRequires dependency generation

-- File Changes --

M build/rpmfc.c (10)
M build/rpmfc.h (7)
M tools/rpmdeps.c (6)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1257.patch
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1257.diff

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1257
___
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 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:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1121#issuecomment-600920484___
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 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 may be turned on by a macro and thay 
can be automatically put to packages of an optimized subarch.

-- 
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/1035#issuecomment-596231656___
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 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 do not forget about function multiversioning in Clear Linux - this is when 
some specific libraries are compiled in different variants.
I think that here a more generic approach is needed. In the vast majority of 
cases building packages for an a86_64 subarch like znver1 will not make sense, 
for example, is there a reason to make and test by QA separate variants of e.g. 
lightdm, sddm, plasma5-workspace, thunar, nautilus etc.? Is there any reason to 
spend resources on testing a separate branch of packages?
OpenMandriva does not have QA mostly, they probably did not consider this 
aspect.

So, to my mind, a more generic approach must allow to build only some special 
packages for a subarch and keep most of the packages of the main architecture. 
Something like function multiversioning intergated into the packaging system.

-- 
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/1035#issuecomment-596158605___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


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 directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1088#issuecomment-591927356___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


[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 
make it work in rpm 4.15.1.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1088___
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 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:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1082#issuecomment-590254191___
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 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 anything elsewhere in RPM?

-- 
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/1082#issuecomment-590251268___
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 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 */
+PGPHASHALGO_GOST12_256 = 100,  /*!< GOST R 34.11-2012 256 */
+PGPHASHALGO_GOST12_512 = 101,  /*!< GOST R 34.11-2012 512 */

@mlschroe What is "the GOST project"? I am not aware of any attempts to include 
GOST to OpenPGP RFC, but maybe someone tried, I do not know. We in ROSA with 
@StZhukov first wanted to implement signing RPM payload with GOST as it is 
signed with gpg, but then we found out that OpenPGP RFC does not support GOST, 
so implementing it does not make much sense. I would not expect GOST algos to 
appear in the RFC in the nearest future. Because of all this I would suggest to 
use values >110 here, which are not specified in the RFC and so will never 
become used by other algorithms.

-- 
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/1082#discussion_r382622766___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


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 
"Requires(pre)" or "Requires(post)" needed here, only just "Requires". Does 
e.g. `dnf `guarantee that "Requires" are installed before %pre and %post are 
executed? I am pretty sure that no.
` %__scriptlets_directory` can be removed before packing the package or can be 
left, e.g. if `%__scriptlets_directory_remove` == 0.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1033#issuecomment-583142300___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


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 you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1033#issuecomment-583138042___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


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:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1033#issuecomment-583109582___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


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 already 
interesting.

-- 
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/1033#issuecomment-583108854___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


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}
macros.in-923-#%__spec_autodep_post %{___build_post}
```

What is this and what do they do?

-- 
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/1033#issuecomment-582670875___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


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:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1033#issuecomment-582021939___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


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, than it will be a big win to set correct order of installing 
packages, I am pretty sure.

-- 
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/1033#issuecomment-581984720___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


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 to see if %_debug_package is %nil to disable filtering 
*.debug files?

-- 
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/1020#discussion_r373877391___
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 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:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1035#issuecomment-581179453___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


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 mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/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 is already 
possible or not and cannot find relevant code where dependencies by shebang are 
generated for scriptlets.

Is it possible to do, and where is that code?

-- 
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/1033___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


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 everybode will have ```%__check_files``` defined to that 
script?

-- 
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/1020#discussion_r373415590___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


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 *.debug files are odd there, may be you know how to fix 
it rather simply?

-- 
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/1020#discussion_r372304597___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


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 used, e.g. in parseForSimple() and in many other palces (`grep 
-nHr 'res ='`) and usage of `res` there is much more alike the case that we are 
dicscussing than usage of `rc`

-- 
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/1020#discussion_r372284493___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


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 restore `rc` if it is a common variable across the whole code

-- 
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/1020#discussion_r372127007___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


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 code", res stands for "result", "return code" is not what 
this variable means

-- 
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/1020#discussion_r372126274___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


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/339a3ac7d5b1961fbfbaa37b87958bc225fb528f..e6eb6a3caa22ae4332433b23c440322d6980ddf1
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


[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 printed both not found and unpackaged files, and this RPM 4 behaviour 
seems to cause waste of a lot of time.

Lets print both not found and not packaged files and all other errors that 
have happened.

TODO: eliminate `*.debug` from the output. Current output is like this:
```
error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
   
/usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/pulse-13.0/modules/module-gsettings.so-13.0-2.x86_64.debug
   /usr/lib/debug/usr/libexec/pulse/gsettings-helper-13.0-2.x86_64.debug
   /usr/libexec/pulse/gsettings-helper
File not found: 
/tmp/abf/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/pulseaudio-13.0-2.x86_64/usr/lib64/pulse/gsettings-helper
Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
   
/usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/pulse-13.0/modules/module-gsettings.so-13.0-2.x86_64.debug
   /usr/lib/debug/usr/libexec/pulse/gsettings-helper-13.0-2.x86_64.debug
   /usr/libexec/pulse/gsettings-helper
```

I do not know yet how to deal with `*.debug`, any ideas?
Also I am not sure about possible side effects.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

  https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1020

-- Commit Summary --

  * Print all build errors and do not stop after the first error

-- File Changes --

M build/files.c (17)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1020.patch
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1020.diff

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1020
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Document 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:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1011#issuecomment-575351245___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Document 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 now.

It is better now. But still it is not clear that it must print e.g not 
`Requires: xxx`, but just `xxx`.

-- 
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/1011#issuecomment-575350441___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Document 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:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1011#issuecomment-574770755___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Document 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, `find-provides.php` uses just 
`echo` 
(https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/blob/master/scripts/find-provides.php#L14).

Also in https://rpm.org/user_doc/dependency_generators.html it is first written:
"generation of Provides: and Requires:"
but then examples are givven for recommends etc.

-- 
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/1011#issuecomment-574765409___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


[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 
`pkgconfigdeps.sh`, tried to make the same output format, but it still does not 
work. Neither stdout not stderr are printed.
But, if I run it locally, it works correctly:

`` `
bash-4.4# ls /usr/lib64/*.so | $(rpm --eval %__devel_provides) 2>/dev/null
devel(libBrokenLocale(64bit))
devel(libanl(64bit))
devel(libatomic(64bit))
devel(libc(64bit))
devel(libcrypt(64bit))
devel(libdl(64bit))
<...>
```

Just as  `pkgconfigdeps.sh`:
```
bash-4.4# ls /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/*.pc -1v | /usr/lib/rpm/pkgconfigdeps.sh 
--provides
pkgconfig(libzstd) = 1.4.3
pkgconfig(popt) = 1.16
pkgconfig(rpm) = 4.15.1
```

Example build log with this generator enabled: 
https://abf.io/build_lists/3186141

Currently the output method is:
```
echo -n "$@ "
echo
```
(https://abf.io/import/devel-rpm-generators/blob/rosa2019.1/develgen.sh#lc-7)
It is like 
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/blob/master/scripts/pkgconfigdeps.sh#L34

Please help to understand what is wrong in 
https://abf.io/import/devel-rpm-generators/ . There is no documentation.

-- 
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/1011___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


[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 --

https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1007.patch
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1007.diff

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1007
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


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:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/959#issuecomment-570789766___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint


[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 
aa4ae578ca2323caf35beab739f88ea577ab0119063b1aa47954cbe92b686fbc 0100755 root 
root 0 0 0 X
```
Now let's do the same using RPM 4 (and 5 as well) which does not know about 
Stribog:
```
$ rpm -qp --dump ./grep-3.3-3-rosa2019.0.i586.rpm
/bin/egrep 28 1574950717 aa4ae578ca2323caf35beab739f88ea5 0100755 root root 0 0 
0 X
$ rpm --version
RPM version 4.14.2.1
```

The length of the hash is incorrect.
```
aa4ae578ca2323caf35beab739f88ea577ab0119063b1aa47954cbe92b686fbc
aa4ae578ca2323caf35beab739f88ea5
```

I think it is a bug, RPM should have failed to print hashes, but may be it is a 
feature... As I did not investigate the issue, I can't say anything about its 
root cause, may be the size of the hash is not stored anywhere?

That RPM: 
https://file-store.rosalinux.ru/download/948bd31596c572664b870a226f252e38707ad137
 (grep-3.3-3-rosa2019.0.i586.rpm)

-- 
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/959___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint