> Fixed via #1640 for a more elaborate commit message + the query.c usage.
> Thanks for spotting and the patch though.
You’re welcome!
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Closed #1617.
--
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/1617#event-4604708382___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Fixed via #1640 for a more elaborate commit message + the query.c usage. Thanks
for spotting and the patch though.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Reopened #1617.
--
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/1617#event-4573459838___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Closed #1617.
--
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/1617#event-4573459405___
Rpm-maint mailing list
@DemiMarie pushed 0 commits.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1617/files/bb1a9658bfd45fac52878d53cd1b5abc8569fa39..d1cc512a9c315c56c90c891c5052d3ebfca6b602
> I reverted e838c48 because the regression it fixed is no longer an issue, and
> it makes life a little more complicated for auditors.
NAK!
That thing has been messed with more than enough, and I've asked you to leave
it alone many times now.
--
You are receiving this because you are
@DemiMarie pushed 2 commits.
d1cc512a9c315c56c90c891c5052d3ebfca6b602 Set RPM_MIN_TYPE to 1
bb1a9658bfd45fac52878d53cd1b5abc8569fa39 Revert "Revert "Check that len is in
range before using it""
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
> Good catch. I'm just wondering if we shouldn't instead change RPM_MIN_TYPE to
> 1, because RPM_NULL_TYPE is not actually a type. This kinda confirms that:
>
> https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/blob/ed0e95a21e1d6cd097f25e56e219d07e45e026b1/lib/query.c#L254
My thoughts exactly
Good catch. I'm just wondering if we shouldn't instead change RPM_MIN_TYPE to
1, because RPM_NULL_TYPE is not actually a type. This kinda confirms that:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/blob/ed0e95a21e1d6cd097f25e56e219d07e45e026b1/lib/query.c#L254
--
You are receiving this
`RPM_NULL_TYPE` is used to mean “unknown type”; it is not a valid type
itself. However, `hdrchkType()` did not reject it. Therefore,
`headerPut()` allowed adding an entry of type `RPM_NULL_TYPE` to a header,
which is wrong.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
11 matches
Mail list logo
