Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RPM fsverity support (#1203)

2020-05-29 Thread Panu Matilainen
@pmatilai commented on this pull request. > @@ -430,6 +438,10 @@ typedef enum rpmSigTag_e { RPMSIGTAG_SHA256 = RPMTAG_SHA256HEADER, RPMSIGTAG_FILESIGNATURES = RPMTAG_SIG_BASE + 18, RPMSIGTAG_FILESIGNATURELENGTH = RPMTAG_SIG_BASE + 19, +

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RPM fsverity support (#1203)

2020-05-29 Thread Panu Matilainen
@pmatilai commented on this pull request. > +} + +rpmlog(RPMLOG_DEBUG, _("key: %s\n"), key); +rpmlog(RPMLOG_DEBUG, _("cert: %s\n"), cert); + +compr = headerGetString(h, RPMTAG_PAYLOADCOMPRESSOR); +rpmio_flags = rstrscat(NULL, "r.", compr ? compr : "gzip", NULL); + +gzdi

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Automatic (sub)package generators (#329)

2020-05-29 Thread Dan Čermák
cc: @scarabeusiv @darix @coolo This could be relevant for subpackage generation for Ruby and Python in openSUSE/SLE. -- 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 fsverity support (#1203)

2020-05-29 Thread Panu Matilainen
@pmatilai commented on this pull request. > if (deleting) { /* Nuke all the signature tags. */ deleteSigs(sigh); + deleteFileSigs(sigh); Yeah, having a single option for both types of file signatures should be plenty. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RPM fsverity support (#1203)

2020-05-29 Thread Panu Matilainen
@pmatilai commented on this pull request. > + rpmlog(RPMLOG_DEBUG, "fsverity not supported by file system for > %s\n", + path); + break; + case EOPNOTSUPP: + rpmlog(RPMLOG_DEBUG, "fsverity not enabled on file system for %s\n", +

[Rpm-maint] RPM 4.16.0 beta1 released!

2020-05-29 Thread Panu Matilainen
The gap between alpha and beta was longer than usual because we were waiting for bug reports for the new sqlite backend from wider exposure in Fedora. After two months, we figured we can't wait forever. Zero filed bugs is almost certainly too good to be entirely true, but it's a not a bad

[Rpm-maint] Announcing POPT upstream reboot and 1.18 release candidate (DRAFT)

2020-05-29 Thread Panu Matilainen
At the time of the rpm.org upstream reboot back in 2006 [1], the idea was to split out popt from the rpm codebase and then ... something. Only we were too busy dealing with rpm itself and popt got left behind. The last popt release is from 2010 and about a year ago it's download site

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Automatic (sub)package generators (#329)

2020-05-29 Thread darix
Isn't this basically the template idea that was presented at the opensuse conference in 2019? -- 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: Automatic (sub)package generators (#329)

2020-05-29 Thread darix
no Florian gave a talk about it. https://media.ccc.de/v/2501-re-thinking-spec-files -- 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: Automatic (sub)package generators (#329)

2020-05-29 Thread ニール・ゴンパ
It is the thing that @ignatenkobrain and I were talking about last year, 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] RFE: Automatic (sub)package generators (#329)

2020-05-29 Thread ニール・ゴンパ
cc: @hroncok This is something we should look toward for next-gen Python packaging stuff. -- 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: Automatic (sub)package generators (#329)

2020-05-29 Thread ニール・ゴンパ
Ah, I forgot that he talked about it too. -- 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/329#issuecomment-635976924___

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Approved: l10n: zh_TW: update translation (#1237)

2020-05-29 Thread pan93412
@pan93412 pushed 1 commit. 78286c9d5044a53c16f7669764b31fbd36797788 l10n: zh_TW: fix the issues in translation -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RPM fsverity support (#1203)

2020-05-29 Thread jessorensen
@jessorensen commented on this pull request. > @@ -430,6 +438,10 @@ typedef enum rpmSigTag_e { RPMSIGTAG_SHA256 = RPMTAG_SHA256HEADER, RPMSIGTAG_FILESIGNATURES = RPMTAG_SIG_BASE + 18, RPMSIGTAG_FILESIGNATURELENGTH = RPMTAG_SIG_BASE + 19, +

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RPM fsverity support (#1203)

2020-05-29 Thread jessorensen
@jessorensen commented on this pull request. > + rpmlog(RPMLOG_DEBUG, "fsverity not supported by file system for > %s\n", + path); + break; + case EOPNOTSUPP: + rpmlog(RPMLOG_DEBUG, "fsverity not enabled on file system for %s\n", +

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RPM fsverity support (#1203)

2020-05-29 Thread jessorensen
I have pushed an updated patchset into the repo. I think it addresses everything we discussed, including getting rid of the LENGTH and BLKSZ tags, adding the --delfilesign option to rpmsign, and switches to base64 encoding. Let me know if you find anything else that needs addressing or if I