Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Don't auto-enable IO flushing on non-rotational disks (#1253)

2020-06-03 Thread Florian Festi
This patch should also change the comment in macros.in as -1 no longer means auto detection. Otherwise this is obviously fine. -- 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] Fix: bump up the limit of signature header to 64MB (#1252)

2020-06-03 Thread Panu Matilainen
> So [1] missed to multiply by 1024. Whoops :rofl: Thanks for spotting and the fix! -- 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] Fix: bump up the limit of signature header to 64MB (#1252)

2020-06-03 Thread Panu Matilainen
Merged #1252 into master. -- 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/1252#event-3400896760___ Rpm-maint mailing list

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

2020-06-03 Thread Panu Matilainen
Okay, this sounds like its headed to the right direction then, I agree this seems like something where the kernel needs to deal with it because it's the only thing that can. I see block size is an argument passed to the ioctl() that enables this fsverity for a file, but what does that actually

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Notify other programs when the rpmdb is changed via DBus (#1249)

2020-06-03 Thread Florian Festi
Question here is what to actually send over the bus. For the initial use case just announcing the end of a transaction is enough. This allows long running processes to clue in on other tools changing the rpmdb. But there is obviously more that could be done: Announcing the start of a

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix python ts.addErase() not raising exception on not-found packages (#1251)

2020-06-03 Thread Panu Matilainen
@pmatilai pushed 1 commit. f7dec8c4a4661cdce945c999c49cba7b2403a2c8 Fix python ts.addErase() not raising exception on not-found packages -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Don't auto-enable IO flushing on non-rotational disks (#1253)

2020-06-03 Thread Panu Matilainen
Gah, true. Thanks for spotting, fixed now. -- 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/1253#issuecomment-638058732___

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Don't auto-enable IO flushing on non-rotational disks (#1253)

2020-06-03 Thread Panu Matilainen
@pmatilai pushed 1 commit. a5e0532b6f276feb2d6fe92483d51d0b92fe09d7 Don't auto-enable IO flushing on non-rotational disks -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. View it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Don't auto-enable IO flushing on non-rotational disks (#1253)

2020-06-03 Thread Florian Festi
Merged #1253 into master. -- 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/1253#event-3401230871___ Rpm-maint mailing list

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Don't auto-enable IO flushing on non-rotational disks (#1253)

2020-06-03 Thread Panu Matilainen
Commit 47e2463d8a98a7535e141d59d17be17d5a30862c added logic to enable %_flush_io automatically on non-rotational disks to avoid trashing system caches and IO peaks on the grounds that this isnt so expensive on SSD, but real world experience suggests otherwise. Install times go from seconds to

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix python ts.addErase() not raising exception on not-found packages (#1251)

2020-06-03 Thread Panu Matilainen
Okay @ffesti pointed out that the initial version was buggy too if multiple entries were being processed, and the logic wasn't that clear anyway. Updated to just test for no matches-case explicitly, which is much more obvious. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix python ts.addErase() not raising exception on not-found packages (#1251)

2020-06-03 Thread Florian Festi
Still not quite sure what the right behaviour is here. Raising the exception when passing in an non existing header number is all fine. It may also be fine for a name/label that is not found in the rpmdb. Where things get murky is when passing in an empty match iterator. I could imagine some

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Support rpm version comparison in expressions (#1233)

2020-06-03 Thread jessorensen
@jessorensen commented on this pull request. > @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ #include #include +#include Nevermind, doing a git reset --hard, cleared some local changes to preinstall.am, which fixed it. Sorry for the noise. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix python ts.addErase() not raising exception on not-found packages (#1251)

2020-06-03 Thread Panu Matilainen
So that empty iterator will pass right through because that iterator is never false (another quirk in there, deity knows how long), and this new revision actually reintroduced the specific bug this was supposed to fix. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply

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

2020-06-03 Thread jessorensen
I have pushed the update - let me know if there's anything else that needs addressing. -- 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)

2020-06-03 Thread jessorensen
> Okay, this sounds like its headed to the right direction then, I agree this > seems like something where the kernel needs to deal with it because it's the > only thing that can. > > I see block size is an argument passed to the ioctl() that enables this > fsverity for a file, but what does

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Support rpm version comparison in expressions (#1233)

2020-06-03 Thread jessorensen
@jessorensen commented on this pull request. > @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ #include #include +#include This change breaks the build for me here: ``` libtool: compile: gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I.. -I.. -I../include/ -I../misc -DRPMCONFIGDIR=\"/usr/lib/rpm\" -DLOCALSTATEDIR=\"/var\" -I../luaext/

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Fix python ts.addErase() not raising exception on not-found packages (#1251)

2020-06-03 Thread Panu Matilainen
Eg: ``` >>> bool(ts.dbMatch('packages', 123456789)) True >>> bool(ts.dbMatch('name', 'xzyd')) False >>> bool(ts.dbMatch('name', 'rpm')) True ``` -- 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] Fix python ts.addErase() not raising exception on not-found packages (#1251)

2020-06-03 Thread Panu Matilainen
All that said, I do agree that allowing an empty match iterator to be passed in seems like a useful case to support. -- 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] Fix python ts.addErase() not raising exception on not-found packages (#1251)

2020-06-03 Thread Panu Matilainen
Eh, this is so broken I doubt anybody can have relied on any particular behavior. On RPMDBI_PACKAGES mi is always true whether there is something on it or not, but eg 'name' matches actually mean something. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Psmpre and psmpost plugin callbacks executed multiple times per package (#1254)

2020-06-03 Thread Florian Festi
As psmpre and psmpost callbacks are basically used to report on the installed/removed packages one would think each of them is called exactly once per package. Unfortunately rpmpsmRun - which triggers them - is also called for other occasions like executing %posttrans and %verify scriptlets and

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Psmpre and psmpost plugin callbacks executed multiple times per package (#1254)

2020-06-03 Thread Panu Matilainen
That they get called multiple times could be considered a feature too, for example a plugin could hook in there to be able to do stuff each time a package file is opened. Rather than try bend those to something different, I think we'd be better off with actual install/erase hooks. -- You are