Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] debugedit: Implement DWARF-5. (#1329)

2020-08-13 Thread Jan Kratochvil
Closed #1329. -- 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/1329#event-3650665257___ Rpm-maint mailing list

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] debugedit: Implement DWARF-5. (#1329)

2020-08-13 Thread Panu Matilainen
Just FYI, you can run the CI locally (podman required) with: `make ci` Also it's okay to submit a work-in-progress PR that is not for merging yet, just add BLOCKED label to it, that tells others not to bother with it. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] debugedit: Implement DWARF-5. (#1329)

2020-08-13 Thread Jan Kratochvil
podman fails for me but I will try some `make check` in some VM next time; I did not want to spend time fixing local check: `* "localhost/fedora:32": Error initializing source docker://localhost/fedora:32: error pinging docker registry localhost: Get "https://localhost/v2/": x509: certificate

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Missing concise descriptions for rpm header tags (#1319)

2020-08-13 Thread Panu Matilainen
In other words, it simply means that rpm doesn't actually *do* anything with it. The only thing rpm does with SELinux is that on install, it queries the system policy for correct file contexts. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Work around buggy signature region preventing resigning (RhBug:1851508) (#1330)

2020-08-13 Thread Florian Festi
Merged #1330 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/1330#event-3652177653___ Rpm-maint mailing list

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Unexpected behavior when using -q --queryformat in %pre scriplet (#1331)

2020-08-13 Thread Ivan Dzikovsky
I need to backup some conf files of my package during upgrade into directory called e.g `/mypackage-`. So I'm trying to get old package version in `%pre` scriplet and doing it in the following way: ``` %pre VERS=$(rpm --queryformat='%{VERSION}' -q mypackage) VERS_ALTERNATIVE=$(rpm -qi mypackage

[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Work around buggy signature region preventing resigning (RhBug:1851508) (#1330)

2020-08-13 Thread Panu Matilainen
Various proprietary packages in the wild have subtly malformed data in the signature header, in particular wrt the immutable region size, presumably from using some in-house/3rd party signing tools which do not understand the immutable region business at all. This can prevent resigning and

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Unexpected behavior when using -q --queryformat in %pre scriplet (#1331)

2020-08-13 Thread Florian Festi
Closed #1331. -- 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/1331#event-3652419234___ Rpm-maint mailing list

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Unexpected behavior when using -q --queryformat in %pre scriplet (#1331)

2020-08-13 Thread Florian Festi
`%{VERSION}` is replaced within the spec file itself. You need to use `%%{VERSION}` to avoid expanding the macro right away. As you already said this is probably a really bad idea anyway. RPM actually does backup modified config files on it's own if they are tagged as config files in the

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Unexpected behavior when using -q --queryformat in %pre scriplet (#1331)

2020-08-13 Thread Ivan Dzikovsky
Thank you, and sorry for wrong bug report. -- 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/1331#issuecomment-673523429___

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Missing concise descriptions for rpm header tags (#1319)

2020-08-13 Thread Bernhard Schuster
The only meaningful reference I could find on packaging policies is https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SELinux_Independent_Policy Looking at memcached, the policy file is simply packaged as a sub-package of the actual package

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Missing concise descriptions for rpm header tags (#1319)

2020-08-13 Thread Panu Matilainen
Like said, rpm has some support for packaging policies BUT nothing inside or outside rpm actually uses that data. So for all practical purposes, rpm has no special support for packaging policies, hence the Fedora style packaging. The partial support is a leftover from attempted policy support,

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] rpmdb --exportdb needs write access to the lock file (#1266)

2020-08-13 Thread Panu Matilainen
I agree --exportdb should work on read-only fs. Unprivileged user is a different matter, we can't really let unprivileged user to block system updates through ro-locking. -- 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 4.16.0 beta3 released!

2020-08-13 Thread Thierry Vignaud
Le mer. 24 juin 2020 à 10:47, Panu Matilainen a écrit : > > > This fixes multiple dependency generator related regressions introduced > beta2, by reverting the "fail build on dependency generator failure" > change introduced there. > > We don't usually release new tarballs just because an issue

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Missing concise descriptions for rpm header tags (#1319)

2020-08-13 Thread Bernhard Schuster
Closed #1319. -- 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/1319#event-3653848372___ Rpm-maint mailing list