Merged #1514 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/1514#event-4266568589___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Long time, no activity. Is this still being worked on?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
The problem here is that it reserves a letter in a common namespace for a
highly compressor-specific option. I've no objections to support
compressor-specific things somehow, but we need to isolate them to a section of
their own somehow, eg put them after an optional extra delimiter in the
Closed #1239.
--
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/1239#event-4266561742___
Rpm-maint mailing list
I see your concerns and the pull request is hack a bit. On the other hand,
`zstd` provides a nice thread pool functionality and package build really
benefits from it. Right now, packages like Firefox also mostly compressed in
one thread as compression of the biggest `.rpm` takes minutes.
--
Been thinking about it on and off. It'd be one thing if it was just allocating
cpu's out of N available, but we're married to OMP which doesn't want to be
micro-managed from the outside, and then we have these independent libraries
using their own threading schemes...
--
You are receiving
OK, I'll fold the comments into the Markdown docs.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@encukou commented on this pull request.
> ## Check whether an option is enabled or disabled
-To define `BuildRequires` depending on the command-line switch, you can use the
-`%{with foo}` macro:
+To make parts of the spec file conditional depending on the command-line
+switch, you can use
@encukou pushed 1 commit.
e0d581b9b7c47b1817700cc35ea99a21963a97df Add newly added file to Makefile.am
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
@encukou pushed 1 commit.
9218cbdeef7a9839d7a7b1033d5325c3e0444d34 Fix typos in docs
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
This got stalled ages ago, and in the meanwhile the Arm stuff has been
reverted, the last of those as late as
6e51ca5959d9e5159fdd75c0462c900d342f2cce. So we're back to square one and this
PR is no longer applicable, if/when there's something more to do lets start
afresh in a new ticket/PR.
Closed #946.
--
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/946#event-4266226465___
Rpm-maint mailing list
This seems to have stalled without coming to much any conclusion.
"Make it like Debian" is not a fix when it breaks compatibility with existing
systems and packages. Sorry but I have no choice but to close this.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this
Closed #916.
--
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/916#event-4266279718___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Fixes: #939
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1524
-- Commit Summary --
* Add popt to our pkgconfig dependencies
-- File Changes --
M rpm.pc.in (1)
-- Patch Links --
Okay, we got a brand new popt out there for a while now, might as well get this
over with. It's not like anybody is really dependent on popt older than 1.16.
Since there's now a conflict, and the delay is really our fault, handling this
by myself via #1524.
Thanks for the patch!
--
You are
Closed #940.
--
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/940#event-4266056164___
Rpm-maint mailing list
@Conan-Kudo approved this pull request.
--
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/1524#pullrequestreview-579236161___
@pmatilai Squash your fixup commit into the other one, and I think it's good to
go.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@Conan-Kudo approved this pull request.
You beat me to it! BDB has served us well since the beginning, now it's time to
say farewell...
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Merged #1524 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/1524#event-4266073147___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Closed #939 via #1524.
--
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/939#event-4266073163___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Oh BTW,
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/blob/master/doc/manual/conditionalbuilds.md
would be a better place for bulk of the documentation, the fact that there's
verbose documentation with examples on pre-existing %bcond in macros file is
only a historical artifact from not
With the way this is going, I suspect there's one or two more BDB references
lurking about somewhere :sweat_smile:
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Closed #931.
--
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/931#event-4266145879___
Rpm-maint mailing list
With #1328 merged I am not sure if we really want to add another feature to
control changelog behaviour right now. Closing.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@pmatilai pushed 1 commit.
a2be4a808ad6b3b5de7441ec7c878d7cad00c0fc Remove support for Berkeley Database
backend
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
> removing BDB itself now is a simple act
...or it *should* be. I had it all done locally but must've messed up something
with git. Sigh.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Closed #1418 via #1515.
--
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/1418#event-4266021478___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Closed #545 via f67d239ccd709d44f5258a5ead01502a0b437d48.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Merged #1515 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/1515#event-4266021470___
Rpm-maint mailing list
We all want to get rid of BDB, but in order to do that we have to pick a new
default.
Sqlite has a proven track record over multiple decades in terms of
compatibility and longevity, and is the nobody ever got fired
for... choice in this space really. Its also developer friendly as
the
@pmatilai pushed 1 commit.
1535cb0f742fce8971a371bbc5927a55a92fff4b Remove support for Berkeley Database
backend
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
@pmatilai pushed 1 commit.
85bd36b3259c180d68c98b8e0e9abe7dcdcd25fe Remove support for Berkeley Database
backend
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
@pmatilai pushed 1 commit.
3767ec34a7dda9fb92a51307128539574d3e1c8e Remove support for Berkeley Database
backend
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
The added tests are failing probably because the added spec is missing from
tests/Makefile.am.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@hroncok commented on this pull request.
>
-To use this feature in a spec file, add this to the beginning of the file:
+To enable a build conditional in a spec file, use the `%bcond` macro at the
+beginning of the file, specifying the name of the conditional and its default
+value:
+
+```
+#
In general, I like this feature, and once it lands in RPM, I'll probably port
this to debbuild. It makes a ton more sense than the existing stuff.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@lubomir commented on this pull request.
> ## Check whether an option is enabled or disabled
-To define `BuildRequires` depending on the command-line switch, you can use the
-`%{with foo}` macro:
+To make parts of the spec file conditional depending on the command-line
+switch, you can use
@pmatilai pushed 1 commit.
7ba9793302b033821fab6d3f01e02eece49c7b30 fixup! Remove support for Berkeley
Database backend
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
Thanks for the patch!
--
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/1487#issuecomment-769827089___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Merged #1487 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/1487#event-4266343082___
Rpm-maint mailing list
All info from the comments in the macro file is in the docs, except that:
> When checking conditions: never use `without_foo`, `_with_foo` nor
> `_without_foo`, only `with_foo`.
contradics with the [Pass it to
No comments and no objections from anybody, guess this is good to go. The
rpath-check isn't wired to anything in rpm so it's a low risk thing anyhow.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
> So, I'd like to remove that section entirely.
Feel free. I doubt anybody has paid this close attention to the docs in
decades...
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Merged #1478 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/1478#event-4266370988___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Thanks for the patch!
--
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/1478#issuecomment-769830494___
Rpm-maint mailing list
47 matches
Mail list logo
