On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 05:27:09AM +, Alexey Tourbin wrote:
[...]
> --- a/build/pack.c
> +++ b/build/pack.c
> @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@
> #include "build/rpmbuild_misc.h"
>
> #include "debug.h"
> +#include
>
> typedef struct cpioSourceArchive_s {
> rpm_loff_t cpioArchiveSize;
> @@ -9
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 05:27:09AM +, Alexey Tourbin wrote:
> This change introduces a generalized routine rpmExpandMacros() to expand
> macros on behalf of user input, with improved diagnostic facilities.
> In particular, one of its arguments is a callback function which is
> called whenever a
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 02:55:33AM +, Alexey Tourbin wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 05:48:58AM +0400, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 05:27:09AM +, Alexey Tourbin wrote:
> > [...]
> > > --- a/build/pack.c
> > > +++ b/build/pack.c
> &
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 04:33:00PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>
> Hey folks,
>
> Time to get rpm 4.13.0 out of the door. But in order to do that, we'll
> need to cut -rc2 first, there's just too much change to jump right into
> final.
>
> The idea is to get -rc2 out next week (ie by Oc
On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 11:18:59AM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 12/10/2016 01:46 AM, Gleb Fotengauer-Malinovskiy wrote:
> >On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 06:24:02PM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> >>On 10/17/2016 11:05 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> >>>On 10/16/2016 1
Are you going to submit patches like this to every project that uses -lmagic?
Are you going to list every library libmagic might happen to be linked with?
No, -lmagic users should not care about the list of libraries libmagic is
linked with, sorry.
--
You are receiving this because you are subs
First of all, the github review process is awful, a traditional post to the
mailing list would be much better.
wrt your patch,
> fprintf(stderr, "%s: refusing to output archive data to a terminal.\n");
> fprintf(stderr, "%s: refusing to output cpio data to a terminal.\n");
what do you mean by n
ldv-alt commented on this pull request.
Well, this is very primitive.
To get an idea how a real brp-elf checker can look like see e.g.
http://git.altlinux.org/gears/r/..git?p=rpm-build.git;a=blob;f=scripts/verify-elf.in
and its control brp script
http://git.altlinux.org/gears/r/..git?p=rpm-buil
ldv-alt requested changes on this pull request.
> @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+#!/bin/sh
+
+# If using normal root, avoid changing anything.
+if [ -z "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" -o "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" = "/" ]; then
+ exit 0
+fi
+
+find "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" \( -type f -o -type l \) -name \*.la -print0 |
+xargs --n
ldv-alt requested changes on this pull request.
The idea is wrong: you cannot *replace* gzip, bzip2, and xz because they are
much more widespread. The implementation is wrong: it does not achieve the
declared goal.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply t
m/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/175
> Signed-off-by: Gleb Fotengauer-Malinovskiy
Reviewed-by: Dmitry V. Levin
fwiw, we've been using this getline approach in parseSpec
for almost 5 years
(http://git.altlinux.org/gears/r/..git?p=rpm-build.git;a=commitdiff;h=4.0.4-alt100.47-4-g1
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 03:08:57PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Gleb Fotengauer-Malinovskiy wrote:
> > It can be dropped because this code was never actually enabled.
> > Actually, this implementation *surely* never ever compiled.
>
> Are you sure of this? Because th
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 04:15:36PM +0100, Michael Schroeder wrote:
>
> The attached patch makes rpm create -debugsource subpackages containing
> the debug sources.
[...]
> --- a/macros.in
> +++ b/macros.in
> @@ -172,13 +172,11 @@
> #the script. See the script for details.
> #
> %__deb
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 04:15:36PM +0100, Michael Schroeder wrote:
>
> The attached patch makes rpm create -debugsource subpackages containing
> the debug sources.
[...]
> +if [ -n "$srcout" ]; then
> + > "$srcout"
> + if [ -d "${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/usr/src" ]; then
> +(cd "${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/usr
No, fa06b68 is fine; musl provides __progname, all Yocto needs is just use it.
--
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/203#issuecomment-297351148__
Indeed, С.UTF-8 is not in upstream glibc at all.
--
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/227#issuecomment-305975175___
Rp
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 02:49:38PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> glibc 2.25 introduced (really long and annoying) warnings for each use
> of the major/minor macros from the wrong header:
>
> lib/cpio.c: In function ‘rpmcpioHeaderWrite’:
> lib/cpio.c:245:13: warning: In the GNU C Library, "major" i
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 01:24:01PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 17:06 +0300, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> > I'm not sure what sys/mkdev.h does, but glibc's sys/sysmacros.h certainly
> > undefines major, minor, and makedev prior to defining its own ver
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 09:55:24PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> This adds various tests for making sure multiple subpackages are build
> correctly. Without debuginfo subpackages, with subpackages, subpackages
> with unique debug file and source dir paths and with separate debugsources.
[...]
> +#
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 08:15:02PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> The subtle test is too subtle for its own good, this patch breaks
> thirty six testcases on 32bit architectures.
>
> This reverts commit 1eadabe4453ef32eb6c3bc837094e1ca998affcc.
Hi Panu,
With all due respect for your rpm.org mai
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 08:16:12AM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 08/16/2017 11:51 PM, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 08:15:02PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> >> The subtle test is too subtle for its own good, this patch breaks
> >> th
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 08:22:23AM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 08/17/2017 11:28 PM, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 08:16:12AM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> >> On 08/16/2017 11:51 PM, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 08:
@pmatilai, how often do you sync your copy of fts.c with glibc?
I bet your fts.c doesn't have any fixes made in glibc since the last sync.
--
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-manage
@n3npq I wish to get rid of fts.c completely, as well as all other stuff that
belongs to glibc.
I wish you haven't added that stuff in the first place! :)
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rp
@n3npq Why should rpm ever want to walk a remote URI?
Anyway, rpm.org doesn't need its copy of fts.c when linked with glibc >= 2.23,
and the bug is that
- rpm.org's maintainer is not ready to admit this fact and act accordingly;
- his attitude to contributors discourages further contributions.
-
@pmatilai, you are a perfect marvel! Thank you for being so grateful to us for
getting rid of bundled X and fixing your buggy Z.
Thanks everybody for this enlightening discussion, I suppose no more comments
are needed here.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Re
wrt glibc community, please have a look at
https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Proposals/C.UTF-8
--
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/227#issuecomment-339720098___
%optional essentially means "please include this file into the package, but I'm
explicitly OK if it disappears from the package at any time for whatever reason
because I don't care".
Specfile syntax in its current form is already used for careless packaging,
there is hardly any need to encourage
This is the last reference to %__find_prereq macro,
the support for this macro was removed long time ago
by commit 44e5913dae80f1040748441af35fb02b840c397a.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/621
-- Commit Summary
The previous attempt to fail build in case of syntax errors
and unknown dependency qualifiers made in commit
rpm-4.8.0-beta1-385-gbf2bc18ebb325f081ade65adc2fbb6858f0b8396
missed the following classes of erroneous dependencies:
Requires(,) -- erroneously treated as Requires(),
Requires(;) -- errone
30 matches
Mail list logo
