I might try and rewrite this using more modern api
--
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/250#issuecomment-314947659___
simotek commented on this pull request.
> @@ -1103,6 +,12 @@ static void defaultMachine(rpmrcCtx ctx, const char **
> arch, const char ** os)
# endif
# endif
+#if defined(__linux__)
+ /* in linux, lets rename parisc to hppa */
+ if (rstreq(un.machine,
simotek commented on this pull request.
> @@ -511,13 +511,14 @@ void rpmpsmNotify(rpmpsm psm, int what, rpm_loff_t
> amount)
*/
static void markReplacedInstance(rpmts ts, rpmte te)
{
+/* this must match rpmNameVersionCompare in depends.c */
>From reading
simotek commented on this pull request.
> @@ -511,13 +511,14 @@ void rpmpsmNotify(rpmpsm psm, int what, rpm_loff_t
> amount)
*/
static void markReplacedInstance(rpmts ts, rpmte te)
{
+/* this must match rpmNameVersionCompare in depends.c */
Thanks, this was quite an old patch, will
Ok i'll update the commit message as a starting point, the original patch was
quite different but it doesn't seem like this has been covered in the latest
version.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
simotek commented on this pull request.
> @@ -511,13 +511,14 @@ void rpmpsmNotify(rpmpsm psm, int what, rpm_loff_t
> amount)
*/
static void markReplacedInstance(rpmts ts, rpmte te)
{
+/* this must match rpmNameVersionCompare in depends.c */
Ok, i'll upstream that patch alongside this
I guess thats something else we should upstream or standardize with upstream on.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Ok thanks, i'll look into that at some point, currently i'm working on alll
this as a background task between other things.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
I've also just started looking into this as well.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@ignatenkobrain testing your patches in the Yocto project (with some extra
debugging statements) on openSUSE's open build service instance its clear that
the packages are still being built sequentially I'm not sure why yet, but
here's some debug output below.
Some of us at SUSE are quite keen
Never mind it seems that the patch is not being applied correctly here
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Is it possible to get this accepted? I've been testing it on openSUSE's build
services, with some very rough (semi controlled) benchmarking the speedup's
aren't huge a medium size package that splits out into multiple packages might
save 10 seconds off a 5-6 minute build but when you take that
12 matches
Mail list logo
