Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RPM 4.18.1 bugfix update (PR #2406)
If you want to trim your budget more: - the check-buildroot cleanups, that script has been there for > 20 years without those changes... - split testing population into a script - drop historic remnants from test-suite PATH (unless something later depends on these two test-suite changes) Not that I think those are harmful, just seem unnecessary. Other than that I think it looks good. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2406#issuecomment-1463453636 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Expired and revoked subkey tests fail with rpm-sequoia 1.3 (Issue #2424)
rpm-sequoia 1.3 returns NOTTRUSTED instead of BAD, causing those two tests to fail. I don't think it's worth it trying to come up with a solution to support both behaviors, we'll just fix the test-suite behavior once we get rpm-sequoia 1.3 in our CI environment, one way or the other. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2424 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RPM 4.18.1 bugfix update (PR #2406)
> If you want to trim your budget more: > > * the check-buildroot cleanups, that script has been there for > 20 years > without those changes... Oh, truly. Let me drop that, too, then. One can never be overly conservative with updates :smile: > * split testing population into a script > > * drop historic remnants from test-suite PATH (unless something later > depends on these two test-suite changes) > > > Not that I think those are harmful, just seem unnecessary. Other than that I > think it looks good. True, I think I included them originally just to avoid future cherry pick conflicts regarding the test suite, but all in all, it seems unnecessary, so let me try to drop those as well. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2406#issuecomment-1463528303 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RPM 4.18.1 bugfix update (PR #2406)
@dmnks pushed 78 commits.
2c0459a25aa9174373bb514bd8bb4246b03b56c0 Document need to do history research
on behavior changes
49b5fffd958c532497d7e223ff1c9429e9f31a17 Add more on pull requests to
CONTRIBUTING
dae67690507ef192d64b0029105614615418293a Fix potential uninitialized variable
use in rpmtsImportPubkey()
d68129e550d7ba220bee76603241203226cb65ea fapolicyd: Make write() nonblocking
76773176648b7ee27ef2e3801bbae935bc4c3fa3 Fix typo in macros manual
7a415883f68aad0fd86a9001e1de2a4a88eccd74 Permit building rpm from git without
pandoc
65990f985a60050dfefd45c712f9507c500e85ed Add a handler for libselinux log
messages (RhBug:2123719, RhBug:2050774)
fe33f968162ae523b2cd2013bfd1215c3b4ecadb Add a whole bunch of epoch behavior
install tests
50def208729ee186e9a2bb68bd4a62404e745404 Handle downgrade within V-R when
epoch goes away (RhBug:1845069)
154f6b2c23bfd92d88b05a1900886f55a8541835 Add mode string documentation to
Fopen()/Fdopen()
575cc82c0a4268e8fa3b74384b02efdc95ef3b74 Add payload compression macro
documentation
7881ef6a0ece37a9f10169306ef16824683f271b Add a blurb to hello.spec cautioning
against its use
07f6f65ef0e5b3c24a284f8ec9e3727e97dc408d Doh, unbreak CI from commit
190354cb19af6ecdfec6f7eaa454d6afcf381128
7bccb28ab668cd03140587182c6ca95d6552b974 Docs: macros: backtick-fence more
literals in body
740dba4a09df086763943b749c6f1604e4864291 Docs: Macros: Attempt to fix literal
backslash
5f621ff1a07788a5d6650c373664885408b20540 Docs: macros: Add some missing
fencing, fix grammar
55fe12f8fcaa3cfefb546aa2528b20d0c1fbc453 Avoid type confusion when verifying
signatures
bf3817df0dff826790dcd952a81c36cc7b836c16 Check packet types of signatures and
public keys
d3ed114c8522bd576994434d50c12b2ebf5ae235 Reject multiple PGPTAG_PUBLIC_KEY
packets
4d6b1329e66bcd4faf8c84ec1a2abcbbb6156515 Avoid bashisms in test-suite specs
cf45054dfa4c245033c54b245e44a320dcfb8f5a Eliminate remaining %{u2p:...} uses
4610cb54eda7bf5a6d6683de7b879c550e9d4d6f Make CPU and thread-related macros
available on all platforms
c55d3eb692340809889b9c8fd1ea359da19858e0 Make %_smp_mflags build rather than
parse time determined
78a7803e1f8b2a66af4a8ac277ccb5e2399e0620 Fix rpmkeys type confusion test.
fd8fb74315f7e6a4671e286b1ffdf0e323d829cc Enable malloc checking with random
perturb in the test-suite
39d95b885a7fbbe14dafc219f0c53d50d29f3a5d Remove unrelated %undefine output
from macro scoping test
d87aea2c088171e7f026abb23640b3eb588ce943 tests: add test for %verify in %files
6e5a1d2babe344dd2ae0bbcfc14a143790300541 tests: add test for Obsoletes
d4b5cc7c266a357b2f7d958dc8a1daadd61f06fb Fix regression: -bp should check
BuildRequires
17987604e0662d1d4db0740533f06d17b687819d Test if BuildDependencies are checked
for %prep
288b8a5431b04bc1bdaa5d2cb541fd30a2cb7bfb Add some basic tests for OpenPGP v3
signatures
90ad35918f06452c81a37de5170bf36af31a1c81 Fix header leak in rpmInstall()
fa29cb3bf268f9b72e80978046f2a4bf25932da2 Fix eiu->sourceURL info leak in
rpmInstall()
f78211798ea584ab04d6eca63b565ab5b80c4195 Fix file leak when src rpm in URL
format is used for installation
ca8008f327a079606130ca5bb4f204d5fb71f70c Fix h->blob leak when installing
source rpms
9ca47465a61ba881f18d5aae2bfb7cba6b47fcf6 Issue a warning when signing created
an OpenPGP v3 signature
7131fd086ae89a2c292a3d730c8ac7b7d4243ea5 Bump CI to Fedora 37
a608dba610fd57db7481960381e7eae0c160b72e Fix markdown syntax typo
92f0fa6ec3990329ff2557e4a732397b43ebcd26 Fix broken markdown quoting …
4c5052b9f6a7c205c4110e17f0423bb55ed275f9 Add missed full stop.
8e1b98c24d2c01a8f7764a7ef22e2e2b385489ce Fix Header leak when running rpm2cpio
788e37856934e56d20209446d3eafe14e12af819 Fix BANames leak in handlePreambleTag
11b68e5acddff2feb5a391e47020441cd15eae6f Fix prog leak in parseScript
62bf1f27875e287c4233265ebca755811fc74a1f Fix elf leak in getElfColor
a304de3ec87562b98a03895af35075684c7c3ea4 Fix *sbp leak when running rpmbuild
with --quiet
9576005efa6647246ba3a14a91dc2f9395684fa8 Fix memleak when running
%generate_buildrequires
1c478d4fe9963d148c5b7ff95356b168d4def6f7 Fix memleak when fsmRename failed in
fsmCommit
fcb78677923cf6f72b4be8501c8857e0b8502ff1 Fix fileleak and memleak in rpmInstall
cba15fbc86199b91977520c63ddc0a7510fb97ed Fix fileleak when urlGetFile fails in
rpmInstall
d870c393fc68298dd67c88f52c1c4a53c5cdc95d Fix typo in macros.in
50d1949673e3611cb26f4643c3a536308963ac94 brp-remove-la-files: use -0 to work
on macOS
cf0ebf8ea53be6b19ee5bb8c7220227a520625d2 Use proper macro conditional negation
syntax in the manual
f4355cac8e093aa5e2e6508049c79d5f8bcf398e Un-deprecate %_changelog_trimtime
213d8d3946ea90497f488faeb22a48667aa248fd Quote source file names in %setup
4d7503e38d2fd27c42c289dec8b98baf1584031d Testcases: rpmbuild source name with
space
e971f4dfd92f1428015ff6eff26aa9567d653ffc Revise ISANAME for loongarch
f5e1ce270824937610a501ef2478bcda85464435 Fix install of block and character
special files
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RPM 4.18.1 bugfix update (PR #2406)
Another update, this time removing the following: 8a74780c0 check-buildroot: harden $tmp creation fb6ad2c74 check-buildroot script: use if-then-else f2b4c647c check-buildroot: Redirect xargs stderr to $tmp 11458278a check-buildroot script: Double-Quote the variables fd3ef9b09 check-buildroot script: use export to set LANG e7e0b4df8 Split testing population into a shell-script 3a280308b Drop historic remnants from test-suite PATH 1e1e93ee5 Avoid buggy (if harmless) bin symlink in test when using /usr prefix 00c1bdfd7 Try to use pre-compiled libmagic, fall back to recreating if not found -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2406#issuecomment-1463747788 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RPMFI_FLAGS_ONLY_FILENAMES doesn't prevent file signatures (Issue #2425)
RPMFI_NOFILESIGNATURES and RPMFI_NOVERITYSIGNATURES should be included in the RPMFI_FLAGS_ONLY_FILENAMES mask but are not, so eg `rpmfiNew (ts, h, RPMTAG_BASENAMES, RPMFI_FLAGS_ONLY_FILENAMES)` ends up loading both IMA and FSVERITY signatures into the file iterator when it should not. The signatures aren't relevant for bunch of other operations too, so review the other masks too, at least RPMFI_FLAGS_FILETRIGGER should include both signature disablers and RPMFI_FLAGS_ONLY_FILENAMES would inherit it from there. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2425 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Allow to specify a default for bcond features in a macro file (PR #2405)
Sorry for not commenting earlier, this was a busy week. It's true that this can be done in the specfile, but that can lead to each individual package maintainer using a different way. I think it's worthwhile that the mechanism is the same for all distributions. The goal is exactly that it works without needing to modify all packages. (Plus, the proposed pull request also makes it work for bcond_with and bcond_without.) Regarding nomenclature: I do agree that "default" is not good. I'm open for new suggestions. Here are a couple: `%bcond_override_libmpeg 1` `%bcond_force_libmpeg 1` `%bcond_set_libmpeg 1` -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2405#issuecomment-1463871756 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add x86-64 architecture levels (v2-v4) as architectures (PR #2315)
> It's just not documented... Is that an option for RPM? I guess not. It's not > implemented by clang. It's documented here: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/x86-Built-in-Functions.html#index-_005f_005fbuiltin_005fcpu_005fsupports-1 (though we wrongly documented that under `__builtin_cpu_is` for GCC 12.x). Well, that's a pity that clang does not support that. It would make the implementation much simpler! -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2315#issuecomment-1463933551 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add x86-64 architecture levels (v2-v4) as architectures (PR #2315)
> FWICT, the auxiliary vector for HWCAPS is no longer really used and > applications (including glibc, gcc runtime code) have to resort to methods > like this instead. GCC's `__builtin_cpu_supports` does unfortunately not > support all features needed to detect these levels properly. What feature do you miss? Note that using `__builtin_cpu_supports` would be much cleaner code and it's supported also by LLVM. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2315#issuecomment-1463939145 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add x86-64 architecture levels (v2-v4) as architectures (PR #2315)
> It's not implemented by clang. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/59961 -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2315#issuecomment-1463940613 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Allow to specify a default for bcond features in a macro file (PR #2405)
%bcond_set_libmpeg does not carry enough meaning. The other two proposals do and I don't have a preference. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2405#issuecomment-1464010710 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Stop checking the "signature type" and "rpm package format version" in the Lead structure (Issue #2423)
Right, but that says that (at least one) v4 release will be able to handle v6 packages to a large degree, and this is a preresquisite. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2423#issuecomment-1464288871 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add x86-64 architecture levels (v2-v4) as architectures (PR #2315)
> > FWICT, the auxiliary vector for HWCAPS is no longer really used and > > applications (including glibc, gcc runtime code) have to resort to methods > > like this instead. GCC's `__builtin_cpu_supports` does unfortunately not > > support all features needed to detect these levels properly. > > What feature do you miss? Note that using `__builtin_cpu_supports` would be > much cleaner code and it's supported also by LLVM. Of the one mentioned here: > AVX + AVX2 + F16C + FMA + LZCNT + MOVBE + BMI + BMI2 + OSXSAVE F16C, LZCNT, MOVBE and OSXSAVE aren't exposed through `__builtin_cpu_supports`, except by using `x86-64-v3`. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2315#issuecomment-1464415351 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Newer rpm can't read older rpm database (Issue #2426)
While debugging https://github.com/OpenSCAP/openscap/issues/1942 I discovered that a newer version of rpm cannot read older rpm databases. I expected this to work, as I thought rpm was backwards compatible in this way and I haven't been able to find documentation that says otherwise. I did some testing on my Fedora 37 system using: ```sh ID="$(podman create $IMAGE)" && DIR="$(podman mount $ID)" && rpm --root "$DIR" -q bash && podman rm -f "$ID" ``` * `registry.fedoraproject.org/fedora:37` (This is a sanity check) Result: `bash-5.2.15-1.fc37.x86_64` * `registry.fedoraproject.org/fedora:36` Result: `bash-5.2.15-1.fc36.x86_64` * `registry.fedoraproject.org/fedora:35` Result: `package bash is not installed` * `registry.access.redhat.com/ubi9/ubi:latest` Result: `package bash is not installed` * `registry.access.redhat.com/ubi8/ubi:latest` Result: `package bash is not installed` * `registry.access.redhat.com/ubi7/ubi:latest` Result: `package bash is not installed` What is the expectation for rpm backwards compatibility? Is this lack of backwards compatibility intentional or is this a bug in the rpm version included in fedora 37? Is there a way to enable rpm to read these older databases to enable openscap run on a newer version of Red Hat / Fedora to scan an older Red Hat / Fedora system / VM / image? -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2426 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Newer rpm can't read older rpm database (Issue #2426)
I figured out my problem: [In fedora 36, the rpm dbpath changed from `/var/lib/rpm` to `/usr/lib/sysimage/rpm`](https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RelocateRPMToUsr). To demonstrate the fact that using the correct dbpath works: `ID="$(podman create registry.access.redhat.com/ubi8/ubi:latest)" && DIR="$(podman mount $ID)" && rpm --root "$DIR" --dbpath=/var/lib/rpm -q bash && podman rm -f "$ID"` returns `bash-4.4.20-4.el8_6.x86_64` when run on my fedora 38 system. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2426#issuecomment-1464800064 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Newer rpm can't read older rpm database (Issue #2426)
Closed #2426 as completed. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2426#event-8723256067 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
