Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Use consistent case in signature and key messages (PR #3426)
Those other messages don't appear as the first thing on the line, they're just out of context here. But thanks for merging, will help preserve my sanity going forward :sweat_smile: -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3426#issuecomment-2456497924 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] Fix rpmsign --key-id regression (PR #3423)
All those edits and it was still wrong: just now realized the breakage wasn't limited to Sequoia, it occurred with Gpg too, so commit summary+message updated. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3423#issuecomment-2456580571 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] Query database from my Go source code (Discussion #3308)
@jerome-diver, all this harping about the C API docs in multiple totally unrelated places like the evolution of rpm format blog and whatnot, it doesn't fill me with a desire to help you. It does exact the opposite. You may want to think about that a bit. Max-RPM is well over 20 years old now, most of it isn't very relevant today. The API documentation linked from https://rpm.org/documentation.html is as maintained and as official as it's going to get because it's derived straight from the rpm source. Tutorial, we have not. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/3308#discussioncomment-11150841 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] Use consistent case in signature and key messages (PR #3426)
Merged #3426 into master. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3426#event-15115396134 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] RFE: add support for multiple OpenPGP signatures per package (Issue #3385)
One thing the description doesn't currently cover is the verbose level verification messages, in particular the enforcing mode where it spews out everything it looked at. For example with an unsigned package in enforcing mode, you'd get something like (the last two non-prefixed items stand for legacy Header+payload signatures): ``` /data/RPMS/hello-2.0-1.x86_64: Header RSA signature: NOTFOUND Header DSA signature: NOTFOUND Header SHA256 digest: OK Payload SHA256 digest: OK RSA signature: NOTFOUND DSA signature: NOTFOUND ``` I think we need to lump all the OpenPGP signatures under one label per range to make any sense out of this, ie: ``` /data/RPMS/hello-2.0-1.x86_64: Header OpenPGP signature: NOTFOUND Header SHA256 digest: OK Payload SHA256 digest: OK Header+payload OpenPGP signature: NOTFOUND ``` I'm tempted to add "Legacy" in front of the last item because that's what it is, and multiple signatures wont be supported for those. It's a dying breed already in v4, and I'm tempted to drop support for creating them at all in 6.0. We'll need to verify them to properly support v4 but we probably shouldn't even look for them in v6 packages. rpmsign will not create those entries for v6 packages anyhow, but it seems these days rpmsign is the last tool anybody uses for signing... A possible sample output from a package with multiple signatures: ``` /tmp/hello-2.0-1.x86_64.rpm: Header OpenPGP V4 ECDSA/SHA512 signature, key fingerprint: e8a62c0512b06b5d2183ba207f1c21f95f65bbe8: OK Header OpenPGP V4 RSA/SHA512 signature, key ID 4344591e1964c5fc: NOKEY Header OpenPGP V4 EdDSA/SHA512 signature, key fingerprint: 152bb32fd9ca982797e835cfb0645aec757bf69e: OK Header SHA256 digest: OK Payload SHA256 digest: OK ``` -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3385#issuecomment-2456718840 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] Fix build regression with -Wformat-security (PR #3427)
Commit 547ba089313be46861fe1f5b21fbe887205697c2 broke the build with -Wformat-security. Add the trivial fix and ensure it stays that way by adding -Wformat-security to our normal build flags. You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3427 -- Commit Summary -- * Fix build regression with -Wformat-security -- File Changes -- M CMakeLists.txt (2) M rpmio/rpmlog.cc (2) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3427.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3427.diff -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3427 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] Use consistent case in signature and key messages (PR #3426)
Not sure if I like that "only appear as the first word on the line" argument when we lower cased the first word everywhere else. Anyway, this is a lot better than before and we change change Payload and Header later on. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3426#issuecomment-2456486184 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] Fix rpmsign --key-id regression (PR #3423)
@pmatilai pushed 1 commit. 4c3905c2d9b0a428b113454f66c1db73288d20cd Fix rpmsign --key-id regression -- View it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3423/files/5118785be7aad7c75b8f6d91690bc998056b59f2..4c3905c2d9b0a428b113454f66c1db73288d20cd 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] Query database from my Go source code (Discussion #3308)
"all this rehashing... in totally unrelated places... it doesn't fill me with a desire to help you. It does exact the opposite. You may want to think about that a bit." I think we all have the ability to think a little but also to have sympathetic wills or not to imagine hard things. These are choices that we made. Maybe you will want to accept the fact (since you are not in my head, let me tell you how I think, there is nothing negative) that I am just trying to be visible and find help. I have tried many times to get by with this API on my own, I have not lacked efforts for this for months. Maybe I am too stupid to, in your eyes, have the right to ask, to dare to try to be visible. I do not see where is wrong in this approach but it would seem that I am at your mercy and that you are the only judge here of what is good or bad. You judge me harshly and lecture me now... ok, what can I do? I am only reading your answer and I find it sad as an answer. You don't want... I don't make you want... I don't ask you for a favor, do you? Your answer makes it seem like I should beg for a favor... wow, is that really how it is for you? I'm just trying to find a manual that explains how to use this API (not just a quick summary of each function, but how to use them together to get something). Please don't give me this show anymore, it's not necessary, you haven't wanted to answer for months, ok... but maybe someone else will be nicer, why not? I'm often nice to others... it makes me happy and I don't grant it as a favor. Oh sir, I think I'm not good enough for you as you would like, I feel like I did something wrong with you, that I should have asked for nothing... for months. What a mentality... my God. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/3308#discussioncomment-11157981 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] fix rpmdump output (PR #3428)
`rpmdump` prints the OS type fiels as architecture type. Print the correct value. You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3428 -- Commit Summary -- * fix rpmdump output -- File Changes -- M tools/rpmdump.cc (2) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3428.patch https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3428.diff -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3428 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 4.20.0 building problem (Discussion #3430)
Before I post here, I tried to add `target_link_libraries(elfdeps PRIVATE m)` and `target_link_options(elfdeps PRIVATE "LINKER:--copy-dt-needed-entries")`. But it doesn't works. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/3430#discussioncomment-11163180 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 4.20.0 building problem (Discussion #3430)
> /usr/bin/ld: ../rpmio/librpmio.so.10.2.0: undefined reference to `sinh' It's librpmio that's missing linkage to libm, elfdeps is just the messenger. Now, librpmio itself doesn't need libm for anything, it's Lua that does, and you seem to be statically linking it: > -DLUA_LIBRARIES=/root/lua-5.4.7/src/liblua.a We don't generally endorse or support static linkage because it's nothing but a headache. As you're witnessing here. It might work if you add -libm to librpmio linked libraries but it's equally possible there are further issues. That /root/... path also suggests you're building as root which you absolutely should not be doing, for any software. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/3430#discussioncomment-11163553 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] RPM 4.20.0 building problem (Discussion #3430)
When I trying to build following the `INSTALL` file, a linking problem blocks me. I'm tried modify the `CMakeLists.txt` `tools/CMakeLists.txt`, but it doesn't works. My commands: ```shell mkdir _build cd _build cmake .. -DLUA_LIBRARIES=/root/lua-5.4.7/src/liblua.a -DLUA_INCLUDE_DIR=../../lua-5.4.7/src -DWITH_SEQUOIA=OFF -DWITH_LEGACY_OPENPGP=ON make ``` The lua was compiled with a flag `-fPIC`(I put it to the Makefile). My problem: ``` [ 64%] Building C object tools/CMakeFiles/elfdeps.dir/elfdeps.c.o [ 65%] Linking C executable elfdeps /usr/bin/ld: ../rpmio/librpmio.so.10.2.0: undefined reference to `sinh' /usr/bin/ld: ../rpmio/librpmio.so.10.2.0: undefined reference to `log2' /usr/bin/ld: ../rpmio/librpmio.so.10.2.0: undefined reference to `atan2' /usr/bin/ld: ../rpmio/librpmio.so.10.2.0: undefined reference to `tanh' /usr/bin/ld: ../rpmio/librpmio.so.10.2.0: undefined reference to `cosh' /usr/bin/ld: ../rpmio/librpmio.so.10.2.0: undefined reference to `fmod' /usr/bin/ld: ../rpmio/librpmio.so.10.2.0: undefined reference to `acos' /usr/bin/ld: ../rpmio/librpmio.so.10.2.0: undefined reference to `sin' /usr/bin/ld: ../rpmio/librpmio.so.10.2.0: undefined reference to `asin' /usr/bin/ld: ../rpmio/librpmio.so.10.2.0: undefined reference to `exp' /usr/bin/ld: ../rpmio/librpmio.so.10.2.0: undefined reference to `tan' /usr/bin/ld: ../rpmio/librpmio.so.10.2.0: undefined reference to `cos' /usr/bin/ld: ../rpmio/librpmio.so.10.2.0: undefined reference to `log' /usr/bin/ld: ../rpmio/librpmio.so.10.2.0: undefined reference to `pow' /usr/bin/ld: ../rpmio/librpmio.so.10.2.0: undefined reference to `log10' /usr/bin/ld: ../rpmio/librpmio.so.10.2.0: undefined reference to `sqrt' ``` My building environment: ``` PRETTY_NAME="Ubuntu 24.04 LTS" NAME="Ubuntu" VERSION_ID="24.04" VERSION="24.04 LTS (Noble Numbat)" VERSION_CODENAME=noble ID=ubuntu ID_LIKE=debian HOME_URL="https://www.ubuntu.com/"; SUPPORT_URL="https://help.ubuntu.com/"; BUG_REPORT_URL="https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/"; PRIVACY_POLICY_URL="https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/privacy-policy"; UBUNTU_CODENAME=noble LOGO=ubuntu-logo ``` -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/3430 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] Query database from my Go source code (Discussion #3308)
It seems you didn't get my message at all. Had it been just [this simple question](https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/3308#discussioncomment-11141929) I would've merrily answered it. But you have been making loud demands about this on several unrelated topics. Sorry but that's not just how this works. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/3308#discussioncomment-11162734 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] Migrate 'rpm-software-management/rpm' to 'Webhook To Fedora Messaging' (Issue #3429)
This project was listed in the [**GitHub2FedMsg**](https://github.com/fedora-infra/github2fedmsg) database and we want to you to inform you about the upcoming deprecation of the service. As the [**Fedora Infrastructure**](https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/infra/) is finishing up with migrating its applications away from [**FedMsg**](https://github.com/fedora-infra/fedmsg) to [**Fedora Messaging**](https://github.com/fedora-infra/fedora-messaging), we encourage you to migrate your repository to the successor of the [**GitHub2FedMsg**](https://fedora-arc.readthedocs.io/en/latest/github2fedmsg/index.html) project, [**Webhook To Fedora Messaging**](https://webhook2fedmsg.apps.ocp.fedoraproject.org/docs). Please follow [this link](https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/announcing-webhook-to-fedora-messaging/) to the official announcement of the project’s release and use the instructions there to [migrate](https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/w2fm-migration/issues) to the new service. If this notification was a mistake, please close this notification ticket. We will not act on the repositories whose migrations have not been requested and any related GitHub2FedMsg operations will stop working once the service is decommissioned. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3429 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
