On 5/11/24 12:56, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 01:28:07PM +0200, Florian Festi wrote:
>> Anyone interested in picking this up? I remember quite a few people
>> being exited about this when it was announced with the rpm-4.19 Change.
>
> I w
On 5/11/24 01:04, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> Florian Festi wrote:
>> We have an even easier solution for you: You can just run the script at
>> [3] with -n on your own spec files to get them changed to the %patch N
>> variant. If you do that right now they will not b
before or after the change. We are using this variant so spec files
continue to work on older distributions and the chance of breakage is
minimized. This way packagers that don't care don't have to.
Florian
> Dne 06. 05. 24 v 13:56 Florian Festi napsal(a):
>> Hi everyone,
>&
Hi everyone!
RPM 4.19 added automatic sysuser handling [1]. In Fedora 39 this feature
was not enabled right away [2] as it requires some care to properly
transition to it. Also going back to 4.18 was technically still the
fallback option during this change.
I just noticed in an issue in the RPM u
On 5/8/24 00:49, Omair Majid wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Florian Festi writes:
>
>> If anyone has any objections or would like to exclude a package, please
>> let me know.
>
> Could you please exclude the .NET packages (dotnet6.0, dotnet7.0,
> dotnet8.0)? dotnet8.0 sho
Hi everyone,
RPM has deprecated the %patchN syntax in favor of %patch -PN where N is
the patch number for a year now. See the RPM documentation for more
information [1]. In current RPM versions, this syntax only emits a
deprecation warning, but support for this syntax has been removed
completely i
On 6/29/23 09:55, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> The rpm integration doesn't technically require systemd-sysusers, we can
> write a script that calls useradd/groupadd instead. So for us it becomes
> a choice between writing that script or adding audit support to
> systemd-sysusers. Writing a script based
This is great to see! The issue of lack of coordination and
collaboration between the language SIGs also came up in my workshop on
DevConf [1]. Having them share more code/macros and spec file idioms
would make packaging as a whole easier. Not re-inventing solutions for
the same or at least similar
On 4/3/23 08:04, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Florian Festi:
>
>> On 3/31/23 15:40, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 3:42 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
>>>>
>>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RPM-4.19
>>>
>>
On 3/31/23 15:40, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 3:42 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
>>
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RPM-4.19
>
>> == Detailed Description ==
>> RPM 4.19 contains various improvements over previous versions. Many of
>> them are internal in nature such as mov
On 3/29/23 10:31, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> Has `%patchN` been deprecated in favour of `%patch N`?
Yes, see %patch section on
https://rpm-software-management.github.io/rpm/manual/spec.html
> I got a push by a proven packager to one of the packages which I maintain,
> commit subject and changelog
On 1/16/23 07:10, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> Does anyone have any hints for improving the information I get from
> valgrind?
Have you installed the debuginfo packages for the packages involved?
See man debuginfo-install
Florian
___
devel mailing list -- dev
On 7/12/22 11:02, Marius Schwarz wrote:
> Am 12.07.22 um 10:55 schrieb Marius Schwarz:
>>
>> The rpmbuild process for this one rpm was single thread. With a
>> lsof-loop, I could see "bytes" getting attached to the resulting file
>> with an awful slow progression rate. Which is very frustrating to
On 7/29/21 11:51 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 09:37:53AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 07:04:03PM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>> So... personally I think we should restart many more things than
>> we currently do. Even in systemd it
On 7/5/20 2:21 PM, TI_Eugene wrote:
> Two builds for tests:
> 1. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=46635276
> 2. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=46635342
>
> The deferrence between them - libraries permissions.
>
> Problems are:
> 1. %{make_install} installs
May be https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1256 does the
trick. Comments welcome!
Florian
On 6/5/20 4:39 PM, Igor Raits wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 16:10 +0200, Tomas Orsava wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I think it would be useful to ha
It would be really great to have a proper upstream repository for these
scripts so they don't just live inside of distgit. They could have their
own repository in https://github.com/rpm-software-management or could be
placed in https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm-extras. What
ever you li
On 01/29/2016 05:15 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> On Monday, January 11, 2016 03:46:27 PM Jan Kurik wrote:
>> = Proposed System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat =
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NewRpmDBFormat
>>
>> Change owner(s):
>> * Flo
On 01/29/2016 05:02 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 04:53:08PM +0100, Florian Festi wrote:
>> On 01/13/2016 03:07 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> Say, for example, that Fedora 24 moves to the new format. Will Fedora 34
>>> be
On 01/13/2016 03:07 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> Say, for example, that Fedora 24 moves to the new format. Will Fedora 34
> be able to read Fedora 24 RPM databases?
Fedora 25 will. Fedora 34 will probably not. If it turns out that
reading 10 releases old database is really, really important
On 01/13/2016 04:04 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 01:30:59PM +, Richard Hughes wrote:
>> On 13 January 2016 at 13:13, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>> so there is no justification to declare one need to install from scratch
>>> just because rpm which works for many years fine
On 01/16/2016 02:33 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> Well the feature writeup is rather fuzzy on this. It says that in Fedora
>> 24 rpm will be able to read both old and new format, but it also says
>> that future RPM versions will drop support for the old format. So unless
>
On 01/14/2016 01:08 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Yup - I'm curious about this as well. Using sqlite [for example]
> would solve the libguestfs issues I outlined in this thread, as well
> as using a format which is robust and proven rather than some
> half-baked homebrew thing.
Well, we actuall
On 01/11/2016 05:08 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 09:46 AM, Jan Kurik wrote:
>> = Proposed System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat =
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NewRpmDBFormat
>
> It'd be interesting to know the technical details, worth rep
On 01/13/2016 02:36 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 13.01.2016 um 14:30 schrieb Richard Hughes:
>> On 13 January 2016 at 13:13, Reindl Harald
>> wrote:
>>> so there is no justification to declare one need to install from scratch
>>> just because rpm which works for many years fine changes it's
On 01/11/2016 09:06 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 03:46:27PM +0100, Jan Kurik wrote:
>> = Proposed System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat =
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NewRpmDBFormat
>
> Details of the format?
>
> What forward and backward
On 01/11/2016 03:57 PM, Dan Horák wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 15:46:27 +0100
> Jan Kurik wrote:
>
>> = Proposed System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat =
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NewRpmDBFormat
>>
>> Change owner(s):
>> * F
On 01/11/2016 05:26 PM, Kalev Lember wrote:
> On 01/11/2016 03:46 PM, Jan Kurik wrote:
>> = Proposed System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat =
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NewRpmDBFormat
>>
>> Change owner(s):
>> * Florian
On 11/18/2015 04:26 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> Is $subject possible?
>
> For example generating subpackages like:
> %{name}-small-but-slow-binaries
> %{name}-fast-but-big-binaries
>
> I can %prep and %install into separate areas,
> though was then wondering how to adjust
> the buildroot for s
On 10/16/2015 11:06 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> Various packages now install files into /usr/lib/rpm/fileattrs for use when
> building rpms. Currently that directory is owned by:
>
> rpm-build-4.13.0-0.rc1.4.fc23.x86_64
> javapackages-tools-4.6.0-6.fc23.noarch
>
> Of the various packages on my
It is in testing now as
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-15193. Sorry for
being that late but there have been several issues holding it back.
Special thanks to Kalev and everyone who took take of Bodhi to get this out.
Florian
--
Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com/ Regis
Hi!
I plan to update rpm in F23. The alpha has been in rawhide for some
weeks [1] with the latest release candidate being there since 2nd of
September[2]. Main reason is to help adopting new features (e.g. [3]) in
the F24 and F25 time frame as this gets the new version to be builders
one release e
I just pushed the first release candidate for RPM rpm-4.13.0 into
rawhide. It now comes with the final syntax for rich dependencies. Also
we merged support for file signatures in the security.ima xattr and some
smaller fixes.
See http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-announce/2015-September/51.ht
On 08/27/2015 05:33 PM, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-08-27 at 16:10 +0200, Florian Festi wrote:
>> On 06/22/2015 12:16 PM, Jan Kurik wrote:
>>> = Proposed System Wide Change: Glibc locale subpackaging =
>>
>> We have to revisit this topic as soon as rich
On 06/22/2015 12:16 PM, Jan Kurik wrote:
> = Proposed System Wide Change: Glibc locale subpackaging =
We have to revisit this topic as soon as rich dependencies are in place.
Rich dependencies offer a way to handle locales on a system wide level.
One possible implementation would be having
langs
On 07/28/2015 02:49 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, do you have already any candidates for File
> Triggers? I suppose "/sbin/ldconfig" is one of them. Do you plan to have
> some F24 feature to get rid of these?
Well, we do not yet have concrete plans with which scriptlets to start.
On 07/28/2015 09:43 AM, Lubos Kardos wrote:
> Support in rpm is not enough but libsolv supports rich deps since the version
> 0.6.9 too thus rich deps work also in hawkey and dnf if the version 0.6.9 or
> a newer version of libsolv is installed.
Right now only AND and OR is supported by libsolv. I
On 07/27/2015 04:55 PM, Lubos Kardos wrote:
> The current behavior is right. Your install script insert files into buildroot
> and these files are not listed in %files section.
>
> Correctly you should replace this:
>
> %files
> %doc AUTHORS COPYING NEWS README
> ...
>
> with this:
>
> %files
>
On 07/25/2015 11:18 AM, Remi Collet wrote:
> %doc imagick-3.1.2/{CREDITS,TODO,INSTALL}
To give a bit more context:
Globs with braces have not been supported in rpm's %files section ever.
But https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728959 caused all kind
of docs file being added to the packag
On 07/26/2015 08:18 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:31:45 +0200
> Remi Collet wrote:
>
>> Le 25/07/2015 13:20, Florian Festi a écrit :
>>> On 07/25/2015 11:18 AM, Remi Collet wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for catching that!
>>>
>
On 07/25/2015 11:18 AM, Remi Collet wrote:
> Le 24/07/2015 15:49, Florian Festi a écrit :
>> The freshly released rpm-4.12.90 aka rpm-4.13.0-alpha is going to hit
>> rawhide soon. The two major new features are:
>>
>> * Boolean (aka rich) dependencies to suppor
The freshly released rpm-4.12.90 aka rpm-4.13.0-alpha is going to hit
rawhide soon. The two major new features are:
* Boolean (aka rich) dependencies to support more complicated relation
between packages
* File Triggers - run scripts if files get installed in given paths -
possibly to replace mo
Hi!
tl;td: Join at http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-ecosystem if
your interested in any part of the rpm ecosystem.
While there are quite some mailing lists already that deal with the
different tools around and including rpm we realized that there is no
good place to discuss issues that
On 04/28/2015 03:15 PM, Jan Chaloupka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a package (kubernetes) which I would like to decompose into 2
> subpackages A and B. Problem is A and B share some files and directories
> so installing both of them on the same machine results in file
> conflicts.
Another way of avoid
On 10/09/2014 05:29 PM, Jerry James wrote:
Added most of your improvements to the page.
Thanks!
Florian
PS: The rpm.org wiki is locked down because of spam. But people
inerested in improving the contents and documentation can just create an
account and ask for edit privileges on the ma
On 10/06/2014 06:53 PM, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
>> Get to coding. ;)
>
> As mentioned elsewhere, the problem *is* signatures. yum (quite
> rightly) refuses to install an rpm whose signature doesn't match the one
> in the primary repodata. And I believe that the signature in the RPM is
> also over
On 10/06/2014 05:16 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> The fact that some users have more bandwidth means exactly
> what? Most people also have faster processors and disks now. It is
> more efficient from a networking perspective to minimize unnecessary
> traffic and use local processing. That was behin
On 07/02/2014 03:05 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> Where I can read more about weak dependencies?
Have a look at my announcement I made in February:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-February/195743.html
Be aware that rpm-4.12 only implements the weak dependencies. Having
support
On 04/10/2014 09:53 PM, James Antill wrote:
> 20 | 38,561 | 38 G | 19M
So there are 20MB of meta data that need to be downloaded once. This can
hardly be a problem - even if the size tripled.
> same thing for updates gives:
> 18 | 18,606 | 20 G | 12M
Ok, let this be another
On 04/09/2014 08:42 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Given the number of packages that ship localization, this seems like it
> would have a pretty dramatic effect on metadata size. Is this a concern?
Meta data is a concern. But the major part of the meta data is file data
and change logs. Everything e
On 04/09/2014 05:23 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> This construct would be extremely valuable to the SSSD as well:
>
> %package -n client
> Recommends: sssd-client.i686 if glibc.i686
That's not exactly by accident...
> It's pretty easy to install a language at package-install time, but in
> orde
On 04/09/2014 04:53 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> From the desktop/workstation perspective, here are a few things I would
> like to see if we decide to work on this:
>
> Support for a new locale is more or less like a 'system extension' for
> the OS. It would be good to define clear rules for what
On 04/09/2014 01:50 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On 04/09/2014 07:23 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>
>> On 04/09/2014 07:33 AM, Marius A wrote:
>>>
>>> Are there any other disk space saving tips?
>
>> Users should not have to result doing disk saving tips.
>
>> I would say in the long run
On 03/14/2014 08:05 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> Sorry, I should have tried pdb first, because this one has nothing to do
>> with rpm-python. I can see modname='PyQt4.uic.pyuic', and prior to the
>> exception site is a line 'loader = importer.find_module(modname)',
On 03/12/2014 08:18 PM, Josh Stone wrote:
> For instance, right now I get:
>
>> $ pydoc -k xyzzy
>> lib2to3.fixes.fix_repr - Fixer that transforms `xyzzy` into repr(xyzzy).
>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>> File "/usr/bin/pydoc", line 5, in
>> pydoc.cli()
>> File "/usr/lib64/python
On 02/20/2014 11:50 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 14:44 +, Colin Walters wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Florian Festi
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> We are currently working on adding weak and rich dependencies to
>>> upstream RPM
On 02/20/2014 03:44 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Florian Festi wrote:
>> We are currently working on adding weak and rich dependencies to
>> upstream RPM. There are basically two parts:
>
> Is someone signed up to do the necessary frontend
Original Message
Subject: [Rpm-maint] Heads up: Weak and rich dependencies in RPM
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 13:12:43 +0100
From: Florian Festi
To: rpm-ma...@lists.rpm.org, rpm-l...@lists.rpm.org
Hi!
We are currently working on adding weak and rich dependencies to
upstream RPM
On 04/17/2013 07:03 PM, drago01 wrote:
> Why does it have to be date based?
> Why not having a count based cutoff?
> Like last N entries.
There used to be a count based trimming in rpm < 4.0. I guess the
rational behind a date based approach is that this way entries do not
disappear unexpectedly.
On 04/17/2013 12:18 PM, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-04-17 at 12:10 +0900, Florian Festi wrote:
>> For limiting the change log entries in the binary packages
>> %_changelog_trimtime can be used that take a unix time stamp as an
>> integer value. This way the w
On 04/17/2013 10:25 AM, Dan Fruehauf wrote:
> That's around 50K, and compressed (RPMs are compressed):
> $ rpm -q --changelog binutils | gzip | wc -c
> 15552
>
> 15K is nothing. Really. I like to see the whole history of a package,
> it's nice and fun.
That's not correct. The change log is stored
On 04/04/2013 03:42 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Although they might support, and Kernel would be first user, even for
> Kernel, there is used hack instead of systematic solution as far as I
> know. As long as Kernel will be treated specially in this regard, there
> is not much to do on my side.
As lo
On 04/04/2013 01:55 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> I am not asking RPM developers to change policy, I am asking RPM
> developers to lay out foundation. It does not make sense to change
> policy, if there are no tools to fulfill it.
Well, Fedora demanding a set of tools will much more likely result in
so
On 04/03/2013 05:02 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 3.4.2013 15:59, Miloslav Trmač napsal(a):
>> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Vít Ondruch > That looks quite simple, but you doesn't count that what is called
>> Ruby on Rails is collection of 40 packages (the number vary from
>> version t
On 04/03/2013 12:58 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> The only thing you get wrong is that you take a look at Fedora packages
> and do some statistics. You don't see the packages which could be in
> Fedora if RPM/YUM would do better job.
>
> Just as an example, I guess everybody would welcome Redmine [1] i
On 03/28/2013 05:45 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Sorry to say that, but neither my sarcasm nor your comment brings
> anything new. If this problem was put first time on the table in 2002,
> then there already passed 10 years of excuses.
Well, this does not even roughly reflect the history of rpm. You
On 03/29/2013 10:33 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
> To me, these are very different aspects - should RPM/YUM be able to support
> multiple parallel versions without the naming hacks? Yes. Should Fedora as a
> distro support numbers of multiple versions of packages? In my opinion, we
> should try to
On 03/28/2013 12:59 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 28.3.2013 12:09, Florian Festi napsal(a):
>> This is done to make life easier for package maintainers.
>
> Sorry, you definitely not speak for me! This are just excuses. And I
> asked already several times to have some way t
On 03/28/2013 09:29 AM, juanmabc wrote:
> Just today i check updates, gnome-desktop3 was there, i didn't notice it but
> it is following the gtk3 naming scheme, and, what i think is happening more
> than desired, a lot of packages just kept going doing it.
>
> I see an overuse or exploit or pack
On 06/20/2011 04:41 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> Does it mean we are still don't have suggestions?
No, we don't.
> Anyway, it seems more proper to get it fixed is to put normal
> "Request" tag instead of "Request(smth)". Isn't it?
Depends on what you want. You can convert it into a regular requires
On 06/20/2011 01:01 PM, Paul Howarth wrote:
> I believe it's rpm 4.9 that objects to Requires(hint), not fedpkg itself.
Previous RPM versions accepted arbitrary flags within the parentheses.
This clearly is a bug that was fixed with rpm 4.9. "Requires(hint)"
never worked (same for "Requires(Pony)
On 04/26/2011 05:21 PM, Matej Cepl wrote:
> Dne 26.4.2011 15:31, Kevin Kofler napsal(a):
>> AIUI, Suggests/Recommends was almost accepted in rpm.org (BTW, rpm5.org has
>> had it for ages), but the yum developers blocked it. :-/
Well, having Suggests/Recommends in RPM only does buy you anything as
72 matches
Mail list logo
