Re: force merging of the remaining pull requests for sysusers

On 3/28/25 8:30 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 02:26:37PM +0100, Michal Schorm wrote: Hi Zbyszek, I encountered several things during testing I want to bring up. 1) The output on Fedora Rawhide always look like this: | >>> Running unknown scriptlet: mariadb-s

Re: F43 Change Proposal RPM 6.0 (system-wide)

On 3/13/25 10:56 AM, Dan Čermák wrote: Aoife Moloney via devel-announce writes: * This is the first version of rpm built as C++, so rpm gains a runtime dependency on libstdc++. I am not too happy about yet another dependency. As someone involved in building containers, I constantly have to

Re: F43 Change Proposal RPM 6.0 (system-wide)

On 3/13/25 10:05 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote: Dne 13. 03. 25 v 8:31 dop. Panu Matilainen napsal(a): On 3/12/25 12:45 PM, Miroslav Suchý wrote: Dne 11. 03. 25 v 10:36 dop. Panu Matilainen napsal(a): It's exactly for reasons like this that rpm will not even try to automatically setup the si

Re: F43 Change Proposal RPM 6.0 (system-wide)

On 3/12/25 12:45 PM, Miroslav Suchý wrote: Dne 11. 03. 25 v 10:36 dop. Panu Matilainen napsal(a): It's exactly for reasons like this that rpm will not even try to automatically setup the signing - it has no way of knowing what the right thing is. Mock has it's own signing plugin

Re: F42 Change Proposal: RPM Support For Systemd Sysusers.d (system-wide)

On 3/12/25 6:37 PM, Miroslav Suchý wrote: Dne 12. 03. 25 v 4:57 odp. Fabio Valentini napsal(a): error: invalid sysuser type: u! 4< (%error) error: lua script failed: [string "add_sysuser"]:22: error expanding macro 3<(%lua) 2< (%add_sysuser) error: lua script failed:

Re: Replacing regular file with directory on RPM upgrade ?

On 3/10/25 11:30 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 10:26:12AM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote: Dne 10. 03. 25 v 10:22 dop. Daniel P. Berrangé napsal(a): Did something change in cpio, or has it always been broken for regular file to directory replacement too, and our docs were th

Re: F43 Change Proposal RPM 6.0 (system-wide)

On 3/10/25 4:54 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 12:44:44PM +, Aoife Moloney via devel-announce wrote: [...] == Benefit to Fedora == The major theme in 6.0 is increased security and related improvements: * enforcing signature checking on by default snip * support

Re: F43 Change Proposal RPM 6.0 (system-wide)

On 3/11/25 8:58 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Mon, 2025-03-10 at 16:42 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: * The most noticeable change is that RPM now refuses to install packages whose signature hasn't been positively verified, whether due to being unsigned, missing key or otherwise. This can be worke

Re: retiring basesystem package

On 2/6/25 2:50 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 7:18 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: Hi, I was looking at early system installation, and we have filesystem, basesystem, and setup, all competing for the title of the early filesystem setup… It seems that basesystem is the easi

Re: F42 Change Proposal: Optimized Binaries for the AMD64 / x86_64 Architecture (v2) (self-contained)

On 1/13/25 11:07 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 12:10:44PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 09:11:35AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: First, this would require setting up the infrastructure to build and store and distribute multiple

Re: F42 Change Proposal: RPM Support For Systemd Sysusers.d (system-wide)

On 1/10/25 5:20 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Thu, Jan 02, 2025 at 01:08:38PM -0500, Steve Grubb wrote: * Verify that audit events exist for user and group creation: ausearch --start recent -i -m 'ADD_USER,USER_MGMT,USER_CHAUTHTOK,ROLE_ASSIGN,ROLE_REMOVE,DEL_USER,ADD_GROUP,GRP

Re: F42 Change Proposal: Optimized Binaries for the AMD64 / x86_64 Architecture (v2) (self-contained)

On 1/13/25 1:06 PM, Petr Pisar wrote: V Sun, Jan 12, 2025 at 07:08:05PM -0500, Neal Gompa napsal(a): On Sun, Jan 12, 2025 at 4:36 PM Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Neal Gompa said: For stuff installed into /usr, we should just allow packages to be optionally built with the higher micr

Re: F42 Change Proposal: RPM Support For Systemd Sysusers.d (system-wide)

On 1/3/25 12:17 AM, Björn Persson wrote: Steve Grubb wrote: * Remove the package and verify audit events exist for account and group deletion (see above ausearch command). I was under the impression that it's common practice to leave user accounts and groups behind when packages are removed. T

Re: Enabling RPM based sysuser handling

On 12/19/24 3:06 PM, Michal Sekletar wrote: On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 3:17 PM Panu Matilainen wrote: Excellent :) With the duplicates gone from systemd basic.conf gone, a logical next step would be turning on hard dependencies for users and groups before the F41 mass rebuild (by dropping rpm

Re: F42 Change Proposal: DNF5 Expired Keys (System-Wide)

On 12/5/24 10:42 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Thu, Dec 05, 2024 at 08:53:05AM +0100, Jan Kolarik wrote: Hi Zbyszek, Thank you for your interest in this proposal! I'd like to see behaviour where keys for EOL releases are removed as soon as possible. I.e. if I have upgraded to F42,

Re: f41 rpm -i ~/systemd-256.6-1.fc41.src.rpm fails

On 10/6/24 12:42 AM, Barry wrote: On 5 Oct 2024, at 18:32, Fabio Valentini wrote: On the other hand, the error message you're seeing is from the IMA plugin. So I assume you've enabled rpm-plugin-ima? This a f39 aarch64 upgraded to f40 then f41 with no customisations. (There are no f40 or

Re: Strange error building on Rawhide

On 6/26/24 20:03, Stephen Smoogen wrote: On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 at 10:32, Ron Olson wrote: Hey all- I’m trying to build Swift 6 on Rawhide and it looks like it gets to the very end, to the %install section, then errors out with: + /usr/bin/add-determinism --brp -j4 /home/rolson/rpmbuild/BUILD

Re: Enabling RPM based sysuser handling

02:01:09PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 5/14/24 13:39, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 01:37:11PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: I outlined the migration process last year in https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread

Re: RPM_* env variables vs macros

On 6/5/24 18:22, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 09:31:47AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 04. 06. 24 v 9:27 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Dne 04. 06. 24 v 8:11 Panu Matilainen napsal(a): On 6/3/24 17:18, Eike Rathke wrote: Hi Panu, On Monday, 2024-06-03 15:55:09 +0300

Re: F35 Change: Debuginfod By Default (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 6/4/24 21:43, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: Hi, Denys - dvlasenk wrote: [...] Now readelf, annobin and hell knows what else started to talk to REMOTE SERVERS, deep out of internals of complicated build infrastructure running on presumably secure build machines of various IT corporations and wha

Re: rpm-4.20 and __debug_install_post

On 6/4/24 09:40, Sandro Mani wrote: Hi In rpm 4.20 as currently available in rawhide, defining __debug_install_post seems to have no effect. The %mingw_package_header sets __debug_install_post as follows %mingw_package_header \ %global __strip %{mingw_

Re: rawhide %{_buildrootdir} not expanded

On 6/3/24 17:18, Eike Rathke wrote: Hi Panu, On Monday, 2024-06-03 15:55:09 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: %{_buildrootdir} is nothing packages should be referring to, in any circumstance really. It's a potentially shared directory among arbitrary packages (in the traditional it's

Re: rawhide %{_buildrootdir} not expanded

On 6/3/24 15:55, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 6/3/24 15:22, Eike Rathke wrote: Hi, what did recently change in rawhide that the %{_buildrootdir} macro isn't expanded as in + mkdir '%{_buildrootdir}/bin' mkdir: cannot create directory ‘%{_buildrootdir}/bin’: No such file or dire

Re: rawhide %{_buildrootdir} not expanded

On 6/3/24 15:22, Eike Rathke wrote: Hi, what did recently change in rawhide that the %{_buildrootdir} macro isn't expanded as in + mkdir '%{_buildrootdir}/bin' mkdir: cannot create directory ‘%{_buildrootdir}/bin’: No such file or directory + : + cp /builddir/build/SOURCES/node-stdout-nonblocki

Re: Heads-up: rpm 4.20 alpha in rawhide + rough waters

On 5/29/24 18:09, Miroslav Suchý wrote: Dne 29. 05. 24 v 2:31 odp. Panu Matilainen napsal(a): Folks, rpm 4.20 alpha landed in rawhide today 4.19.91 == 4.20 alpha? Because I do not see 4.20 in Koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=319 Yes, that's the one.

Heads-up: rpm 4.20 alpha in rawhide + rough waters

Folks, rpm 4.20 alpha landed in rawhide today, and with the sheer amount of change that went into the bowels of the build code, this process is being rougher than usual. Apologies for the disruption and the late heads-up. Please file bugs with low bar to entry if you suspect an rpmbuild reg

Re: GenericError: srpm mismatch for [debuginfo file]

On 5/29/24 14:59, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 01:46:43PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 29. 05. 24 13:38, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=118234666 It failed right at the end with this mysterious error: GenericError: srpm mis

Re: Debugging fun (wrt C modernization change)

On 5/17/24 22:42, Owen Taylor wrote: On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 6:50 AM Panu Matilainen <mailto:pmati...@redhat.com>> wrote: Patch and source numbers start from zero, that goes for automatically numbered patches too. So there's an off by one in the application, and

Re: Debugging fun (wrt C modernization change)

On 5/17/24 15:53, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: Michael J Gruber wrote: %patchlist and %auto* should just go away, or at least banned from Fedora by a git hook rejecting such specfiles. We also have unnumbered patch source definition lines, don't we? IIRC, unnumbered Source: or Patch: just d

Re: Debugging fun (wrt C modernization change)

On 5/17/24 11:32, Michael J Gruber wrote: Kevin Kofler via devel venit, vidit, dixit 2024-05-16 22:39:00: Panu Matilainen wrote: Patch and source numbers start from zero, that goes for automatically numbered patches too. So there's an off by one in the application, and the latter %auto

Re: rich deps result in packages being uninstalled from buildroot

On 5/16/24 16:10, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 16. 05. 24 v 14:28 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a): On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 01:14:16PM +0200, Petr Pisar wrote: Proper solution is actually minimazing content of the minimal build root Most of the packages in the buildroot are libraries, pulled i

Re: Enabling RPM based sysuser handling

On 5/14/24 13:39, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 01:37:11PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: I outlined the migration process last year in https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/NEFOV236FJYS2RED2SEOV5YHDFLDX7DK

Debugging fun (wrt C modernization change)

Yesterday, we ran into an issue where some of rpm upstream testcases are suddenly failing on one system. The difference to everybody elses working tests turned out to be Fedora 40, and was easily reproduced elsewhere on F40 then. On a closer look, the failing tests were all complaining about

Re: Mass Package Change: Turn deprecated %patchN syntax into %patch -PN

On 5/13/24 17:08, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 13. 05. 24 v 15:22 Panu Matilainen napsal(a): On 5/13/24 16:09, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 13. 05. 24 v 11:39 Florian Festi napsal(a): %patch otoh (now) is a regular (though internally implemented) macro that is expanded with other macros and though can

Re: Mass Package Change: Turn deprecated %patchN syntax into %patch -PN

On 5/13/24 16:09, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 13. 05. 24 v 11:39 Florian Festi napsal(a): %patch otoh (now) is a regular (though internally implemented) macro that is expanded with other macros and though can be used in other macros and expressions. Do I read correctly that we can now use `%patc

Re: Enabling RPM based sysuser handling

On 5/13/24 13:24, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 01:28:07PM +0200, Florian Festi wrote: 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

Re: Enabling RPM based sysuser handling

On 5/13/24 13:07, Florian Festi wrote: 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.

Re: Three steps we could take to make supply chain attacks a bit harder

On 4/1/24 14:46, Neal Gompa wrote: On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 7:38 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Sun, Mar 31, 2024 at 11:20:17PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: On Sun, 2024-03-31 at 22:13 -0700, Carlos Rodriguez-Fernandez wrote: Adam, Is there a way already to achieve test isolation d

Re: F40 Change Proposal: Optimized Binaries for the AMD64 Architecture (System-Wide)

On 1/19/24 18:58, Robert Marcano via devel wrote: On 12/28/23 1:25 PM, Robert Marcano wrote: On 12/28/23 12:58 PM, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Aoife Moloney said: Systemd will be modified to insert the additional directories into the `$PATH` environment variable (affecting all progra

Re: F40 Change Proposal: F40 Change Proposal: Unify /usr/bin and /usr/sbin (System-Wide)

On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 7:54 PM Aoife Moloney wrote: Wiki -> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Unify_bin_and_sbin I agree unifying the *programs* to a single directory makes sense. But I fail to see anything good come out of bringing all those system daemon executables into every user

Re: rpmbuild core dumps

On 1/2/24 11:49, Florian Weimer wrote: * Sam Varshavchik: Stephen Smoogen writes: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/ 2826>https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2826 And thanks for opening a bug. I will watch to see what happens. I'm genuinely cu

Re: DNF5: Checking signatures of packages installed out of a repository?

On 11/1/23 17:09, Christopher wrote: On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 5:53 AM Paul Howarth wrote: Maybe not using dnf, but you can check it using rpm directly: $ wget mypackage.rpm $ rpm --checksig mypackage.rpm Yeah, that's why DNF is more convenient for this... the whole point of using DNF to instal

Re: Specify koji build machine mem req via. spec file

On 10/5/23 12:41, Kalev Lember wrote: On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 10:07 AM Miroslav Suchý > wrote: Dne 04. 10. 23 v 11:43 Martin Stransky napsal(a): > Hello guys, > > Is there's a way how to set requested amount of ram for koji builders? > >

Re: Intention to tighten RPM crypto-policy back

On 9/27/23 20:37, Alexander Sosedkin wrote: On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 11:19 AM Alexander Sosedkin wrote: Hello, 6 months ago, there's been a F38 blocker: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2960 Long story short: RPM has moved to sequoia, sequoia has started respecting crypto-policies, Google repos h

Re: An update on RHEL moving to issues.redhat.com

On 9/15/23 20:27, Colin Walters wrote: One thing I find amusing about this list (which like some others is kind of a long-running soap opera that happens to sometimes produce software as a side effect) is that many times, I can see just two bits of information: - The subject of the email - The

Re: An update on RHEL moving to issues.redhat.com

On 9/14/23 15:50, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 2:42 PM Colin Walters wrote: On Wed, Sep 13, 2023, at 1:44 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 09:20:09AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: IIRC it was a condition of that proposal that we wind up on a hosted version

Re: rawhide build errors on i686

On 7/6/23 01:24, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Wed, Jul 05, 2023 at 01:47:05PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 10:01 AM Paul Howarth wrote: Whatever this is, it's intermittent and it's still happening. I'm getting koschei reports about failed builds with this symptom every day, a

Re: Towards enabling rpm sysusers integration

On 6/28/23 17:15, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Di, 27.06.23 12:04, Panu Matilainen (pmati...@redhat.com) wrote: On 6/22/23 19:55, Steve Grubb wrote: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Adopting_sysusers.d_format I would caution against this whole proposal. Not that I'm against it

Re: Is there a chance to phase out `/lib64` directory?

On 6/27/23 15:04, Neal Gompa wrote: On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 6:37 AM Panu Matilainen wrote: On 6/27/23 13:30, Kalev Lember wrote: On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 11:02 AM Vít Ondruch mailto:vondr...@redhat.com>> wrote: I don't think that GCC is always the best exampl

Re: Is there a chance to phase out `/lib64` directory?

On 6/27/23 13:30, Kalev Lember wrote: On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 11:02 AM Vít Ondruch > wrote: I don't think that GCC is always the best example to follow. Nevertheless, wouldn't it be worth of phasing out the /lib64? I don't know what is the history behind,

Re: Towards enabling rpm sysusers integration

On 6/22/23 19:55, Steve Grubb wrote: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Adopting_sysusers.d_format I would caution against this whole proposal. Not that I'm against it, but just saying be careful doing it. People often forget about our security concerns. Currently, shadow-utils has about 4

Re: Changes to build environment

On 6/22/23 20:56, Steve Grubb wrote: Hello, I have switched to F38 and find a couple items annoying. I have a workflow that checks things I develop out of github, rolls it up into an rpm, builds it, and runs the results through annocheck. If there is a warning I'd like to investigate, I cd into

Re: Towards enabling rpm sysusers integration

On 6/23/23 21:20, Michal Domonkos wrote: On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 01:18:27PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: Now that the initial hurdle of getting rpm 4.19 into rawhide is over, it's time to start looking towards enabling the sysusers integration: https://rpm-software-management.github.i

Re: Towards enabling rpm sysusers integration

On 6/22/23 18:01, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 01:18:27PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: Hey all, Now that the initial hurdle of getting rpm 4.19 into rawhide is over, it's time to start looking towards enabling the sysusers integration: https://rpm-sof

Re: Towards enabling rpm sysusers integration

On 6/22/23 19:55, Steve Grubb wrote: Hello, On Thursday, June 22, 2023 11:01:28 AM EDT Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: 2. systemd provides users and groups that are actually owned by the setup package. As rpm is now turning non-root file ownership into dependencies, systemd could end up pull

Towards enabling rpm sysusers integration

Hey all, Now that the initial hurdle of getting rpm 4.19 into rawhide is over, it's time to start looking towards enabling the sysusers integration: https://rpm-software-management.github.io/rpm/manual/users_and_groups.html We (as in rpm-team) are not pushing for doing all this in Fedora 39,

Re: What's the error in this build?

On 6/22/23 11:07, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=102443065 I don't see what the error is ... Rich. Towards the end: DEBUG util.py:539: Executing command: ['/usr/bin/systemd-nspawn', '-q', '-M', '03701d048e03484c80696e05b2d9f2fe', '-D', '/va

Re: Fedora Copr builders updated to Fedora 38

On 6/14/23 11:02, Pavel Raiskup wrote: On úterý 13. června 2023 16:57:42 CEST Neal H. Walfield wrote: On Thu, 08 Jun 2023 21:37:09 +0200, Ondřej Budai wrote: RPM Sequoia's crypto policies can be configured, so you should be able to re-enable SHA-1. However, this would be a global change, not o

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Build JDKs once, repack everywhere (System-Wide Change)

On 6/1/23 15:43, Robert Marcano via devel wrote: On 6/1/23 8:33 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 08:28:18AM -0400, Robert Marcano via devel wrote: On 6/1/23 3:51 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 05:27:47PM +0200, Jiri Vanek wrote: This was heavily dis

Re: Status of the forge macros?

On 5/24/23 18:26, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 11:13:15AM -0400, Ben Beasley wrote: In your example, the forge macros simplify the spec file only because a snapshot is involved; but the forge macros put the snapshot info in the Release field, which is still permis

Re: Please test the new version cpio-2.14

On 5/15/23 16:03, Lukas Javorsky wrote: Hi, I've created an MR [1] for the new cpio-2.14 release. If your package is using cpio, or you use cpio could you please provide any feedback on the new build (if it doesn't break your component)? I CCied the RPM maintainers because that's a very cruc

Re: RPM Sequoia: A Sequoia-based backend for the RPM Package Manager

On 4/27/23 20:55, Robert Relyea wrote: On 4/27/23 3:51 AM, Neal H. Walfield wrote: Hi all, A year and a half ago, I began working with Panu on using Sequoia as RPM's OpenPGP parser. I wrote up our journey from the initial analysis, to adding the code to RPM, and to getting it into Fedora 38 (y

Re: It’s time to transform the Fedora devel list into something new

On 4/21/23 23:38, Ben Cotton wrote: On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 4:05 PM Maxwell G wrote: What evidence shows that the group is ever shrinking? I often see Self Introduction posts and new people interacting with project. I suppose that whether they continue interacting afterwards is another questio

Re: It’s time to transform the Fedora devel list into something new

On 4/21/23 22:07, Matthew Miller wrote: On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 11:54:09AM -0400, JT wrote: So I'm interested by what you bring up here. Have you run into situations where someone wanted to contribute to development but was unwilling to use a mailing list? With a community as big as Fedora and

Re: It’s time to transform the Fedora devel list into something new

On 4/21/23 02:21, Simo Sorce wrote: Hi Matthew, you say: "We're missing people", and I think, "who?". And who are you going to miss if you move to discourse? I will be candid, I tried to use forums since the old phpBB times, it never works for me. I have no time to go roaming over forums except

Re: Recommended way to disable parallel build

On 4/18/23 12:24, Florian Weimer wrote: What's the best way to disable to disable parallel (make) builds? This? %undefine _smp_build_ncpus It seems it will set RPM_BUILD_NCPUS to the empty string, though. No, don't do that. It depends on where you want to do it. From a spec (typically for a

Re: %patchN deprecated?

On 3/31/23 18:49, Ron Olson wrote: One thing to note is that the new format doesn’t work with EPEL releases; I had to revert to the %patchN style for them. The following bit from https://rpm-software-management.github.io/rpm/manual/spec.html was already quoted in this thread, but: %pa

Re: %patchN deprecated?

On 3/29/23 18:58, Todd Zullinger wrote: Florian Festi wrote: 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 Quoting that: %patch is used to apply

Re: crypto-policies

On 3/27/23 12:40, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 11:23 AM Kamil Paral wrote: On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 8:20 AM Neal H. Walfield wrote: Panu wrote https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2170878#c126 : To me the key points here are 1) there's a lot of obsolete/broken cryp

Re: Feedback wanted for a proposed improvement to RPM's ELF dependency generator

On 2/21/23 14:01, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 9:40 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 10:56:30AM -0800, Gordon Messmer wrote: On 2023-02-20 10:01, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: Does it have to be something which looks so much like it might be a version number

Re: Mystery fedpkg srpm failure

On 12/2/22 11:14, Florian Weimer wrote: * Aleksei Bavshin: On 12/1/22 23:18, Aleksei Bavshin wrote: On 12/1/22 22:28, Florian Weimer wrote: I don't see what spec file aspect is causing this failure: $ fedpkg clone -a cups-bjnp Cloning into 'cups-bjnp'... remote: Enumerating objects: 278, don

Re: Help understanding Fedora CI failure wrt RPM Sequoia

On 11/9/22 11:12, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 11/9/22 10:08, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 11/8/22 21:45, Adam Williamson wrote: On Tue, 2022-11-08 at 08:11 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: On Tue, 2022-11-08 at 13:32 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: But I don't know the slightest thing about an

Re: Help understanding Fedora CI failure wrt RPM Sequoia

On 11/9/22 10:08, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 11/8/22 21:45, Adam Williamson wrote: On Tue, 2022-11-08 at 08:11 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: On Tue, 2022-11-08 at 13:32 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: But I don't know the slightest thing about ansible, beyond a very rough idea of what ki

Re: Help understanding Fedora CI failure wrt RPM Sequoia

On 11/8/22 21:45, Adam Williamson wrote: On Tue, 2022-11-08 at 08:11 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: On Tue, 2022-11-08 at 13:32 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: But I don't know the slightest thing about ansible, beyond a very rough idea of what kind of tool it is. Just understanding what ex

Re: Help understanding Fedora CI failure wrt RPM Sequoia

On 11/8/22 13:05, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 08. 11. 22 11:13, Panu Matilainen wrote: Hey, Thought I'd try to get on with the times and do the Sequoia change via a PR instead of just pushing as we've traditionally done. So far so good, but it throws up an error which I have no idea ho

Help understanding Fedora CI failure wrt RPM Sequoia

Hey, Thought I'd try to get on with the times and do the Sequoia change via a PR instead of just pushing as we've traditionally done. So far so good, but it throws up an error which I have no idea how to debug: https://artifacts.dev.testing-farm.io/700d486d-d409-44fe-b7c3-01634243558e/ > Unk

Re: F38 proposal: RPM Sequoia (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 10/24/22 23:23, Petr Menšík wrote: Hi, maybe it was already answered. Not long ago Thunderbird switched from using installed GPG to its own implementation inside. I think I have found the library part and it seems to be in C++, which should be much more easier to integrate than rust librar

Re: F38 proposal: RPM Sequoia (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 10/20/22 12:03, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 10. 10. 22 16:32, Ben Cotton wrote: For the last 20 years or so, RPM has used a home-grown OpenPGP parser for dealing with keys and signatures. That parser is rather infamous for its limitations and flaws, and especially in recent years has proven a sign

Re: F38 proposal: RPM Sequoia (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 10/13/22 15:14, Neal Gompa wrote: On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 4:24 AM Panu Matilainen wrote: On 10/13/22 10:53, Neal Gompa wrote: On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 3:29 AM Panu Matilainen wrote: On 10/13/22 07:18, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: For the last 20 years or so, RPM has used a home-grown

Re: F38 proposal: RPM Sequoia (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 10/13/22 17:31, Neal Gompa wrote: On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 9:58 AM Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: Neal Gompa wrote: No, because when you do things like mirror repositories (especially for private mirrors), that signature is the only way to verify the integrity. HTTPS is only transport encryp

Re: F38 proposal: RPM Sequoia (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 10/13/22 19:35, Demi Marie Obenour wrote: On 10/13/22 04:23, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 10/13/22 10:53, Neal Gompa wrote: On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 3:29 AM Panu Matilainen wrote: On 10/13/22 07:18, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: For the last 20 years or so, RPM has used a home-grown OpenPGP

Re: F38 proposal: RPM Sequoia (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 10/13/22 10:53, Neal Gompa wrote: On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 3:29 AM Panu Matilainen wrote: On 10/13/22 07:18, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: For the last 20 years or so, RPM has used a home-grown OpenPGP parser for dealing with keys and signatures. That parser is rather infamous for its

Re: F39 proposal: Replace DNF with DNF5 (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 10/12/22 17:47, Stephen Smoogen wrote: On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 at 10:32, Kevin P. Fleming > wrote: On 10/12/22 08:59, Stephen Smoogen wrote: > Maybe call it the Fedora Update Manager 'FUM' ? Unless we're going to call it RUM when it makes its way into

Re: F38 proposal: RPM Sequoia (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 10/13/22 07:18, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: For the last 20 years or so, RPM has used a home-grown OpenPGP parser for dealing with keys and signatures. That parser is rather infamous for its limitations and flaws, and especially in recent years has proven a significant burden to RPM developm

Re: DNF5 Blockers

On 10/11/22 15:17, Stephen Smoogen wrote: On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 at 07:54, Panu Matilainen <mailto:pmati...@redhat.com>> wrote: On 10/10/22 10:15, Jaroslav Mracek wrote: > Please can you be more specific which kind of functionality is required for particular comman

Re: DNF5 Blockers

On 10/10/22 10:15, Jaroslav Mracek wrote: Please can you be more specific which kind of functionality is required for particular command? Why is it important to know what user case you want to resolve it? Commands has multiple options and some of them could be unused. Specially repoquery has t

Re: When is a file dependency appropriate?

On 10/6/22 11:55, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 06. 10. 22 v 9:18 Otto Liljalaakso napsal(a): Miro Hrončok kirjoitti 6.10.2022 klo 2.33: On 06. 10. 22 1:21, Otto Liljalaakso wrote: Recently, I have run into some cases where file dependencies like Requires: /usr/bin/foo are used. In a recent thread

Re: Explicit dependency on systemd-rpm-macros now required?

On 9/16/22 15:22, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 11:02:22AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 10:53 AM Smith, Stewart via devel wrote: On Sep 14, 2022, at 4:17 AM, Tom Hughes via devel wrote: On 14/09/2022 12:11, Florian Weimer wrote: I see som

Re: F38 proposal: Strong crypto settings: phase 3, forewarning 2/2 (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 9/15/22 00:59, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: Alexander Sosedkin wrote: That's a reason why my initial thread [1] has been named "Landing a larger-than-release change (distrusting SHA-1 signatures)": flipping the switch is the easy part, unfortunately. IMHO, a change that breaks so many thin

Re: rpm with sequoia pgp

On 9/6/22 23:10, Simo Sorce wrote: On Tue, 2022-09-06 at 11:09 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 9/2/22 17:31, Neal H. Walfield wrote: Hi all, rpm 4.18 is on the horizon and includes a new OpenPGP backend based on Sequoia PGP. https://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.18.0 https://sequoia

Re: rpm with sequoia pgp

On 9/2/22 17:31, Neal H. Walfield wrote: Hi all, rpm 4.18 is on the horizon and includes a new OpenPGP backend based on Sequoia PGP. https://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.18.0 https://sequoia-pgp.org/ Thanks to Fabio Valentini (decathorpe) for packaging not only rpm-sequoia, but all of the Seq

Re: fedora-review of m3u8 fails

On 8/9/22 15:37, Martin Gansser wrote: Hi, fedora-review of m3u8 fails with the following error message: Building target platforms: x86_64 Building for target x86_64 setting SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH=1659916800 Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.g2rRRB + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD

Re: F37 Change Proposal: Firefox Langpacks Subpackage (System-Wide Change)

On 6/29/22 21:26, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: On 29/06/2022 19:00, Vipul Siddharth wrote: Firefox langpacks, which have been bundled in the Fedora firefox base package until now, will be moved to a firefox-langpacks subpackage. +1. It might be better to split it even more: firefox-langpack

Re: Archive value is out of time_t range

On 6/6/22 13:29, Petr Pisar wrote: V Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 12:07:18PM +0200, Miroslav Lichvar napsal(a): On Thu, Jun 02, 2022 at 05:46:05PM +0200, Petr Pisar wrote: $ gcc -m32 -D_TIME_BITS=64 -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 main.c $ ./a.out sizeof(time_t)=8 I recommend you to file a bug against tar in F

Re: F37 proposal: RPM Macros for Build Flags (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 6/3/22 13:43, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 11:25 AM Vít Ondruch wrote: BTW isn't the `_flag_` prefix too generic? And also, the initial underscore implies that this is internal macro which should ideally not be used. So should it be rather removed or not? I agree that the

Re: How much free space in /var is required for upgrades?

On 5/16/22 13:39, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 5/13/22 21:54, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: So I went to do a dnf system-upgrade from F35 to F36 on a test machine, as part of my usual testing.  In the middle of the process, it appears that /var filled up and that left the system in an unfortunate

Re: How much free space in /var is required for upgrades?

On 5/16/22 15:06, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 6:39 AM Panu Matilainen wrote: On 5/13/22 21:54, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: So I went to do a dnf system-upgrade from F35 to F36 on a test machine, as part of my usual testing. In the middle of the process, it appears that

Re: How much free space in /var is required for upgrades?

On 5/13/22 21:54, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: So I went to do a dnf system-upgrade from F35 to F36 on a test machine, as part of my usual testing. In the middle of the process, it appears that /var filled up and that left the system in an unfortunate state. Surprisingly (to me) it did boot with

Re: F37 Change: RPM 4.18 (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 4/27/22 19:09, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 27. 04. 22 17:53, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 5:08 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: On 27. 04. 22 10:36, Joe Orton wrote: On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 12:47:25PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 12:24 PM Ben Cotton wrote:

Re: F37 Change: RPM 4.18 (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 4/26/22 12:53, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 11:50 AM Panu Matilainen wrote: On 4/7/22 19:13, Ben Cotton wrote: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RPM-4.18 == Summary == Update RPM to the [https://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.18.0 4.18] release. FWIW, this is in

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >