> > @pmatilai PTAL
>
> All PR's will get looked at, in time. Please avoid these kind of personal
> pings unless it's actually personal, ie there's something that requires a
> response from that person specifically.
I'm sorry. I'll follow this rule in the future.
--
Reply to this email directl
> @pmatilai PTAL
All PR's will get looked at, in time. Please avoid these kind of personal pings
unless it's actually personal, ie there's something that requires a response
from that person specifically.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-man
@JetXujing pushed 1 commit.
23f92b49b757f1449f6889bdcce2f5e40f613b71 fix eiu->sourceURL leak in rpmInstall
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2289/files/12ecef95db39c45f3f70cb20e63e2ebb7560f222..23f92b49b757f1449f6889bdcce2f5e40f613b71
You are receiving th
@pmatilai PTAL
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2289#issuecomment-1325906444
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint mailing li
when rpm install a package, the Header from tryReadHeader in rpmInstall is
leaked.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2289
-- Commit Summary --
* fix Header leak in rpmInstall
-- File Changes --
M lib/rpm
I still haven't wrapped my head around the internal pgp parser, so I did not
thoroughly review `pgpPrtParams`. Perhaps @DemiMarie can look at the changes
to that function. Otherwise, I have no issues with this commit.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rp
This fails on the sequoia backend:
```
# -*- compilation -*-
281. rpmsigdig.at:605: testing rpmkeys type confusion ...
/rpmsigdig.at:606:
if ! [ -d testing/ ]; then
cp -aP "${RPMTEST}" .
chmod -R u+w testing/
mkdir -p testing/build
ln -s ../data/SOURCE
This (and the other tests) can be changed to AT_CHECK. According to [the
documentation](https://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/autoconf-2.67/html_node/Writing-Testsuites.html)
> The difference between AT_CHECK and AT_CHECK_UNQUOTED is that only the latter
> performs shell variable expansi
due *to* their
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/commit/32893a5e18347b124c405ba216e4ee89b90088f8#r90855888
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
I tried building rpm (rpm-4.17.0-alpha-687-g37b963fa5) on a relatively fresh
Fedora 36 machine. I did:
```
[neal@fedora-36 ~]$ git clone g...@github.com:rpm-software-management/rpm.git
Cloning into 'rpm'...
remote: Enumerating objects: 138209, done.
remote: Counting objects: 100% (117/117), done
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> @@ -168,6 +169,12 @@ static rpmtd makeSigTag(Header sigh, int ishdr, uint8_t
> *pkt, size_t pktlen)
break;
}
+ver = pgpDigParamsVersion(sigp);
+if (ver < 4) {
+ rpmlog(RPMLOG_WARNING, _("Deprecated PGP signature version %d
@nwalfield approved this pull request.
Looks good.
> @@ -168,6 +169,12 @@ static rpmtd makeSigTag(Header sigh, int ishdr, uint8_t
> *pkt, size_t pktlen)
break;
}
+ver = pgpDigParamsVersion(sigp);
+if (ver < 4) {
+ rpmlog(RPMLOG_WARNING, _("Deprecated PGP signature ve
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141686 revealed that much of the
rpm-ecosystem is still using the obsolete v3 OpenPGP signature format, I think
largely due to workarounds for legacy rpm versions (from around the turn of the
millennium) that have just been forgotten in place. Lets at
If anything, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141686 has taught us
that there are a LOT of v3 signatures still being created, often simply because
of a long forgotten workaround for some ancient rpm versions not supporting v4
signatures.
Issuing warnings when verifying v3 signature
Yeah, it's not difficult to just yank that piece of logic now that we output to
stdout. It would be a "regression" for existing users, though. But then, one
could assume that most users would actually use the "cat ... | rpm2archive ..."
form in scripts...
--
Reply to this email directly or vie
Closed #2208 as completed via 37b963fa51d6ad31086a6e345ce6701afda5afff.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2208#event-7874642585
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Merged #2285 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2285#event-7874642226
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint maili
Right, this does achieve rpm2cpio compatible behavior in the piping case while
preserving the previous behavior otherwise.
We can go with this, but it's not quite what I had in mind for #2208: I find
the rpm2archive behavior of silently creation a file in the directory of the
argument file jus
18 matches
Mail list logo
