Thanks @nwalfield for eyeballing!
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3280#issuecomment-259309
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
R
Closed #3274 as completed via a3cf4f674dd59c1c80f97780643c184e705518ce.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3274#event-14157361821
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
__
Closed #3274 as completed via #3280.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3274#event-14157361787
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
R
Merged #3280 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3280#event-14157361628
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mail
Out of curiosity: what gpg version is this? I've never seen such behavior from
it in the tests.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3277#issuecomment-246222
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this threa
Closed #3277 as completed via #3281.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3277#event-14157265391
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
R
Closed #3277 as completed via 3141bf74ffcc0650c64611066ede8718a98ecebe.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3277#event-14157265425
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
__
Merged #3281 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3281#event-14157265092
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mail
Seems reasonable, back when the test was added there only was one key to import
so the glob didn't matter and was there only for convenience. Thanks for the
patch.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3281#issuecomment-244
Right, I had similar experiences with this, without the explicit private mount
the namespace doesn't seem to mean much because the mounts still propagate
outside somehow. It's a weird thing.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pul
Sorry for the delay, I was away on a longer holiday (well, not sorry actually
;)).
The reason is the one mentioned by @dmnks. I was also surprised by this,
because my assumption was that a mount namespace is self contained. But withou
this explicit mount call I saw side effects outside of the n
Looks reasonable!
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3280#issuecomment-2331131477
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint mailing
@pmatilai pushed 2 commits.
729ca5385ddceeb34f7bbb1aece0c534f63648bb Refactor sign command expand and
parse out of runGPG()
304feca8f01fad24a465eb9990554c44cafa7116 Eliminate hardcoded GPG references
from user visible messages
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> @@ -235,23 +235,26 @@ static int runGPG(sigTarget sigt, const char *sigfile)
}
if (!(pid = fork())) {
- const char *tty = ttyname(STDIN_FILENO);
- const char *gpg_path = NULL;
+ int using_gpg = (strstr(argv[0], "gpg") != N
Merged #3276 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3276#event-14143123508
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mail
@nwalfield commented on this pull request.
> @@ -235,23 +235,26 @@ static int runGPG(sigTarget sigt, const char *sigfile)
}
if (!(pid = fork())) {
- const char *tty = ttyname(STDIN_FILENO);
- const char *gpg_path = NULL;
+ int using_gpg = (strstr(argv[0], "gpg") !=
Using "*.secret" may cause "rpm --addsign" to fail, and the
testcase is actually related only to rpm.org-rsa-2048-test.secret.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3281
-- Commit Summary --
* Specify the private
@pmatilai pushed 1 commit.
95a239b5e496a47e94a2192f112f508a7b268d71 Pull in the main p7zip package to CI
image instead of p7zip-plugins
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3276/files/566d096f13f075b6f28d2bed0816f2328e3465b0..95a239b5e496a47e94a2192f112f508
More details in commit messages, executive summary:
Use the OpenPGP standard name or the configured+parsed signing command in
messages as appropriate.
Refactor a bit to make that possible + add some error checks + tests while at
it.
Fixes: #3274
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull reque
Merged #3275 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3275#event-14142806021
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mail
Merged #3279 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3279#event-14142776265
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mail
gdb 15.1 causes our "rpmbuild debuginfo gdb index included" to fail
because no index is created. Reported to Fedora bugzilla:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310156
Related: #3278
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-mana
In the last day or so, our CI started consistently failing on the "rpmbuild
debuginfo gdb index included" test for no apparent reason. Investigation
reveals this to be a gdb regression, now reported in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310156
--
Reply to this email directly or view
**Describe the bug**
When I use OBS to build rpm, the "rpmsign --addsign" fails, but the manual
execution succeeds.
When I manually import the private key, I found that user input was required,
probably because of the gpg version.
```
[root@localhost ~]# gpg2 --import data/keys/*.secret
gpg: key
Yup, it's a gdb regression: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310156
We'll need to work around it in the test-suite for now.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3275#issuecomment-2330871982
You are receiving this be
Oh doh, I removed perl.prov and perl.req but missed the .attr files entirely.
Thanks for spotting + the PR.
The failure is indeed unrelated, probably some regression in gdb that was just
updated in Fedora.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-ma
The main convoluted reason for this change is that our build process primarily
looks for 7za and falls back to 7z if not found. Which is all fine except when
running the test-suite locally with p7zip installed, which will causes the
uncompress tests to fail for no good reason.
p7zip-plugins con
27 matches
Mail list logo
