**Describe the bug**
When I run:
```
rpmspec -q --qf '%{license}\n' '--define=_sourcedir .'
~/spdx/cfn-lint/cfn-lint.spec 2>/dev/null
```
on this spec file
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cfn-lint/blob/rawhide/f/cfn-lint.spec
I get:
```
Reading /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.bSC32X
MIT-0 AND MIT
MIT-0 AND
I opened https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3015, which I
believe will be much easier to implement. And will gain the same benefit.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3010#issuecomment-2035392608
You are
> we're running the entire test-suite as root.
I believe this is not true. I see no code in rpmbuild that would elevate UID to
root. Nor any consolehelper. Nor setuid bits.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3005#issuecomm
We can `--short-circuit` to almost any phase. But we cannot short circuit
directly to `%check` phase.
This should be trivial to implement and would allow to implement isolation of
`%check` phase in Mock
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/mock/issues/1352
--
Reply to this email directl
When you run rpmbuild directly I would argue that you do not care about
security already :) I guess it will be hard for rpmbuild to handle remounts for
you. While it is no brainer for Mock.
What mock will need to have in rpm implemented is:
1) rpmbuild -ba --nocheck foo.spec # this already exist
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/mock/issues/1352
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/3009#discussioncomment-8974586
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
_
Hmm, reading again the COPYING:
```
Alternatively,
all of the source code in the lib and rpmio subdirectories of the RPM source
code distribution as well as any code derived from that code may instead be
distributed under the GNU Library General Public License (LGPL), at the
choice of the distribu
> Um, the first part is the exception. More precisely, only parts of the
> codebase are alternatively available as LGPL. How that's supposed to be
> expressed in terms of SPDX or anything else, I have no idea.
That should be `GPL-2.0-or-later AND LGPL-2.1-or-later`
--
Reply to this email dire
I filed https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rpm/pull-request/44
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2511#issuecomment-1569944808
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: __
I compared the second part of COPYING and COPYING-2 with
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.0.txt and it matches 100 %
(sans formatting and old address). I still do not see any exceptions.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-manage
As part of the move to the SPDX identifier I have tried to convert rpm license
to SPDX:
The current license string in Fedora is:
```
# Partially GPL/LGPL dual-licensed and some bits with BSD
# SourceLicense: (GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ with exceptions) and BSD
> How about using generator to have auto BRs for such macros instead?
We can do that for common macros in Fedora (e.g. py3_*) . But independently.
Because this will not solve macros defined e.g. in ~/.rpmmacros or typos.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/
This is duplicate of https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2102
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2307#issuecomment-1512190314
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: _
I am interested in this as well.
This does not need to be fully implemented by rpmbuild itself. The list of
"components" used for the build can be gathered by the build system. E.g., Mock
can already do that
https://rpm-software-management.github.io/mock/Plugin-PackageState In this
case, the f
It is pretty common that package maintainers do an mistake in the SPEC file and
forget a BuildRequires. It passes for them in plain rpmbuild on their
workstation will full set of packages. But when the build is run in Koji or
Mock the package that defines macro is missing. E.g. %py3_build. For
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2280
-- Commit Summary --
* document example of dynamic spec
-- File Changes --
M docs/manual/dynamic_specs.md (3)
-- Patch Links --
https://github.com/rpm-software-ma
> You can define macros via mock config
How does this help to set ecosystem-wide macro?
I am a Mock contributor (and ex-leader). I defined the `%_platform_multiplier`
macro in Mock. But now, users have to use
`60*%{?_platform_multiplier}%{!?_platform_multiplier:1}` which is clumsy. Hard
to use
The idea is that people can use something like:
```
%check
timeout %platform_timeout 60 somescript.sh
```
which would basically expand to
```
%check
timeout 60 somescript.sh
```
on most platforms. But if `%_platform_multiplier` was defined then the timeout
will be increased.
The benefits of
Mock now use and defines `%_platform_multiplier'`. The meaning is that if some
platform (e.g. emulated using QEMU) is slower, then this macro defines the
factor of slowiness. Right now, Mock sets it to 10 when the build is run in
emulated QEMU, but it can be fine-tuned by the admin.
More details
> Rpm is not just the handful of packages in Fedora dist-git. We could
> "fix" (unbreak would be a better word) the handful of packages under our
> control, but nothing else.
Can we have `%check_before_install` and `%check_after_files`? Obviously with
better names :) And leave the current
I have one solution. `poptPrintUsage` is used in two places. Simply put after
each of that use `printModeSelectors` which will be a new function with
```
fprintf(fp, _("[-q] [--verify]\n"));
```
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly o
Ahh. It is simple output of `rpm` without any param. And yes, it is not there.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1473#issuecomment-754667423_
How you get this output? I see `-q` in both `man rpm` and `rpm -h` - but output
of both differs from what you posted.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1473
> They say DNL is chad now.
Any link to source? I am not aware of any such statement.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1474#issuecomment-754665056
Are you aware of
https://github.com/kjn/nosync
?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1401#issuecomment-711060085
A good start is to start with the new stuff. It does not need to be perfectly
organized. That can be the next step. But the goal is that search for
`site:rpm.org %meta` will return something. And something else then just
release notes.
I believe that you may ask documentation team for help.
--
There is a lot feature in rpm which has literally no other documentation than
source code:
OrderWithRequires
%artifact
%readme
VCS
meta
and a very likely a bunch of others.
I believe that all of this and actually every feature, tag, or modifier in
available in the SPEC file should be docu
You can steal the documentation from
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DynamicBuildRequires
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1029#issuecomment-6927650
With VM in OpenStack or in AWS, it happens quite often that the rpm tells me:
```
installing package FOO needs 220MB on the / filesystem
```
It quite often happens to me with `linux-firmware` which is big and needs
nearly 300 MB unpacked, which is on 3GB of cloud image a lot.
This statement
I am closing this in favour of
http://miroslav.suchy.cz/blog/archives/2020/05/05/new_project_-_create-fake-rpm/index.html
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/
Closed #1100.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1100#event-3303433211___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.r
We already have two possibilites how to handle this:
1) DynamicBuildRequies
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DynamicBuildRequires
2) Bootstrap
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bootstrapping
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Rep
+1 to the suggestion.
>From Mock POV it is not necessary to have a long transition period. It can be
>even cut-off (since version x.y rpmbuild will use the new structure and not
>the old one). That is because Mock has to support very old target chroots. So
>we will have to have some detection o
> That defeats the point of rpm itself, why would we do this? Rpm aims to be
> able to have consistent validation of dependencies
I found it as better (read easier) solution to teach rpm how to handle other
package managers (pip, gem...)
> you could easily make mock generate a dummy package tha
Can you please ignore in rpmbuild all BuildRequires with prefix 'external:'?
E.g.:
BuildRequires: external:rubygem(foo)
BuildRequires: external:pypi(bar)
Not everything is packaged as rpm. Sometimes you need one library, but
transitively it requires a dozen other modules. While in Fedora/RH
According to the man page, `patch` read the input from /dev/tty. No matter what.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/978#issuecomment-566157291
Right now, the rpmbuild is noninteractive. With only one exception: when you
have PatchX which does not apply cleanly, you will get prompt from patch(1).
Here is such example
http://miroslav.suchy.cz/tmp/python-aiosmtpd-1.2.1-3.fc32.src.rpm
This is coming from bug originally submitted against Co
> 3. rpmbuild -bp ~/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-pytest-harvest.spec
Technically this step can be repeated many times. Mock supports it. But it
should no destroy what %prep done. I.e. Next run can list additional deps, but
it should not print different deps.
--
You are receiving this because you are
For the record:
* mock runs %prep
* then %generate_buildrequires if present
* if rpmbuild fails because of some missing BR, then mock will install them
* mock runs rpmbuild again. But there was no cleanup, so %prep will (should)
be idempotent. To speed up things, mock will skip it and run rpm
I used that python-pip from dist-git and with mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 I
was able to reproduce. Then I `mock --copyin python-pip.src.rpm` and `mock -r
fedora-rawhide-x86_64 shell` and `cd /buildir/build/SRPMS; rpmbuild --rebuild
python-pip.src.rpm` and I do not see this issue. So it really
Can you share src.rpm which produce the error above? I have either too simple
specs or without any error.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/794#issuecomment
I am not aware of any related change in Mock in the past ~1 year. The relevant
Mock code is here:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/mock/blob/devel/mock/py/mockbuild/util.py#L555
Hmmm, what changed is that mock now runs in Python3 - even on EPEL7. I am going
to check if `read()` changed
Awesome. Thank you, guys!
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/593#issuecomment-496388368___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rp
@nim-nim if you have bootstrap enabled then yes, different dnf is being used.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/593#issuecomment-485233424_
You mean that 'noarch1.3.0-1.fc3'? But that is printed by DNF. You can run
'mock -v' to see what mock pass to DNF.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/593#issue
For the record - related changes in redhat-rpm-config
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/redhat-rpm-config/pull-request/51
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/5
@ignatenkobrain The example in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DynamicBuildRequires?rd=Changes/BuildRequires_Generators#Example
is too complicated. I would suggest to put there some artificial example which
add one artificial dependency and it will use just cat/echo and everything
(incl
Lets discuss Mock implementation here:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/mock/issues/245
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/593#issuecomment-481599005
FYI:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/mock/commit/1c73a7ac7659d852a4d38e4bd5ba4641e224b206
Copr build with this commit is here
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/mock/mock/package/mock/ I did not
test it yet.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread
@ignatenkobrain can you please send me some spec/src.rpm with dynamic
dependencies?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/593#issuecomment-481295283__
In Mock, I plan to have this workflow:
1) rpmbuild
2) if exit code == 11
2.1) dnf install $(rpm -qpR foo.buildreqs.nosrc.rpm)
2.2) rm foo.buildreqs.nosrc.rpm
3) rpmbuild
But yeah, you can do the cleanup in rpmbuild as well.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Re
> Since the buildreqs package is a short-lived artifact and not something
> people would want to hang on to, I think we should cleanup step on successful
> build, or maybe use /var/tmp to create it in the first place. And might want
> to have the directory configurable separate from src.rpm crea
@Conan-Kudo but to retrieve `%generate_buildrequires` you need to execute
`%prep` which is a non-trivial task. And somehow pass the output. I actually
like the `.buildreqs` as parsing Requires is well defined and you can do that
well as human and as a machine.
@ffesti `.buildreqs.nosrc.rpm` so
I am not sure about that `.builreqs.rpm` suffix. These suffixes are hardcoded
in several places. And e.g. I filed a lot of bug reports about ignoring
`nosrc.rpm` when handling src.rpm. When .buildreqs.rpm is a src.rpm ... what
about calling it .buildreqs.src.rpm? This way we can signalize it is
> Yes, specific exit status would make it easier for mock, but I fail to see
> what are the expected rpmbuild exit statuses from it's manual page,
> unfortunately and it seems to be so far undefined.
Yes. I checked the code and rpmbuild *always* fail with
_exit(EXIT_FAILURE)
which has value 1
Wow, that was quick. Thank you, Panu.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/630#issuecomment-463941474___
Rpm-maint m
Well `--load-average` *is* valid smp macro.
I just *briefly* checked code of rpmbuild and it seems to me that `-l` is not
actively used. So what about parsing `-l` and `--load-average` similarly as
`-j` and `--jobs` and current `-l` rename to `--list` or `--filelist`?
Other option I see is to
Note that `-l` is e.g., used at this example
https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/7/html/rpm_packaging_guide/advanced-topics#custom-macros
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
htt
I filed:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/630
--
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/279#issuecomment-463663623___
Rp
On my system I have user defined:
```
rpm --eval '%{?_smp_mflags}'
-l4
```
which for Makefile has semantics:
```
-l [load], --load-average[=load]
Specifies that no new jobs (commands) should be started if there
are others jobs running and the load average is at least load (a
Got it. It is because:
```
rpm --eval '%{?_smp_mflags}'
-l4
```
which for Makefile has semantics:
```
-l [load], --load-average[=load]
Specifies that no new jobs (commands) should be started if there
are others jobs running and the load average is at least load (a floating-po
My system tries to execute:
```
/usr/lib/rpm/find-debuginfo.sh -l4 --strict-build-id -m -i --build-id-seed
1.1-15.fc29 --unique-debug-suffix -1.1-15.fc29.x86_64 --unique-debug-src-base
enum-1.1-15.fc29.x86_64 --run-dwz --dwz-low-mem-die-limit 1000
--dwz-max-die-limit 11000 -S debugsource
This still happens to me on F29 (with most recent rpm). With exactly the same
errors. The weird thing is that I am not alone, it happens to some participant
of rpm packaging workshop too. The weird part is that when I generate src.rpm
and then build it in mock, it passes without a problem.
--
Mock will have to parse output of rpmbuild - in case the rpmbuild fails due `
%generate_buildrequires`. Parsing the output for `_("Failed build
dependencies:\n")` is suboptimal. Especially because of `_()` and because
`rpmpsPrint()` use `fprintf(f, "\t%s\n", msg);`. Can I have something machine
What exit code `rpmbuild` returns when a build fails because of
`%generate_buildrequires`? I cannot find it in a code.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/593#i
`%generatedeps` or `%generatebuildrequires` are my votes.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/104#issuecomment-434576177___
> I can run repoquery to check that nothing requires what I intent to retire
> etc. If we generate those, we should make sure the srpms we put in the source
> repo have the info in them available.
I can imagine `rpmbuild -bs --try-really-hard` which would:
1) generate src.rpm the classic way
2)
> The rpmbuild side of things can probably be done quite easily. No idea about
> the build system stuff.
I actually like this idea and as maintainer of mock, I can promise
implementation of this in Mock.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email d
I got and a mysterious
fg: no job control
in post scriptlet.
When running DNF I got:
```
Běžící skriptlet: rtkit-0.11-19.fc29.x86_64
62/62
/var/tmp/rpm-tmp.QF7wjH: řádek 1: fg: žádné řízení úloh
Personally, I would much rather see support for Tags instead of Groups.
Nevertheless, If this will be approved:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_Group_Tag
Then this tag does not have any value for Fedora and can be displayed
conditionally as some other tags.
--
You are receiving
This follows up
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/532#issuecomment-415312692
I agree that Group should not be displayed at all. Fedora does not use it. I am
really curious about the usage in other distributions as @Conan-Kudo mentioned.
--
You are receiving this because you
This was originally in in rpmUtils.miscutils.stringToVersion in yum.
http://yum.baseurl.org/api/yum-3.2.26/rpmUtils.miscutils-pysrc.html#stringToVersion
Yum is dead now (and not present for Python3), but this function is useful.
Signed-off-by: Miroslav Suchý
You can view, comment on, or merge
Signed-off-by: Miroslav Suchý
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/490
-- Commit Summary --
* Add missing newlines to man page
-- File Changes --
M doc/rpm.8 (3)
-- Patch Links --
https://github.com/rpm
> Then use the constant in _rpm
> Again: you could easily stop disabling signature/digest checks in mock.
Yes. I can do both very easily. But I am asking in this issue whether the
correct solution should be to do the change at
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/blob/master/python/rpm
> FWIW, each of those values is just a bit mask, you could easily create names
> in mock.
Yes, but then I had to think about it if ever that constant change. I really
want to use constant from rpm.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directl
Mock is using (for ages):
```
import rpm
ts = rpm.TransactionSet('/')
flags = (rpm._RPMVSF_NOSIGNATURES | rpm._RPMVSF_NODIGESTS)
ts.setVSFlags(flags)
```
And pylint gives me warnings that: Acce
76 matches
Mail list logo
