@pmatilai Thanks for the comments. I tried to address them. Limiting reflinking
to whole files would be a serious limitation. We wouldn't be able to use the
RPM extents format. And I imagine that other users might like to have the
possibility to reflink partial files.
--
Reply to this email di
@rphibel pushed 1 commit.
f659678235ea6839e924dec94d39f8fba272c139 Add FA_REFLINK file action
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2557/files/6aff1b9f869f4ca268a48830ccd338ed1966e04d..f659678235ea6839e924dec94d39f8fba272c139
You are receiving this because yo
Closed #2621.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2621#event-10138132553
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2621
-- Commit Summary --
* RPM with Copy on Write
* Fix stack overflow
* Fix issue for transaction with transcoded and non-transcoded packages
* Add CI
-- File Changes
This PR adds a new `FA_REFLINK` file action. This action reflinks a file
instead of doing a copy.
This can be used as follows:
- plugins call `rpmfilesSetFcr` with a
[`file_clone_range`](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/ioctl_ficlonerange.2.html)
structure containing reflink information
Also we still need a way for the plugin to claim ownership of a package to
trigger the reflinking during install.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2416#issuecomment-1598860857
You are receiving this because you are subscrib
Thanks for the valuable comments. I will look into creating the new FA_REFLINK
file action. For the transcoding part, if we unpack the package files in a
directory, I think we still need to keep the package header somewhere for rpm
to process it, but this could indeed be a good approach. I will
@pmatilai @DemiMarie Did you get a chance to have a look at this?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2416#issuecomment-1479478779
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: _
@rphibel pushed 1 commit.
8a7cd8139b759d1711273839a6502333e3c0f914 Create content handler plugin hook
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2416/files/5965d2be5b80eea738b767a5b48c5bff50c87da3..8a7cd8139b759d1711273839a6502333e3c0f914
You are receiving this be
@rphibel pushed 1 commit.
5965d2be5b80eea738b767a5b48c5bff50c87da3 Create content handler plugin hook
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2416/files/82b6cfe2cfdc981cc7fcda4ecd473c8729aa6920..5965d2be5b80eea738b767a5b48c5bff50c87da3
You are receiving this be
### Description
This change creates a new `content_handler` plugin hook. This hook can be used
by plugins to claim responsability for the package payload. The plugin will
then be responsible for:
- reading the payload
- verifying it
- installing the files
The main motivation for this change is t
Thanks a lot for these comments. I think I have a better idea of what I need to
do. I will work on a new implementation.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2057#discussioncomment-5055827
You are receiving this because
# Description
This is a refactoring of PR
[#1470](https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1470).
The RPM CoW plugin is refactored to register as owner of payloads transcoded by
`rpm2extents` as suggested in comment
[#2057](https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/20
@pmatilai Hello, I was wondering if you had a chance to have a look at my
proposal? Please let me know if this is unclear or if you need more details.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2057#discussioncomment-4762243
Y
Hello @pmatilai,
I work at Meta with @chantra and @malmond77 . I am implementing the new API for
the RPM CoW plugin based on your comment. This is what I have implemented so
far:
I defined 2 new fields of type `rpmPlugin` (with associated getters and
setters) in `rpmte` structure:
-
[`customA
In pkg_check_modules command, LIBLZMA is all uppercase. So in variable
LIBLZMA_FOUND, LIBLZMA should also be all uppercase.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2337
-- Commit Summary --
* Fix case of LIBLZMA_FOU
16 matches
Mail list logo
