Reopened #2244.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2244#event-7866095277
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rp
OK, turns out I was wrong saying:
> What we need is to _always_ print to stdout, not a file.
The patch you proposed indeed does exactly that, I just got confused, apologies
for that.
Also, while omitting `-` works with rpm2cpio, it's not in fact documented, so
we might as well not bother with
> Indent the else block to make it more readable (this can be done as a second
> commit to keep the original diff obvious)
The indentation change belongs to the same commit: the code logic changes
fundamentally and trying to avoid indentation changes only makes that logic
harder to follow.
--
Answering my own question above... It's easy, we just allow printing to stdout
when it's not a terminal, that's it. So when a filename is specified, a file
will still be created, no behavioral change there. The associated PR implements
that, just needs a bit of polish as noted in the comments th
> OK, turns out I was wrong saying:
>
> > What we need is to _always_ print to stdout, not a file.
>
> The patch you proposed indeed does exactly that, I just got confused,
> apologies for that.
>
> Also, while omitting `-` works with rpm2cpio, it's not in fact documented, so
> we might as wel
> The indentation change belongs to the same commit: the code logic changes
> fundamentally and trying to avoid indentation changes only makes that logic
> harder to follow and review.
OK, it's not a refactoring change after all and also, one can always instruct
git to ignore whitespace changes
> The previous indent confused me
See the above comments
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2244#issuecomment-1323433095
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
@yangchenguang94 pushed 1 commit.
31cf8e6ae869509bec8520ef3d455f78494c0b88 update man rpm2archive and modify
code style
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2244/files/58aa8786ca896b54edcaa50a2e9cd464964744a5..31cf8e6ae869509bec8520ef3d455f78494c0b88
You ar
This doesn't seem to go anywhere. So I am closing this PR here. Feel free to
re-open or may be open a new one. The discussion is becoming a bit unwieldy.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1532#issuecomment-1323478239
You are
Closed #1532.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1532#event-7866567762
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-
This seems to be related to the cmake transition, I'll investigate further.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2283
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: _
Pass -s/--standalone to pandoc as it's needed in order for the man pages to
render properly in man(1), we also used this option pre-cmake.
Fixes: #2283
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2284
-- Commit Summary --
Right, but then we seem to have also lost `-t man` from there. I guess without
it, pandoc makes an educated guess but being explicit never hurts. I wonder
what happened to these options :laughing:
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/
Yup, I was going to add `-t man` as well but then realized pandoc is so clever
that it just sees the .1 or .8 suffixes and assumes man pages :smile: Which of
course doesn't mean we shouldn't be explicit, so fixed now :+1:
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com
> I wonder what happened to these options laughing
They took a vacation. Not for too long :laughing:
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2284#issuecomment-1323773669
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this
Closed #2283 as completed via #2284.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2283#event-7868649430
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rp
Merged #2284 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2284#event-7868649119
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint maili
Thanks for spotting :+1:
Makes me wonder just how many of these "tiny" wrinkles we still have lurking in
the cmake build :laughing:
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2284#issuecomment-1323788971
You are receiving this bec
Time will tell :smile:
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2284#issuecomment-1323793484
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint m
If stdout is not a terminal, output the archive(s) to it, instead of creating
file(s) on disk, unless the file argument is "-" in which case just
fail (as we don't have a file name to use as a basis for the .tar name).
This makes rpm2archive consistent with rpm2cpio.
Based on a patch from yangc
Closed #2244.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2244#event-7869102871
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-
I tweaked your patch a little (removed some extra nesting and adjusted the man
page a bit more) and submitted it as a separate PR #2285. Closing this one in
lieu of that one. Thanks again!
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/
@ffesti PTAL
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2261#issuecomment-1324462841
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint mailing list
23 matches
Mail list logo
