Yes, they're different. Like said, they're almost certainly brp scripts in
action, no deep mystery here.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2313#discussioncomment-4418995
You are receiving this because you are subscrib
> It'd be really helpful if you can turn this into a minimal reproducer that we
> could then include in the test-suite.
To reproduce:
1.dnf install nghttp2 -y
2.systemctl status nghttpx (inactive)
3.rpm -e nghttp2
4.systemctl status nghttpx (still inactive, but warns that you need to reload
daem
And what distro is that on?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2324#issuecomment-1354479895
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-m
> And what distro is that on?
>
> (this is a reproducer, which is a necessary first step, but it's not the kind
> of minimal reproducer that we'd need for the test-suite)
I tried fedora 37，but the filetriggerpostun is also not called.
I think there's something wrong here.
--
Reply to this emai
I'm not question the existence of a bug, but we need to know the conditions to
reproduce it. A bug may exhibit on distro X but not on X+1, for a whole variety
of reasons.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2324#issuecommen
> I'm not question the existence of a bug, but we need to know the conditions
> to reproduce it. A bug may exhibit on distro X but not on X+1, for a whole
> variety of reasons.
ok. I got the iso from https://getfedora.org/. You can download that and use
the steps I mentioned above to reproduce.
I try to fix this by putting `rpmdsNext` into a loop, and it seems to work.
But I don't know whether it's the right way.
`
diff -uprN rpm-4.17.1.orig/lib/rpmtriggers.c rpm-4.17.1/lib/rpmtriggers.c
--- rpm-4.17.1.orig/lib/rpmtriggers.c 2022-12-16 16:40:08.442304317 +0800
+++ rpm-4.17.1/lib/rpmtrig
I try to fix this by putting rpmdsNext into a loop, and it seems to work.
But I don't know whether it's the right way.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2324#issuecomment-1355096410
You are receiving this because you are su
@pandnp @lkardos What is the intended purpose of the file signature length?
The signatures themselves are just strings which one could call `strlen()` on,
and I don't see any other string array tags which have a separate length tag as
this does
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on Gi
