Merged #3296 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3296#event-14245297793
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mail
Closed #3290 as completed via #3296.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3290#event-14245298153
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
R
Merged #3282 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3282#event-14245497357
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mail
Closed #3248 as completed via #3282.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3248#event-14245497561
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
R
Closed #3248 as completed via d99186f2ef6fc0dfaaefe599a98492a84fd18940.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3248#event-14245497584
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
__
I wonder if messages like "MD5 digest: NOTFOUND" are really thing to do if we
don't even look at those checksums. It's not that they were not found they were
not looked for. May be we need a different message for when we ignore them.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https:/
version: eliminate all manual pthread mutex and init-once calls,
either by taking advantage of the fact that unlike C, C++ guarantees static
initialization to be thread-safe, or by using STL mutex/lock facilities.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://g
I don't disagree, but that's existing behavior: we treat disabled digests and
signatures equal to not being present, to the point that they emit identical
messages.
We can certainly file a ticket on that but changing is likely not trivial.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
This results in messages like `MD5 digest: NOTFOUND` which is confusing as the
MD5 sum may just be there RPM is just not looking for it. We should at least
give a message that shows we didn't even look - or may be give the status and
state that it is ignored. Not sure if this is possible with th
Closed #1292 as completed via #3293.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1292#event-14246488062
You are receiving this because you commented.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mailing lis
Merged #3293 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3293#event-14246487852
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mail
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> @@ -0,0 +1,149 @@
+---
+layout: default
+title: rpm.org - RPM's Philosophy
+---
+# RPM's Philosophy
+
+The RPM package manager is a general purpose software manager. It
I think a brief definition of what that means would be in order here, something
t
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> @@ -0,0 +1,149 @@
+---
+layout: default
+title: rpm.org - RPM's Philosophy
+---
+# RPM's Philosophy
+
+The RPM package manager is a general purpose software manager. It
I'd also place a summary of the founding design principles right here in the
begi
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> +
+Getting updates installed quickly is one of the main design
+goals. Many features work towards this.
+
+ Packaging dependencies separately
+
+Libraries should be packaged separately and binaries should link to
+the version provided by system pac
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> +Although RPM is designed to package a whole distribution it explicitly
+supports 3rd parties to also provide packages without becoming part of
+the distribution and their processes.
+
+Rpmbuild can be run locally without the use of a big build
+system
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> +Although RPM is designed to package a whole distribution it explicitly
+supports 3rd parties to also provide packages without becoming part of
+the distribution and their processes.
+
+Rpmbuild can be run locally without the use of a big build
+system
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+---
+layout: default
+title: rpm.org - About the Reference Manual
+---
+# About this manual
+
+This is the Refence Manual for the RPM Package Manager. Unfortunately
+it is still incomplete. Recently added features are described with
+
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> @@ -0,0 +1,149 @@
+---
+layout: default
+title: rpm.org - RPM's Philosophy
+---
+# RPM's Philosophy
+
+The RPM package manager is a general purpose software manager. It
+differs from special purpose package managers - like those targeting a
+specific p
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> @@ -0,0 +1,149 @@
+---
+layout: default
+title: rpm.org - RPM's Philosophy
+---
+# RPM's Philosophy
+
+The RPM package manager is a general purpose software manager. It
+differs from special purpose package managers - like those targeting a
+specific p
@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> +
+Getting updates installed quickly is one of the main design
+goals. Many features work towards this.
+
+ Packaging dependencies separately
+
+Libraries should be packaged separately and binaries should link to
+the version provided by system pac
Lots of useful stuff here. I'd maybe move the Design goals as the first
subsection so it goes from higher level towards details. Jumping straight into
talking about macros seems like getting ahead of ourselves.
Finally, these design goals appear to be missing entirely:
- reproducibility (of buil
`scripts/brp-remove-la-files` now only removes files which are declared as
libtool library files. But in `libpng`, it installed two files: `libpng16.la`
and `libpng.la`, and `libpng.la` is a symlink towards `libpng16.la`. Thus,
`libpng.la` won't get removed due to it is not match against current
22 matches
Mail list logo
