what if just
```
find "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" -type f,l -name '*.la'
```
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3311#issuecomment-2359715616
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
> Can you please test if the PR linked above fixes your issue? Thanks!
Yes, it works as expected.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3304#issuecomment-2357694323
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thr
It’s still worth documenting the format for a couple of reasons:
1. Some users _cannot_ use librpm, whether they want to or not, unless you are
willing to guarantee that librpm is secure against a malicious rpmdb.
2. Without understanding the format of the rpmdb, it isn’t possible to
understand
@shanebishop yes, i am refereing to this repo. I can see that the sqlite3
driver is outdated (i think). It should (maybe) use [the mattn one]
(https://github.com/mattn/go-sqlite3).
But anyway, i consider at final step that the long term and good practice is to
use a cGo code to parse the rpmlib
Closed #3295 as completed.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3295#event-14303602606
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint m
When rpm started doing its own PGP verification in >= 4.0, it introduced
gpg-pubkey pseudo-packages in the rpmdb as the rpm keyring. These
pseudo-packages have been problematic throughout their existence and don't
really belong to the rpmdb, at least painted as something resembling packages
tha
Hi @DemiMarie Your comment is interesting from an opinion point of view, even
if the first part is absolutely true and not only an opinion then.
Also, i do consider since rpmlib and rpm are free and open source, it would be
rude to ask for even more in terms of quality if I am not asked for my op
Oh, I see, I didn't think about it: AT_XFAIL_IF will be removed if
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1800 is fixed.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3295#issuecomment-2357841440
You are receiving this
OK, I guess I am not quite getting this sub key business yet. Doesn't the
signature list the KeyId of the subkey it was created with? Or does it point to
the main key and assumes the subkey will be found there?
After looking at this overall mess we figured a way to solve a lot of the
issues wi
The signature points to the subkey.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2403#issuecomment-2358366890
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: _
I'd still like to see this merged. It is optional and default-off, so it should
not negatively affect anyone.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2762#issuecomment-2360145822
You are receiving this because you are subscribed t
So really, I'd merrily merge this change if you change the "other side" of the
equation too, ie the imported keys.
It may not be our end goal but it's step up from the disaster where we are
currently, and having that step up cemented in the code is a hundred times
better than finding ourselves
> find "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" -type f,l -name '*.la'
That's pretty much how this script started its life as, but it was discovered
to remove non-libtool files too, see 432a91151a1f6d19d25e85b0f1af0a0ab6addc46
Unfortunately we didn't demand test-cases for that stuff back then.
--
Reply to this email
Closed #3304 as completed via #3311.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3304#event-14318409444
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
R
Merged #3311 into master.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3311#event-14318409267
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mail
https://rpm.org/documentation links to upstream API docs and other resources
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2211#discussioncomment-10680387
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message
Ok @pmatilai, actually, even if the simple read call of the database is enough
for my use around 30 signs, it is still better to parse librpm with cGo, for
sure.
I´n not sure about where to find the official librpm API documentation
concerned, and if there is some kind of examples to use to lear
Oh, understood now, no worries.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3295#issuecomment-2357855539
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
R
> OK, I guess I am not quite getting this sub key business yet. Doesn't the
> signature list the KeyId of the subkey it was created with? Or does it point
> to the main key and assumes the subkey will be found there?
As a first approximation, subkeys are an implementation detail and shouldn't be
@ffesti pushed 1 commit.
4936c42b4d8ed68af45fe220d24b2a69baaf9676 brp-remove-la-files: Remove symlinks,
too
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3311/files/8fc4e71f9b51438f09c8206ceb1b407bbaca8aab..4936c42b4d8ed68af45fe220d24b2a69baaf9676
You are receiving
Loop and test case added.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3311#issuecomment-2358276779
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint
@jerome-diver, are you referring to
https://github.com/knqyf263/go-rpmdb/issues/54, or are you referring to some
other SQLite problem with https://github.com/knqyf263/go-rpmdb?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2211#
According to https://rpm-software-management.github.io/rpm/manual/spec.html
some sections are only available from certain versions, for example %conf
(since rpm >= 4.18).
I'd like my SPEC file to use newer capabilities if rpmbuild supports those, and
fallback to older capabilities if built on an
> Some users cannot use librpm, whether they want to or not, unless you are
> willing to guarantee that librpm is secure against a malicious rpmdb.
This is an absolutely bizarre point of view.
librpm needs to be secure against tampered with rpmdb as with any data, because
if there's a "maliciou
> Why are the following two test cases expected to fail?
Because of: 066c00c908cb2616bae63a2bbc0f6078a694e808
> The test case is expected to fail because the #1800 problem has not been
> resolved.
Yes, that's very much the case, #1800 is not yet fixed. Once it is fixed, these
tests will be "en
25 matches
Mail list logo
