Hi, I'm not sure if something like this exists already; asking here for inputs.
I'm using an rpm based distro and I want to know what packages are installed
from OS's repo and what packages are custom built and installed from different
source.
Conditions:
- Closed eco system, no network connect
Thanks for the repsonse. This doesn't work in Fedora-39.
```
$
➜ $ dnf info rpm --disablerepo=* | grep repository
$
```
> I'd say this is out of scope for RPM
Why do you believe so? It should be possible to have some kind of metadata to
indicate that the rpm is provided by OS. Not a mandatory fie
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3068
-- Commit Summary --
* Fix file handle leaks
-- File Changes --
M tests/rpmpgppubkeyfingerprint.c (9)
-- Patch Links --
https://github.com/rpm-software-management
@sshedi pushed 1 commit.
ffc49917d14bde347d2281e0784547cffda7f199 rpmpgppubkeyfingerprint.c: code
cleanups
--
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3068/files/4befafdf0bd6c625d7817c8a020dde4affa71d90..ffc49917d14bde347d2281e0784547cffda7f199
You are receiving t
@ffesti I took the liberty to make this whole source look better. Please let me
know if you want me to make changes in incremental commits. This is a small
test file which is essentially testing a dummy function, so I made all changes
in one commit.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it o
Closed #3068.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3068#event-12681683498
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm
Accidentally closed it, I will open a new PR.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3068#issuecomment-2090506199
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: _
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3072
-- Commit Summary --
* rpmpgppubkeyfingerprint.c: use const qualifier
* rpmpgppubkeyfingerprint.c: use rasprintf
* rpmpgppubkeyfingerprint.c: use goto for returning f
Created https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3072
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3068#issuecomment-2090760401
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: __
@pmatilai thanks for all the inputs. I have tried addressing all of them.
Please let me know if I have missed anything.
@ffesti thank you for reviewing my earlier PR.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3072#issuecomment-20907
@sshedi pushed 8 commits.
e2938095b9f376e58397acceb8d3c5185928c58c rpmpgppubkeyfingerprint.c: use
rpmGetCwd
3577dc5c43c912d613fff3ac9df21a41ca0c746c rpmpgppubkeyfingerprint.c: use static
buffer instead of malloc
a034d6c8d31caf1bf6b47ca3aa5d1d48f67341e2 rpmpgppubkeyfingerprint.c: move
variabl
@nwalfield Thanks for reviewing.
> and some are weird, like having #define LEN 102400 // 100 * 1024
It would help me understand things better if you explain a bit on why it is
weird.
My intent behind the change is, why calculate something on every run which can
be used directly?
I'm completely
No problem. Thanks for your time and inputs.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3072#issuecomment-2095342827
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: __
I'm yet to root cause this issue because this started happening today and I
have no idea how or why.
```
D: running %preuntrans scripts
D: == +++ systemd-255.2-5.ph5 x86_64-linux 0x2
D: install: systemd-255.2-5.ph5.x86_64 has 732 files
D: %sysusers(systemd-255.2-5.ph5.x86_64): scriptlet
Decided to comment out `__systemd_sysusers` from macros file.
https://github.com/vmware/photon/blob/dev/SPECS/rpm/0006-disable-sysusers.patch#L26
I didn't find a way to exclude this info from getting embed in the built rpm.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com
Closed #3174 as resolved.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/3174
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rp
Thanks for the response and details. Yes, I managed to figure it out after a
while.
The issue is, there are few systems which have `rpm-libs` package but not `rpm`
so, that is where this issue started showing up.
The system has `rpm-libs` and a package manager `tdnf`. Probably I should
package s
Previously find-debuginfo was a part of RPM, so I hope it's okay to ask this
question here.
I want to know the history behind why find-debuginfo.sh operates only on exec
files.
https://sourceware.org/git/?p=debugedit.git;a=blob;f=scripts/find-debuginfo.in;h=ae0818fb6bfc8ef96bc3f24c3156455d50c91
Hi @pmatilai, any inputs on the above issue?
I faced a similar issue with another package recently. My package has only few
shared object files and I installed those `.so` files with 644 permission in
RPM_BUILD_ROOT and find-debuginfo failed with empty debugfiles.list error. But
newer version of
You can do:
```
%dir /opt/%name
%attr(0755,root,root) /opt/%name/main.py
%config(noreplace) /opt/%name/config.ini
```
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/3204#discussioncomment-10018228
You are receiving this because you
Thanks for the background and insights @dmnks.
@pmatilai, please let us know if you have any further points on this. Or else I
will proceed and close the discussion.
Thanks.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/3195#dis
Thanks for the response @pmatilai, if I have understood it right `brp-elfperms`
will stop removing executable permission bit from shared objects in a near
future version of rpm? Meaning, reverting back to older mechanism of shipping
.so files with executable bit set.
--
Reply to this email dir
Noted, thanks for all the inputs and suggestions. Have a nice time ahead.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/3195#discussioncomment-10461847
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
Closed #3195 as resolved.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/3195
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rp
Closed #2186 as resolved.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2186
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rp
```
lib/rpmdb.c: use a fallback method for renaming directories
While migrating rpm db from BDB to SQLITE in a docker container rename
function throws EXDEV error.
strace of `rpm --rebuilddb` shows
```
...
rename("/var/lib/rpm", "/var/lib/rpmold.54") = -1 EXDEV
(Invalid c
@sshedi pushed 1 commit.
c5929d5e376596c37fb321a455e3873b16003a31 lib/rpmdb.c: use a fallback method
for renaming directories
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1754/files/b56aff6e1aaac591
I have an update on this:
```
rpmtxn rpmtxnEnd(rpmtxn txn)
{
if (txn) {
sync(); // ---> This flushes the file system buffer cache and I'm not
seeing contention anymore
rpmlockRelease(txn->lock);
if (txn->flags & RPMTXN_WRITE)
rpmsqBlock(SIG_UNBLOCK);
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2431
-- Commit Summary --
* triggers.md: fix a typo
-- File Changes --
M docs/manual/triggers.md (14)
-- Patch Links --
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/
Sorry, my vim does that automatically. Will do the white space fixes in a
different commit
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2431#issuecomment-1471774196
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Mes
If a query is run specifying a non existent dbpath, rpm implictly creates a db
directory and db files at the specified location.
For example:
```
mkdir t
cd t
rpm -q rpm --dbpath $PWD/t
```
The above commands result in:
```
root@ph5dev:~ # mkdir t
mkdir: created directory 't'
root@ph5dev:~ # cd
Thanks @pmatilai.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2572#issuecomment-1689681184
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-maint maili
This is done based on discussion at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/3195
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3324
-- Commit Summary --
* Remove brp-elfperms script
-- File Changes --
@pmatilai can you please give some more info? I will fix the patch accordingly.
From my understanding, this script runs only on Linux. `--shared` flag to
eu-elfclassify affects only shared objects. Any other platform uses shared
objects? 🤔
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Thanks for taking the fix. 🙏
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3324#issuecomment-2373286103
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: ___
Rpm-ma
Is it possible to ghost a regex pattern while packaging files?
A good use case of of this I can think of is, while packaging python modules we
can ghost all byte compiled `.pyc` files and upon package removal, these `.pyc`
files will get auto removed.
For instance, I want to do:
```
%files
...
I can patch each spec file and do this in `%postun` but it would be nice to
have better solution for this problem.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/3480#discussioncomment-11421460
You are receiving this because you a
Sorry for the confusion.
> Did you actually try it?
I am aware that regex works while packaging files. But I want to use regex with
ghost files.
```
%ghost %{python3_sitelib}/__pycache__
%ghost %{python3_sitelib}/__pycache__/*.pyc
```
Both `__pycache__` and the `*.pyc` are not present while the
Hi @pmatilai, @ffesti any inputs on this?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/3480#discussioncomment-11457103
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
__
Here is the link to spec which I'm trying this with.
https://github.com/vmware/photon/blob/master/SPECS/selinux-python/selinux-python.spec#L52
I added below lines after line 52.
```
%ghost %{python3_sitelib}/__pycache__
%ghost %{python3_sitelib}/__pycache__/*.pyc
```
And after building and insta
40 matches
Mail list logo
