From arekm at maven.pl  Tue Sep  1 09:08:35 2020
From: arekm at maven.pl (=?UTF-8?Q?Arkadiusz_Mi=c5=9bkiewicz?=)
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 09:08:35 +0200
Subject: carme-x32
In-Reply-To: <20200831194353.GB24977@mail>
References: <20200831194353.GB24977@mail>
Message-ID: <6a0fe186-60ea-0386-80ca-a1d8aa4dc47a@maven.pl>

W dniu 31.08.2020 o?21:43, Jakub Bogusz via pld-devel-en pisze:
> seems dead?
> 
> $ ssh-carme-x32
> Connection closed by 193.239.45.154 port 22
> 
> 

glibc 2.31 bug

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26248

Upgrade to 2.32 fixed the problem.

-- 
Arkadiusz Mi?kiewicz, arekm / ( maven.pl | pld-linux.org )


From atler at pld-linux.org  Wed Sep 23 22:20:36 2020
From: atler at pld-linux.org (Jan Palus)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 22:20:36 +0200
Subject: ERRORS: crun.spec
In-Reply-To: <59e5a293-482f-4354-885a-12bb764268bd@pld.src.builder>
References: <59e5a293-482f-4354-885a-12bb764268bd@pld.src.builder>
Message-ID: <20200923202036.64b32fgybzfdfpmc@kalarepa>

On 23.09.2020 20:12, PLD th-src builder wrote:
> crun.spec (HEAD): FAILED
...
> --2020-09-23 22:12:23--  http://distfiles.pld-linux.org/distfiles/by-md5/f/c/fcb34c867a0acf9fa7f8cba3cae43d4a/crun-0.15.tar.xz
> Resolving distfiles.pld-linux.org... failed: No address associated with hostname.
> wget: unable to resolve host address 'distfiles.pld-linux.org'

Looks like there's something wrong with resolver in PLD infra. Any
chance to get it fixed?


From atler at pld-linux.org  Mon Sep 28 16:41:21 2020
From: atler at pld-linux.org (Jan Palus)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 16:41:21 +0200
Subject: [packages/rpm-pld-macros] - version 1.749: fixed _ver_* macros
In-Reply-To: <a04002a841905f8c84ca1c955e047676994c1ef2_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
References: <d77fb7bd17fea72a64b2942ccfa15bb98627de0a_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <a04002a841905f8c84ca1c955e047676994c1ef2_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <20200928144121.tc2b7joqwtxt45st@kalarepa>

On 27.09.2020 20:17, qboosh wrote:
> commit a04002a841905f8c84ca1c955e047676994c1ef2
> Author: Jakub Bogusz <qboosh at pld-linux.org>
> Date:   Sun Sep 27 20:20:03 2020 +0200
> 
>     - version 1.749: fixed _ver_* macros
...
> -# BuildRequires:	rpmbuild(macros) >= 1.748
> -%_ver_lt()	%(test rpmvercmp "%{1}" "%{2}" >/dev/null 2>&1 -eq 2; echo $?)
> -%_ver_ge()	!%(test rpmvercmp "%{1}" "%{2}" >/dev/null 2>&1 -eq 2; echo $?)
> +# BuildRequires:	rpmbuild(macros) >= 1.749
> +%_ver_lt()	%(test $(rpmvercmp "%{1}" "%{2}" >/dev/null 2>&1; echo $?) -eq 2; echo $?)
> +%_ver_ge()	%(test $(rpmvercmp "%{1}" "%{2}" >/dev/null 2>&1; echo $?) -ne 2; echo $?)

Isn't it the other way? -ne 2 for_ver_lt and -eq 2 for _ver_ge?

"Satisfied condition" in terms of test return code (0) is the opposite
of "satisfied condition" as interpreted by rpm (1).

$ rpm -E '%{_ver_lt 0 0}'
1

$ rpm -E '%{_ver_lt 0 1}'
0

$ rpm -E '%{_ver_lt 1 0}'
1

$ rpm -E '%{_ver_ge 0 0}'
0

$ rpm -E '%{_ver_ge 5.4.15 4.6}'
0

$ rpm -q rpm-pld-macros-build
rpm-pld-macros-build-1.749-1.noarch


or how is it supposed to be used?

ie rapidjson has:

%if %{_ver_ge "%{_rpmversion}" "4.6"}

which I suppose does not work correctly at the moment.

while glabels has:

%if 0%{?_ver_ge "%{_rpmversion}" "4.6"}

but I don't quite get it, I thought %{? construct is only to check if
something is defined or does it somehow interpret return value?
It seems to return same value for all cases:

$ rpm -E '%{?_ver_ge 0 0}'
1

$ rpm -E '%{?_ver_ge 0 1}'
1

$ rpm -E '%{?_ver_ge 1 0}'
1


From qboosh at pld-linux.org  Mon Sep 28 19:07:54 2020
From: qboosh at pld-linux.org (Jakub Bogusz)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 19:07:54 +0200
Subject: [packages/rpm-pld-macros] - version 1.749: fixed _ver_* macros
In-Reply-To: <20200928144121.tc2b7joqwtxt45st@kalarepa>
References: <d77fb7bd17fea72a64b2942ccfa15bb98627de0a_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <a04002a841905f8c84ca1c955e047676994c1ef2_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <20200928144121.tc2b7joqwtxt45st@kalarepa>
Message-ID: <20200928170754.GA354@mail>

On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 04:41:21PM +0200, Jan Palus wrote:
> On 27.09.2020 20:17, qboosh wrote:
> > commit a04002a841905f8c84ca1c955e047676994c1ef2
> > Author: Jakub Bogusz <qboosh at pld-linux.org>
> > Date:   Sun Sep 27 20:20:03 2020 +0200
> > 
> >     - version 1.749: fixed _ver_* macros
> ...
> > -# BuildRequires:	rpmbuild(macros) >= 1.748
> > -%_ver_lt()	%(test rpmvercmp "%{1}" "%{2}" >/dev/null 2>&1 -eq 2; echo $?)
> > -%_ver_ge()	!%(test rpmvercmp "%{1}" "%{2}" >/dev/null 2>&1 -eq 2; echo $?)
> > +# BuildRequires:	rpmbuild(macros) >= 1.749
> > +%_ver_lt()	%(test $(rpmvercmp "%{1}" "%{2}" >/dev/null 2>&1; echo $?) -eq 2; echo $?)
> > +%_ver_ge()	%(test $(rpmvercmp "%{1}" "%{2}" >/dev/null 2>&1; echo $?) -ne 2; echo $?)
> 
> Isn't it the other way? -ne 2 for_ver_lt and -eq 2 for _ver_ge?
> 
> "Satisfied condition" in terms of test return code (0) is the opposite
> of "satisfied condition" as interpreted by rpm (1).

Ouch, you're right.

> ie rapidjson has:
> 
> %if %{_ver_ge "%{_rpmversion}" "4.6"}
> 
> which I suppose does not work correctly at the moment.

After fixing conditions it would work.

But throws parse error when too old (or no) macros are installed, so
I tried the following:

> while glabels has:
> 
> %if 0%{?_ver_ge "%{_rpmversion}" "4.6"}
> 
> but I don't quite get it, I thought %{? construct is only to check if
> something is defined or does it somehow interpret return value?

%{?macro} construct returns macro value if it's defined.

But unfortunately it appears that doesn't pass arguments to macro, so the
result is equal to just %{_ver_ge} :/

%{?_ver_ge:%_ver_ge x y} works, but needs more keystrokes...
I'll try to look for nicer solution.


-- 
Jakub Bogusz    http://qboosh.pl/


From qboosh at pld-linux.org  Mon Sep 28 22:00:15 2020
From: qboosh at pld-linux.org (Jakub Bogusz)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 22:00:15 +0200
Subject: [packages/rpm-pld-macros] - version 1.749: fixed _ver_* macros
In-Reply-To: <20200928170754.GA354@mail>
References: <d77fb7bd17fea72a64b2942ccfa15bb98627de0a_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <a04002a841905f8c84ca1c955e047676994c1ef2_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <20200928144121.tc2b7joqwtxt45st@kalarepa> <20200928170754.GA354@mail>
Message-ID: <20200928200015.GB354@mail>

On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 07:07:54PM +0200, Jakub Bogusz wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 04:41:21PM +0200, Jan Palus wrote:
> > On 27.09.2020 20:17, qboosh wrote:
> > > commit a04002a841905f8c84ca1c955e047676994c1ef2
> > > Author: Jakub Bogusz <qboosh at pld-linux.org>
> > > Date:   Sun Sep 27 20:20:03 2020 +0200
> > > 
> > >     - version 1.749: fixed _ver_* macros
> > ...
> > > -# BuildRequires:	rpmbuild(macros) >= 1.748
> > > -%_ver_lt()	%(test rpmvercmp "%{1}" "%{2}" >/dev/null 2>&1 -eq 2; echo $?)
> > > -%_ver_ge()	!%(test rpmvercmp "%{1}" "%{2}" >/dev/null 2>&1 -eq 2; echo $?)
> > > +# BuildRequires:	rpmbuild(macros) >= 1.749
> > > +%_ver_lt()	%(test $(rpmvercmp "%{1}" "%{2}" >/dev/null 2>&1; echo $?) -eq 2; echo $?)
> > > +%_ver_ge()	%(test $(rpmvercmp "%{1}" "%{2}" >/dev/null 2>&1; echo $?) -ne 2; echo $?)
> > 
> > Isn't it the other way? -ne 2 for_ver_lt and -eq 2 for _ver_ge?
> > 
> > "Satisfied condition" in terms of test return code (0) is the opposite
> > of "satisfied condition" as interpreted by rpm (1).
> 
> Ouch, you're right.

Fixed in 1.750.

> > ie rapidjson has:
> > 
> > %if %{_ver_ge "%{_rpmversion}" "4.6"}
> > 
> > which I suppose does not work correctly at the moment.
> 
> After fixing conditions it would work.
> 
> But throws parse error when too old (or no) macros are installed, so
> I tried the following:
> 
> > while glabels has:
> > 
> > %if 0%{?_ver_ge "%{_rpmversion}" "4.6"}
> > 
> > but I don't quite get it, I thought %{? construct is only to check if
> > something is defined or does it somehow interpret return value?
> 
> %{?macro} construct returns macro value if it's defined.
> 
> But unfortunately it appears that doesn't pass arguments to macro, so the
> result is equal to just %{_ver_ge} :/
> 
> %{?_ver_ge:%_ver_ge x y} works, but needs more keystrokes...
> I'll try to look for nicer solution.

A little nicer proposal:

%if "%{_ver_ge '%{_rpmversion}' '4.6'}" == "1"

Both false comparison or unexpanded macro evaluates to false condition.


-- 
Jakub Bogusz    http://qboosh.pl/


From qboosh at pld-linux.org  Tue Sep 29 18:26:03 2020
From: qboosh at pld-linux.org (Jakub Bogusz)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 18:26:03 +0200
Subject: TeX packaging: texmf dirs
Message-ID: <20200929162603.GA18615@mail>

What is the difference between /usr/share/texmf and
/usr/share/texmf-dist?


-- 
Jakub Bogusz    http://qboosh.pl/