From glen at pld-linux.org  Thu Apr  1 00:26:34 2021
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Elan_Ruusam=c3=a4e?=)
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 01:26:34 +0300
Subject: PLD/Linux Ac EOL
In-Reply-To: <startrev1617229290@www.pld-linux.org>
References: <startrev1617229290@www.pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <3c88bb80-abfd-0eeb-efe6-c607e210330c@pld-linux.org>




-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[PLDWWW] page changed: start
Date: 	Thu, 01 Apr 2021 00:21:30 +0200
From: 	"Elan Ruusam?e (glen)" <glen at pld-linux.org>


ThePLD/Linux Ac <https://www.pld-linux.org/ac>was released on 1st April 
2007, Now 14 years later, it has reachedEOL(End of Life). It will not be 
updated anymore.

If you are still running such system and want to upgrade, then 
recommended upgrade path is to upgrade to Th/2020 snapshot and then to 
Th current version.




Diff URL:
https://www.pld-linux.org/start?do=diff&r1=1615930517&r2=1617229290



From drmarwat at gmail.com  Thu Apr  1 05:50:45 2021
From: drmarwat at gmail.com (Saleem Ceann Khan Marwat)
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 08:50:45 +0500
Subject: Musl availability
Message-ID: <CAOV1EpELSm=57FJTpD1DkNMg8wtAdjuGxFgTZRYvk5kE6yowsQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hello dear PLD development team ,

I am wondering does pld provide musl support as well along with glibc ?


From drmarwat at gmail.com  Thu Apr  1 05:56:52 2021
From: drmarwat at gmail.com (Saleem Ceann Khan Marwat)
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 08:56:52 +0500
Subject: Init services
Message-ID: <CAOV1EpH2Wb6Y2OekFTBwpyOsVW6-J6kEzJoeTU8ZZAFUpytAzA@mail.gmail.com>

Hello dear PLD development team,

What other init services other than systemd and sysvinit does PLD have
available ? Any chance of adding runit or S6/66 to PLD ?

Is it possible and how to install PLD without any trace of systemd on PLD
with sysvinit only ?

Thank you,


From bszx-pld at bszx.eu  Thu Apr  1 09:02:41 2021
From: bszx-pld at bszx.eu (Bartek Szady)
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 09:02:41 +0200
Subject: [packages/rpm-pld-macros] - fix typo in debugsource packages
 macro - rel 2
In-Reply-To: <20210331205157.GA12558@tachikoma>
References: <f62a5c22000a98a4962fec65f376b87db0667e20_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <45c4eb111b114539bab16bd567a4a794d75d6e16_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <20210331202344.GA938@mail> <20210331205157.GA12558@tachikoma>
Message-ID: <ed11b509-1ab9-7fe3-2f7e-cd6b3a191779@bszx.eu>


On 3/31/21 9:51 PM, Jan R?korajski wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2021, Jakub Bogusz wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 09:33:00PM +0200, baggins wrote:
>>> commit 45c4eb111b114539bab16bd567a4a794d75d6e16
>>> Author: Jan R?korajski <baggins at pld-linux.org>
>>> Date:   Wed Mar 31 21:32:32 2021 +0200
>>>
>>>     - fix typo in debugsource packages macro
>>>     - rel 2
>>>
>>>  macros.pld          | 2 +-
>>>  rpm-pld-macros.spec | 2 +-
>>>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>> ---
>> [...]
>>> @@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ pakietu oraz przy odpluskwianiu samego pakietu.\
>>>  %ifnarch noarch\
>>>  %global __debug_package 1\
>>>  %_debuginfo_template\
>>> -%{?_debugsource_packages:%_debugsource_template}\
>>> +%{?%_debugsource_packages:%_debugsource_template}\
>>>  %endif\
>>>  %{nil}
>>>  
>> Uhm, is it really correct now?
>> debug source files like these are unpackaged now:
>>
>> /usr/src/debug/gjs-1.68.0-1.x32
> It's not, Reverted.

Well...

rpm --define '_debugsource_packages 0' --eval
'%{?%_debugsource_packages:%_debugsource_template}'

worked as I had expected (it evaluated to nothing) not because
%_debugsource_packages was evaluated to false but because
%{%_debugsource_packages} was undefined :-(


Is there any way to undefine a macro in .rpmmacros ?




From glen at pld-linux.org  Thu Apr  1 10:05:21 2021
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Elan_Ruusam=c3=a4e?=)
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 11:05:21 +0300
Subject: [packages/rpm-pld-macros] - fix typo in debugsource packages
 macro - rel 2
In-Reply-To: <ed11b509-1ab9-7fe3-2f7e-cd6b3a191779@bszx.eu>
References: <f62a5c22000a98a4962fec65f376b87db0667e20_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <45c4eb111b114539bab16bd567a4a794d75d6e16_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <20210331202344.GA938@mail> <20210331205157.GA12558@tachikoma>
 <ed11b509-1ab9-7fe3-2f7e-cd6b3a191779@bszx.eu>
Message-ID: <1353ee36-b557-21c4-26e6-9aed76e9e9e1@pld-linux.org>


On 01.04.2021 10:02, Bartek Szady wrote:
>
> Well...
>
> rpm --define '_debugsource_packages 0' --eval
> '%{?%_debugsource_packages:%_debugsource_template}'
>
> worked as I had expected (it evaluated to nothing) not because
> %_debugsource_packages was evaluated to false but because
> %{%_debugsource_packages} was undefined :-(
>
>
> Is there any way to undefine a macro in .rpmmacros ?

you can't use the inline compare with it: %{?foo:xxx}

but you can use this trickery:

1. create variable _foo_bar_%{baz}

2. check for _foo_bar_1

2. nuke _foo_bar_%{baz}


$ grep -r dic /usr/lib/rpm
/usr/lib/rpm/pld/macros:%debuginfocflags??????? %{expand:%%define 
__dic_%{?_enable_debug_packages} 1}%{?__dic_1: -gdwarf-4 
-fno-debug-types-section -fvar-tracking-assignments 
-g2}%{expand:%%undefine __dic_%{?_enable_debug_packages}}
/usr/lib/rpm/pld/macros:%_build_id_links??????? %{expand:%%define 
__dic_%{?_enable_debug_packages} 
1}%{?__dic_1:compat}%{?__dic_0:none}%{expand:%%undefine 
__dic_%{?_enable_debug_packages}}




From glen at pld-linux.org  Thu Apr  1 10:07:58 2021
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Elan_Ruusam=c3=a4e?=)
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 11:07:58 +0300
Subject: Musl availability
In-Reply-To: <CAOV1EpELSm=57FJTpD1DkNMg8wtAdjuGxFgTZRYvk5kE6yowsQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOV1EpELSm=57FJTpD1DkNMg8wtAdjuGxFgTZRYvk5kE6yowsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9d303b3a-b8dc-109b-ff2d-6d758c45a26c@pld-linux.org>

On 01.04.2021 06:50, Saleem Ceann Khan Marwat wrote:

> Hello dear PLD development team ,
>
> I am wondering does pld provide musl support as well along with glibc ?

musl package exists, but there are no packages linked against it.


[@9032b1c1a3d1 /]# rpm -ql musl-1.1.22-1
/etc/ld-musl-x86_64.path
/lib64/ld-musl-x86_64.so.1
/usr/lib64/musl
/usr/lib64/musl/libc.so
/usr/share/doc/musl-1.1.22
/usr/share/doc/musl-1.1.22/COPYRIGHT.gz
/usr/share/doc/musl-1.1.22/INSTALL.gz
/usr/share/doc/musl-1.1.22/README.gz
/usr/share/doc/musl-1.1.22/WHATSNEW.gz


there are (were?) few boot related packages that have bconds or 
subpackages for klibc, uclibc, musl

but those are mostly retired, because maintenance cost



From glen at pld-linux.org  Thu Apr  1 10:17:47 2021
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Elan_Ruusam=c3=a4e?=)
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 11:17:47 +0300
Subject: Init services
In-Reply-To: <CAOV1EpH2Wb6Y2OekFTBwpyOsVW6-J6kEzJoeTU8ZZAFUpytAzA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOV1EpH2Wb6Y2OekFTBwpyOsVW6-J6kEzJoeTU8ZZAFUpytAzA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56e1d933-d69b-9559-7926-9d5751dc8e52@pld-linux.org>

On 01.04.2021 06:56, Saleem Ceann Khan Marwat wrote:

> Hello dear PLD development team,
>
> What other init services other than systemd and sysvinit does PLD have
> available ? Any chance of adding runit or S6/66 to PLD ?

only rc-scripts and systemd are supported.

you can install runit or supervised packages yourself,

but no other packages provide recipes for those init systems.

s6 package .spec exists, but not published as .rpm, so you need to build 
it yourself if you're lucky.


historically there was upstart,? support in rc-scripts and some 
packages, but it's removed/unsupported by now.


there was also attempt with initng:

- http://svn.pld-linux.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/svn/initng/

>
> Is it possible and how to install PLD without any trace of systemd on PLD
> with sysvinit only ?

you can install pld without booting to systemd, i.e using rc-scripts as init

but you will still have files from systemd installed:

- udev

- systemd-units





From glen at pld-linux.org  Thu Apr  1 14:50:53 2021
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Elan_Ruusam=c3=a4e?=)
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 15:50:53 +0300
Subject: rpm.org/rpm5.org test
Message-ID: <72c0d1a2-6e07-d0b1-75f1-68864f72fbab@pld-linux.org>

```

rpm -E '%{?_rpmconfigdir:rpm.org}%{?_rpmhome:rpm5.org}'

```

this is perhaps more reliable than comparing --version output.



From ngompa13 at gmail.com  Thu Apr  1 15:08:13 2021
From: ngompa13 at gmail.com (Neal Gompa)
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 09:08:13 -0400
Subject: rpm.org/rpm5.org test
In-Reply-To: <72c0d1a2-6e07-d0b1-75f1-68864f72fbab@pld-linux.org>
References: <72c0d1a2-6e07-d0b1-75f1-68864f72fbab@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <CAEg-Je_2DWC0efRpiriSwfZDCXjcwVeze5P2L+dEPTxJ5VHY6A@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 8:51 AM Elan Ruusam?e <glen at pld-linux.org> wrote:
>
> ```
>
> rpm -E '%{?_rpmconfigdir:rpm.org}%{?_rpmhome:rpm5.org}'
>
> ```
>
> this is perhaps more reliable than comparing --version output.
>

Is there a reason to do such a test anymore? PLD Th is on rpm.org rpm
and there are no supported versions of PLD that use rpm5...



-- 
?????????/ Always, there's only one truth!


From atler at pld-linux.org  Thu Apr  1 16:08:57 2021
From: atler at pld-linux.org (Jan Palus)
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 16:08:57 +0200
Subject: chroot for armv6hl
Message-ID: <20210401140857.h52fv6a6awwdvjze@pine>

For anyone interested, PLD chroot is now available for armv6hl in
addition to aarch64. Both can be downloaded at:

https://github.com/jpalus/pld-linux-arm/releases

PLD has been happily powering my Raspberry Pi 2 and Zero for a while now.


From drmarwat at gmail.com  Thu Apr  1 16:23:17 2021
From: drmarwat at gmail.com (Saleem Ceann Khan Marwat)
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 19:23:17 +0500
Subject: chroot for armv6hl
In-Reply-To: <20210401140857.h52fv6a6awwdvjze@pine>
References: <20210401140857.h52fv6a6awwdvjze@pine>
Message-ID: <CAOV1EpGc8EiPu_9rs+=0JaxMBvdw6gya-uoM8x1T+oEVnsq+7g@mail.gmail.com>

Would love to test it and check if I can install a fresh installation with
sysvinit only and i3 or bspwm .

On Thu, Apr 1, 2021, 7:09 PM Jan Palus <atler at pld-linux.org> wrote:

> For anyone interested, PLD chroot is now available for armv6hl in
> addition to aarch64. Both can be downloaded at:
>
> https://github.com/jpalus/pld-linux-arm/releases
>
> PLD has been happily powering my Raspberry Pi 2 and Zero for a while now.
> _______________________________________________
> pld-devel-en mailing list
> pld-devel-en at lists.pld-linux.org
> http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
>


From pawelz at pld-linux.org  Thu Apr  1 19:58:06 2021
From: pawelz at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Pawe=C5=82_Zuzelski?=)
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 19:58:06 +0200
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_pull_request_for_dhcp_=E2=80=93_fixed_the_init_script?=
In-Reply-To: <5c807493-1e56-ad04-fccc-25ce7d44ddb5@pld-linux.org>
References: <CABzHJcAFSqXDTR5KWOiCibp+Z1z1gA6403=-qgREn7foesYQjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5c807493-1e56-ad04-fccc-25ce7d44ddb5@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <CABzHJcCBjbs1mRr8s7VVgG+H5+NzfTkguRV56Nw_0yytNgW5DQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 6:11 PM Elan Ruusam?e <glen at pld-linux.org> wrote:
> On 31.03.2021 18:01, Pawe? Zuzelski wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Could someone please review and push https://github.com/pawelz/pld-dhcp
> > specifically that commit:
> >
https://github.com/pawelz/pld-dhcp/commit/071ac6b61dedf115572076ad17bbbef53226b22c
> > ?
> >
> > This change fixes broken init for dhcp6.
> >
> > It's been 10 years since I touched PLD, so I don't really feel
comfortable
> > pushing without supervision even if I still have access to the repo.
>
> you can push to a branch
>
> you can also open a pull request in github

Ah, thank you. I haven't realized that those repos are actually hosted on
github. I created a PR there.


From baggins at pld-linux.org  Thu Apr  1 22:04:49 2021
From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=)
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 22:04:49 +0200
Subject: pull request for dhcp =?utf-8?B?4oCT?= =?utf-8?Q?_fixed?= the
 init script
In-Reply-To: <CABzHJcCBjbs1mRr8s7VVgG+H5+NzfTkguRV56Nw_0yytNgW5DQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABzHJcAFSqXDTR5KWOiCibp+Z1z1gA6403=-qgREn7foesYQjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5c807493-1e56-ad04-fccc-25ce7d44ddb5@pld-linux.org>
 <CABzHJcCBjbs1mRr8s7VVgG+H5+NzfTkguRV56Nw_0yytNgW5DQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20210401200449.GB12558@tachikoma>

On Thu, 01 Apr 2021, Pawe? Zuzelski wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 6:11 PM Elan Ruusam?e <glen at pld-linux.org> wrote:
> > On 31.03.2021 18:01, Pawe? Zuzelski wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Could someone please review and push https://github.com/pawelz/pld-dhcp
> > > specifically that commit:
> > >
> https://github.com/pawelz/pld-dhcp/commit/071ac6b61dedf115572076ad17bbbef53226b22c
> > > ?
> > >
> > > This change fixes broken init for dhcp6.
> > >
> > > It's been 10 years since I touched PLD, so I don't really feel
> comfortable
> > > pushing without supervision even if I still have access to the repo.
> >
> > you can push to a branch
> >
> > you can also open a pull request in github
> 
> Ah, thank you. I haven't realized that those repos are actually hosted on
> github. I created a PR there.

Well, github is just a mirror. I fetched and pushed your changes to PLD repo.

BTW, don't worry about pushing directly, it's not irreversible.

-- 
Jan R?korajski                    | PLD/Linux
SysAdm | baggins<at>pld-linux.org | http://www.pld-linux.org/


From glen at pld-linux.org  Thu Apr  1 22:05:20 2021
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Elan_Ruusam=c3=a4e?=)
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 23:05:20 +0300
Subject: rpm.org/rpm5.org test
In-Reply-To: <CAEg-Je_2DWC0efRpiriSwfZDCXjcwVeze5P2L+dEPTxJ5VHY6A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <72c0d1a2-6e07-d0b1-75f1-68864f72fbab@pld-linux.org>
 <CAEg-Je_2DWC0efRpiriSwfZDCXjcwVeze5P2L+dEPTxJ5VHY6A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b2d35059-3be1-6611-e69d-6af6177a6421@pld-linux.org>


On 01.04.2021 16:08, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 8:51 AM Elan Ruusam?e <glen at pld-linux.org> wrote:
>> ```
>>
>> rpm -E '%{?_rpmconfigdir:rpm.org}%{?_rpmhome:rpm5.org}'
>>
>> ```
>>
>> this is perhaps more reliable than comparing --version output.
>>
> Is there a reason to do such a test anymore? PLD Th is on rpm.org rpm
> and there are no supported versions of PLD that use rpm5...

that doesn't mean people still need to support things on their own, i.e 
build sudo update, etc





From baggins at pld-linux.org  Thu Apr  1 22:18:56 2021
From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=)
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 22:18:56 +0200
Subject: pull request for dhcp =?utf-8?B?4oCT?= =?utf-8?Q?_fixed?= the
 init script
In-Reply-To: <20210401200449.GB12558@tachikoma>
References: <CABzHJcAFSqXDTR5KWOiCibp+Z1z1gA6403=-qgREn7foesYQjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5c807493-1e56-ad04-fccc-25ce7d44ddb5@pld-linux.org>
 <CABzHJcCBjbs1mRr8s7VVgG+H5+NzfTkguRV56Nw_0yytNgW5DQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210401200449.GB12558@tachikoma>
Message-ID: <20210401201856.GC12558@tachikoma>

On Thu, 01 Apr 2021, Jan R?korajski wrote:

> On Thu, 01 Apr 2021, Pawe? Zuzelski wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 6:11 PM Elan Ruusam?e <glen at pld-linux.org> wrote:
> > > On 31.03.2021 18:01, Pawe? Zuzelski wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > Could someone please review and push https://github.com/pawelz/pld-dhcp
> > > > specifically that commit:
> > > >
> > https://github.com/pawelz/pld-dhcp/commit/071ac6b61dedf115572076ad17bbbef53226b22c
> > > > ?
> > > >
> > > > This change fixes broken init for dhcp6.
> > > >
> > > > It's been 10 years since I touched PLD, so I don't really feel
> > comfortable
> > > > pushing without supervision even if I still have access to the repo.
> > >
> > > you can push to a branch
> > >
> > > you can also open a pull request in github
> > 
> > Ah, thank you. I haven't realized that those repos are actually hosted on
> > github. I created a PR there.
> 
> Well, github is just a mirror. I fetched and pushed your changes to PLD repo.
> 
> BTW, don't worry about pushing directly, it's not irreversible.

OTOH, how did you manage to build this antique? Some old ggc?

http://buildlogs.pld-linux.org//index.php?dist=th&arch=x86_64&ok=0&name=dhcp&id=e1ea81ba-b170-4cbc-b96e-79ce976fff46&action=tail

-- 
Jan R?korajski                    | PLD/Linux
SysAdm | baggins<at>pld-linux.org | http://www.pld-linux.org/


From pawelz at pld-linux.org  Fri Apr  2 12:52:31 2021
From: pawelz at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Pawe=C5=82_Zuzelski?=)
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 12:52:31 +0200
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_pull_request_for_dhcp_=E2=80=93_fixed_the_init_script?=
In-Reply-To: <20210401201856.GC12558@tachikoma>
References: <CABzHJcAFSqXDTR5KWOiCibp+Z1z1gA6403=-qgREn7foesYQjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5c807493-1e56-ad04-fccc-25ce7d44ddb5@pld-linux.org>
 <CABzHJcCBjbs1mRr8s7VVgG+H5+NzfTkguRV56Nw_0yytNgW5DQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210401200449.GB12558@tachikoma> <20210401201856.GC12558@tachikoma>
Message-ID: <CABzHJcBnvqrQ5C99fpkC6EwkEh5FQuZm1E0DpTRQyxwSZXi9Mw@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 10:19 PM Jan R?korajski <baggins at pld-linux.org>
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 01 Apr 2021, Jan R?korajski wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 01 Apr 2021, Pawe? Zuzelski wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 6:11 PM Elan Ruusam?e <glen at pld-linux.org>
wrote:
> > > > On 31.03.2021 18:01, Pawe? Zuzelski wrote:
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > Could someone please review and push
https://github.com/pawelz/pld-dhcp
> > > > > specifically that commit:
> > > > >
> > >
https://github.com/pawelz/pld-dhcp/commit/071ac6b61dedf115572076ad17bbbef53226b22c
> > > > > ?
> > > > >
> > > > > This change fixes broken init for dhcp6.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's been 10 years since I touched PLD, so I don't really feel
> > > comfortable
> > > > > pushing without supervision even if I still have access to the
repo.
> > > >
> > > > you can push to a branch
> > > >
> > > > you can also open a pull request in github
> > >
> > > Ah, thank you. I haven't realized that those repos are actually
hosted on
> > > github. I created a PR there.
> >
> > Well, github is just a mirror. I fetched and pushed your changes to PLD
repo.
> >
> > BTW, don't worry about pushing directly, it's not irreversible.
>
> OTOH, how did you manage to build this antique? Some old ggc?
>
>
http://buildlogs.pld-linux.org//index.php?dist=th&arch=x86_64&ok=0&name=dhcp&id=e1ea81ba-b170-4cbc-b96e-79ce976fff46&action=tail

I am at th-2018 and it builds just fine.

There is also
http://ftp.pld-linux.org/dists/th/2020/PLD/x86_64/RPMS/dhcp-4.3.5-2.x86_64.rpm,
which suggests it also builds at th-2020. Has something broken very
recently?

-- 
Pawe?


From baggins at pld-linux.org  Fri Apr  2 22:46:35 2021
From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=)
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 22:46:35 +0200
Subject: [packages/rpm-pld-macros] - fix typo in debugsource packages
 macro - rel 2
In-Reply-To: <1353ee36-b557-21c4-26e6-9aed76e9e9e1@pld-linux.org>
References: <f62a5c22000a98a4962fec65f376b87db0667e20_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <45c4eb111b114539bab16bd567a4a794d75d6e16_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <20210331202344.GA938@mail> <20210331205157.GA12558@tachikoma>
 <ed11b509-1ab9-7fe3-2f7e-cd6b3a191779@bszx.eu>
 <1353ee36-b557-21c4-26e6-9aed76e9e9e1@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <20210402204635.GD12558@tachikoma>

On Thu, 01 Apr 2021, Elan Ruusam?e wrote:

> 
> On 01.04.2021 10:02, Bartek Szady wrote:
> >
> > Well...
> >
> > rpm --define '_debugsource_packages 0' --eval
> > '%{?%_debugsource_packages:%_debugsource_template}'
> >
> > worked as I had expected (it evaluated to nothing) not because
> > %_debugsource_packages was evaluated to false but because
> > %{%_debugsource_packages} was undefined :-(
> >
> >
> > Is there any way to undefine a macro in .rpmmacros ?

Disabling _debugsource_packages should work with rpm-pld-macros 2.005.

-- 
Jan R?korajski                    | PLD/Linux
SysAdm | baggins<at>pld-linux.org | http://www.pld-linux.org/


From glen at pld-linux.org  Sun Apr  4 14:26:21 2021
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Elan_Ruusam=c3=a4e?=)
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2021 15:26:21 +0300
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3a_pull_request_for_dhcp_=e2=80=93_fixed_the_init_scri?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?pt?=
In-Reply-To: <CABzHJcBnvqrQ5C99fpkC6EwkEh5FQuZm1E0DpTRQyxwSZXi9Mw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABzHJcAFSqXDTR5KWOiCibp+Z1z1gA6403=-qgREn7foesYQjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5c807493-1e56-ad04-fccc-25ce7d44ddb5@pld-linux.org>
 <CABzHJcCBjbs1mRr8s7VVgG+H5+NzfTkguRV56Nw_0yytNgW5DQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210401200449.GB12558@tachikoma> <20210401201856.GC12558@tachikoma>
 <CABzHJcBnvqrQ5C99fpkC6EwkEh5FQuZm1E0DpTRQyxwSZXi9Mw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <d285c50c-4e26-cdea-b1ab-99329513d4ac@pld-linux.org>


On 02.04.2021 13:52, Pawe? Zuzelski wrote:
>
> http://buildlogs.pld-linux.org//index.php?dist=th&arch=x86_64&ok=0&name=dhcp&id=e1ea81ba-b170-4cbc-b96e-79ce976fff46&action=tail
>
> I am at th-2018 and it builds just fine.
>
> There is also
> http://ftp.pld-linux.org/dists/th/2020/PLD/x86_64/RPMS/dhcp-4.3.5-2.x86_64.rpm,
> which suggests it also builds at th-2020. Has something broken very
> recently?

it was built 1220 days ago:

[/tmp] ? rpm -qpi dhcp-4.3.5-2.x86_64.rpm|grep Build
warning: dhcp-4.3.5-2.x86_64.rpm: Header V4 DSA/SHA1 Signature, key ID 
e4f1bc2d: NOKEY
Build Date? : Fri 01 Dec 2017 01:53:26 AM EET
Build Host? : ymir-builder
[/tmp] ?



From pawelz at pld-linux.org  Sun Apr  4 15:13:58 2021
From: pawelz at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Pawe=C5=82_Zuzelski?=)
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2021 15:13:58 +0200
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_pull_request_for_dhcp_=E2=80=93_fixed_the_init_script?=
In-Reply-To: <d285c50c-4e26-cdea-b1ab-99329513d4ac@pld-linux.org>
References: <CABzHJcAFSqXDTR5KWOiCibp+Z1z1gA6403=-qgREn7foesYQjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5c807493-1e56-ad04-fccc-25ce7d44ddb5@pld-linux.org>
 <CABzHJcCBjbs1mRr8s7VVgG+H5+NzfTkguRV56Nw_0yytNgW5DQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210401200449.GB12558@tachikoma> <20210401201856.GC12558@tachikoma>
 <CABzHJcBnvqrQ5C99fpkC6EwkEh5FQuZm1E0DpTRQyxwSZXi9Mw@mail.gmail.com>
 <d285c50c-4e26-cdea-b1ab-99329513d4ac@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <CABzHJcA4wRDDbeW-PkNTkARiD8bLVBnaZd0PBx9Xi9GOKWDsJg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Apr 4, 2021 at 2:26 PM Elan Ruusam?e <glen at pld-linux.org> wrote:
> On 02.04.2021 13:52, Pawe? Zuzelski wrote:
> >
http://buildlogs.pld-linux.org//index.php?dist=th&arch=x86_64&ok=0&name=dhcp&id=e1ea81ba-b170-4cbc-b96e-79ce976fff46&action=tail
> >
> > I am at th-2018 and it builds just fine.
> >
> > There is also
> >
http://ftp.pld-linux.org/dists/th/2020/PLD/x86_64/RPMS/dhcp-4.3.5-2.x86_64.rpm
,
> > which suggests it also builds at th-2020. Has something broken very
> > recently?
>
> it was built 1220 days ago:
>
> [/tmp] ? rpm -qpi dhcp-4.3.5-2.x86_64.rpm|grep Build
> warning: dhcp-4.3.5-2.x86_64.rpm: Header V4 DSA/SHA1 Signature, key ID
> e4f1bc2d: NOKEY
> Build Date  : Fri 01 Dec 2017 01:53:26 AM EET
> Build Host  : ymir-builder
> [/tmp] ?

I see, thanks for checking.

I sent another PR on Github, with that change it builds at th-2020
(and has been working well for me for like two days now).

If you'd prefer me to push directly, can someone please guide
me through recovering the PLD git account? I think the last time
I contributed was the CVS era, and so I've never used the
PLD git.


From glen at pld-linux.org  Sun Apr  4 16:49:16 2021
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Elan_Ruusam=c3=a4e?=)
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2021 17:49:16 +0300
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3a_pull_request_for_dhcp_=e2=80=93_fixed_the_init_scri?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?pt?=
In-Reply-To: <CABzHJcA4wRDDbeW-PkNTkARiD8bLVBnaZd0PBx9Xi9GOKWDsJg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABzHJcAFSqXDTR5KWOiCibp+Z1z1gA6403=-qgREn7foesYQjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5c807493-1e56-ad04-fccc-25ce7d44ddb5@pld-linux.org>
 <CABzHJcCBjbs1mRr8s7VVgG+H5+NzfTkguRV56Nw_0yytNgW5DQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210401200449.GB12558@tachikoma> <20210401201856.GC12558@tachikoma>
 <CABzHJcBnvqrQ5C99fpkC6EwkEh5FQuZm1E0DpTRQyxwSZXi9Mw@mail.gmail.com>
 <d285c50c-4e26-cdea-b1ab-99329513d4ac@pld-linux.org>
 <CABzHJcA4wRDDbeW-PkNTkARiD8bLVBnaZd0PBx9Xi9GOKWDsJg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8082f5a2-0248-1874-4aeb-c33a47ad5ea8@pld-linux.org>


On 04.04.2021 16:13, Pawe? Zuzelski wrote:
>
> I sent another PR on Github, with that change it builds at th-2020
> (and has been working well for me for like two days now).

you could at least share the link of the pull request. so could fetch 
the changes from there.




From pawelz at pld-linux.org  Sun Apr  4 16:59:02 2021
From: pawelz at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Pawe=C5=82_Zuzelski?=)
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2021 16:59:02 +0200
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_pull_request_for_dhcp_=E2=80=93_fixed_the_init_script?=
In-Reply-To: <8082f5a2-0248-1874-4aeb-c33a47ad5ea8@pld-linux.org>
References: <CABzHJcAFSqXDTR5KWOiCibp+Z1z1gA6403=-qgREn7foesYQjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5c807493-1e56-ad04-fccc-25ce7d44ddb5@pld-linux.org>
 <CABzHJcCBjbs1mRr8s7VVgG+H5+NzfTkguRV56Nw_0yytNgW5DQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210401200449.GB12558@tachikoma> <20210401201856.GC12558@tachikoma>
 <CABzHJcBnvqrQ5C99fpkC6EwkEh5FQuZm1E0DpTRQyxwSZXi9Mw@mail.gmail.com>
 <d285c50c-4e26-cdea-b1ab-99329513d4ac@pld-linux.org>
 <CABzHJcA4wRDDbeW-PkNTkARiD8bLVBnaZd0PBx9Xi9GOKWDsJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <8082f5a2-0248-1874-4aeb-c33a47ad5ea8@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <CABzHJcDKugm+DQijeXSKMMTqr+b2ke+Md4RaGkZt4N91SFsjPQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Apr 4, 2021 at 4:49 PM Elan Ruusam?e <glen at pld-linux.org> wrote:
> On 04.04.2021 16:13, Pawe? Zuzelski wrote:
> >
> > I sent another PR on Github, with that change it builds at th-2020
> > (and has been working well for me for like two days now).
>
> you could at least share the link of the pull request. so could fetch
> the changes from there.

Here you go: https://github.com/pld-linux/dhcp/pull/2


From pawelz at pld-linux.org  Wed Apr  7 20:57:25 2021
From: pawelz at pld-linux.org (=?utf-8?B?UGF3ZcWC?= Zuzelski)
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 18:57:25 +0000
Subject: Pull request: mutt up to 2.0.6
Message-ID: <YG4AlYqhAoSwbclV@hal>

Hi all,

Here is a pull-request bringing mutt in PLD to a modern version: https://github.com/pld-linux/mutt/pull/1.

I dropped the xface patch. The underlying code changed too much and the patch itself seems unmaintained. Also, honestly, not important enough to be worth the effort.

On the plus side, this release fixes rather egregious bug that caused mutt to actually send Bcc: headers.

Thank you,
Pawe?


From pawelz at pld-linux.org  Thu Apr  8 23:00:29 2021
From: pawelz at pld-linux.org (=?utf-8?B?UGF3ZcWC?= Zuzelski)
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2021 21:00:29 +0000
Subject: Pull request: fix for ./builder misbehaving when GIT_EDITOR is set.
Message-ID: <YG9u7VSg6Egb5D9X@hal>

Hi all,

./builder is failing with a bit cryptic error when GIT_EDITOR is set.
https://github.com/pld-linux/rpm-build-tools/pull/1 should fix both the
failure when GIT_EDITOR is set and the error message when any other
unknown GIT_ variable is set.

Thank you,
Pawe?


From krzysztof at mrozowicz.eu  Fri Apr  9 16:27:11 2021
From: krzysztof at mrozowicz.eu (Krzysztof Mrozowicz)
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2021 15:27:11 +0100
Subject: query about debuginfo
Message-ID: <20210409152711.26a9265d@oko>

Hi, I updated the wesnoth package to newer version and it built on my
computer with no problems. When I tried to build it on the builders,
it failed with error saying that debugsourcefiles.list is empty.
I updated my environment to what is in th-test and was able to
reproduce the error on my computer, so something got changed in macros
or rpm there...

This was the first time when I saw this kind of error so I asked
google and found some solution:

add %global debug_package %{nil} to the spec

And this helped. Packages were built correctly, but I don't know if
what I did, was right. The effect of adding the above directive to the
spec was that the package wesnoth-debuginfo-1.14.16-1.x86_64.rpm was
not created.

I'd love to hear from more experienced developers something that could
help me to understand this.


-- 
Krzysiek


From glen at pld-linux.org  Sun Apr 11 12:38:28 2021
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Elan_Ruusam=c3=a4e?=)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2021 13:38:28 +0300
Subject: [packages/setup] go back to joinpasswd in %post
In-Reply-To: <841dc2f529959132861e802fb35d409048e8659d_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
References: <b1e86f8f33ea654259f6f058bc1b0354d63a7991_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <841dc2f529959132861e802fb35d409048e8659d_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <7703c965-579b-bf19-f67b-707a5ad75ac3@pld-linux.org>


On 11.04.2021 00:31, atler wrote:
> commit 841dc2f529959132861e802fb35d409048e8659d
> Author: Jan Palus <atler at pld-linux.org>
> Date:   Sat Apr 10 22:21:12 2021 +0200
>
>      go back to joinpasswd in %post
>      
>      %triggerpostun is way too late at least with rpm4.

to be clear, do you really mean any rpm4 (rpm 4.5, 4.6 by rpm5.org) or 
actually rpm 4.16 (by rpm.org)?

should use 4.16+ in terminology, or say use the negative expression to 
exclude rpm versions by rpm5.org

i.e "non-rpm5" to denote versions by rpm.org. altho, rpm.org/rpm5.org is 
pretty clear too



From atler at pld-linux.org  Sun Apr 11 12:45:39 2021
From: atler at pld-linux.org (Jan Palus)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2021 12:45:39 +0200
Subject: [packages/setup] go back to joinpasswd in %post
In-Reply-To: <7703c965-579b-bf19-f67b-707a5ad75ac3@pld-linux.org>
References: <b1e86f8f33ea654259f6f058bc1b0354d63a7991_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <841dc2f529959132861e802fb35d409048e8659d_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <7703c965-579b-bf19-f67b-707a5ad75ac3@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <20210411104539.cumh6rs3aywq6m2k@pine>

On 11.04.2021 13:38, Elan Ruusam?e wrote:
> 
> On 11.04.2021 00:31, atler wrote:
> > commit 841dc2f529959132861e802fb35d409048e8659d
> > Author: Jan Palus <atler at pld-linux.org>
> > Date:   Sat Apr 10 22:21:12 2021 +0200
> > 
> >      go back to joinpasswd in %post
> >      %triggerpostun is way too late at least with rpm4.
> 
> to be clear, do you really mean any rpm4 (rpm 4.5, 4.6 by rpm5.org) or
> actually rpm 4.16 (by rpm.org)?
> 
> should use 4.16+ in terminology, or say use the negative expression to
> exclude rpm versions by rpm5.org
> 
> i.e "non-rpm5" to denote versions by rpm.org. altho, rpm.org/rpm5.org is
> pretty clear too

rpm 4.16 (rpm.org)


From qboosh at pld-linux.org  Sun Apr 11 21:47:30 2021
From: qboosh at pld-linux.org (Jakub Bogusz)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2021 21:47:30 +0200
Subject: query about debuginfo
In-Reply-To: <20210409152711.26a9265d@oko>
References: <20210409152711.26a9265d@oko>
Message-ID: <20210411194730.GA17031@mail>

On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 03:27:11PM +0100, Krzysztof Mrozowicz via pld-devel-en wrote:
> Hi, I updated the wesnoth package to newer version and it built on my
> computer with no problems. When I tried to build it on the builders,
> it failed with error saying that debugsourcefiles.list is empty.

That's because package was compiled without debugging information, so
rpm couldn't find source files for compiled binaries.

After adjusting build to use PLD-specific compiler flags, debug packages
are created.

> I updated my environment to what is in th-test and was able to
> reproduce the error on my computer, so something got changed in macros
> or rpm there...

Older rpm didn't complain on empty debug packages.

> This was the first time when I saw this kind of error so I asked
> google and found some solution:
> 
> add %global debug_package %{nil} to the spec

We're rather using "%define _enable_debug_packages 0"
to disable debug packages completely (which must be done when no
native binaries are packaged, but package can't be noarch e.g. because
of arch-dependent file paths or arch-dependenty bytecode).

If binary debuginfo packages are created, but source files cannot be
found (e.g. because of language not supported by rpm debugsource
mechanism, like rust), we can disable just debugsource packages by
"%define _debugsource_packages 0"
(see gnome-tour.spec for example).


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


From krzysztof at mrozowicz.eu  Mon Apr 12 15:30:02 2021
From: krzysztof at mrozowicz.eu (Krzysztof Mrozowicz)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 14:30:02 +0100
Subject: =?utf-8?q?Re=3A?= query about debuginfo
In-Reply-To: <20210411194730.GA17031@mail>
Message-ID: <5a3-60744b80-5-aff0fb0@50985259>

On Sunday, April 11, 2021 20:47 IST, Jakub Bogusz <qboosh at pld-linux.org> wrote: 
 
> On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 03:27:11PM +0100, Krzysztof Mrozowicz via pld-devel-en wrote:
> > Hi, I updated the wesnoth package to newer version and it built on my
> > computer with no problems. When I tried to build it on the builders,
> > it failed with error saying that debugsourcefiles.list is empty.
> 
> That's because package was compiled without debugging information, so
> rpm couldn't find source files for compiled binaries.
> 
> After adjusting build to use PLD-specific compiler flags, debug packages
> are created.
Thank you very much for the answer and for fixing the spec. Not knowing you changed the spec, I was looking into it by myself and found that changing CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE from "Release" to "RelWithDebInfo" also does the job. 

--
Krzysiek


From arekm at maven.pl  Mon Apr 12 20:56:49 2021
From: arekm at maven.pl (=?UTF-8?Q?Arkadiusz_Mi=c5=9bkiewicz?=)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 20:56:49 +0200
Subject: query about debuginfo
In-Reply-To: <5a3-60744b80-5-aff0fb0@50985259>
References: <5a3-60744b80-5-aff0fb0@50985259>
Message-ID: <2c5c0d72-653c-99f8-6163-e87811be9caf@maven.pl>

W dniu 12.04.2021 o?15:30, Krzysztof Mrozowicz via pld-devel-en pisze:
> On Sunday, April 11, 2021 20:47 IST, Jakub Bogusz <qboosh at pld-linux.org> wrote: 
>  
>> On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 03:27:11PM +0100, Krzysztof Mrozowicz via pld-devel-en wrote:
>>> Hi, I updated the wesnoth package to newer version and it built on my
>>> computer with no problems. When I tried to build it on the builders,
>>> it failed with error saying that debugsourcefiles.list is empty.
>>
>> That's because package was compiled without debugging information, so
>> rpm couldn't find source files for compiled binaries.
>>
>> After adjusting build to use PLD-specific compiler flags, debug packages
>> are created.
> Thank you very much for the answer and for fixing the spec. Not knowing you changed the spec, I was looking into it by myself and found that changing CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE from "Release" to "RelWithDebInfo" also does the job. 

Should we change our default rpm macro?

$ rpm --showrc|grep CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE
        -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=%{!?debug:PLD}%{?debug:Debug} \

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


From ed at yen.ipipan.waw.pl  Mon Apr 12 21:20:14 2021
From: ed at yen.ipipan.waw.pl (Peri Noid)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 21:20:14 +0200
Subject: query about debuginfo
In-Reply-To: <2c5c0d72-653c-99f8-6163-e87811be9caf@maven.pl>
References: <5a3-60744b80-5-aff0fb0@50985259>
 <2c5c0d72-653c-99f8-6163-e87811be9caf@maven.pl>
Message-ID: <2565810.Db1bYrix9X@laptok>

Dnia poniedzia?ek, 12 kwietnia 2021 20:56:49 CEST Arkadiusz Mi?kiewicz pisze:
[...]
> Should we change our default rpm macro?
> 
> $ rpm --showrc|grep CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE
>         -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=%{!?debug:PLD}%{?debug:Debug} \

Yes please! Make it either conditional or "the opposite". I couldn't compile 
kile recently just becouse of this since I didn't understand the source of the 
problem.
-- 
?ukasz Ma?ko                                                            _o)
Lukasz.Masko(at)ipipan.waw.pl                                           /\\
Registered Linux User #61028                                           _\_V
Ubuntu: staroafryka?skie s?owo oznaczaj?ce "Nie umiem zainstalowa? Debiana"





From arekm at maven.pl  Mon Apr 12 21:53:22 2021
From: arekm at maven.pl (=?UTF-8?Q?Arkadiusz_Mi=c5=9bkiewicz?=)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 21:53:22 +0200
Subject: query about debuginfo
In-Reply-To: <2565810.Db1bYrix9X@laptok>
References: <5a3-60744b80-5-aff0fb0@50985259>
 <2c5c0d72-653c-99f8-6163-e87811be9caf@maven.pl> <2565810.Db1bYrix9X@laptok>
Message-ID: <cadf8c16-c290-8d66-6399-a5c2bb1a12ed@maven.pl>

W dniu 12.04.2021 o?21:20, Peri Noid pisze:
> Dnia poniedzia?ek, 12 kwietnia 2021 20:56:49 CEST Arkadiusz Mi?kiewicz pisze:
> [...]
>> Should we change our default rpm macro?
>>
>> $ rpm --showrc|grep CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE
>>         -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=%{!?debug:PLD}%{?debug:Debug} \
> 
> Yes please! Make it either conditional or "the opposite". I couldn't compile 
> kile recently just becouse of this since I didn't understand the source of the 
> problem.
> 

I have no idea why we use PLD there.

commit 547ff09556739ab0f98239b1278dddf9b506ff4e
Author: Kacper Kornet <draenog at pld-linux.org>
Date:   Thu Feb 3 16:38:26 2011 +0000

    - use our own build type in cmake

    Changed files:
        rpm.macros -> 1.604

diff --git a/rpm.macros b/rpm.macros
index 8537d8a..c04033a 100644
--- a/rpm.macros
+++ b/rpm.macros
@@ -245,23 +245,21 @@
 %{?__cc:CC="%{__cc}"} \\\
 %{?__cxx:CXX="%{__cxx}"} \\\
 CPPFLAGS="${CPPFLAGS:-%{rpmcppflags}}" \\\
-CFLAGS="${CFLAGS:-%{rpmcflags}}" \\\
-FFLAGS="${FFLAGS:-%{rpmcflags}}" \\\
-FCFLAGS="${FCFLAGS:-%{rpmcflags}}" \\\
-CXXFLAGS="${CXXFLAGS:-%{rpmcxxflags}}" \\\
-LDFLAGS="${LDFLAGS:-%{rpmldflags}}" \\\
 %{__cmake} \\\
        -DCMAKE_VERBOSE_MAKEFILE=ON \\\
-       -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=%{!?debug:Release}%{?debug:Debug} \\\
+       -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=%{!?debug:PLD}%{?debug:Debug} \\\

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


From arekm at maven.pl  Mon Apr 12 22:12:12 2021
From: arekm at maven.pl (=?UTF-8?Q?Arkadiusz_Mi=c5=9bkiewicz?=)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 22:12:12 +0200
Subject: query about debuginfo
In-Reply-To: <cadf8c16-c290-8d66-6399-a5c2bb1a12ed@maven.pl>
References: <5a3-60744b80-5-aff0fb0@50985259>
 <2c5c0d72-653c-99f8-6163-e87811be9caf@maven.pl> <2565810.Db1bYrix9X@laptok>
 <cadf8c16-c290-8d66-6399-a5c2bb1a12ed@maven.pl>
Message-ID: <dd4b1e5d-6e99-3bc5-7bd2-beb67b7f7089@maven.pl>

W dniu 12.04.2021 o?21:53, Arkadiusz Mi?kiewicz pisze:
> W dniu 12.04.2021 o?21:20, Peri Noid pisze:
>> Dnia poniedzia?ek, 12 kwietnia 2021 20:56:49 CEST Arkadiusz Mi?kiewicz pisze:
>> [...]
>>> Should we change our default rpm macro?
>>>
>>> $ rpm --showrc|grep CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE
>>>         -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=%{!?debug:PLD}%{?debug:Debug} \
>>
>> Yes please! Make it either conditional or "the opposite". I couldn't compile 
>> kile recently just becouse of this since I didn't understand the source of the 
>> problem.
>>
> 
> I have no idea why we use PLD there.

Probably to avoid default release optimizations that cmake adds (because
we use our own CFLAGS etc).

> 
> commit 547ff09556739ab0f98239b1278dddf9b506ff4e
> Author: Kacper Kornet <draenog at pld-linux.org>
> Date:   Thu Feb 3 16:38:26 2011 +0000
> 
>     - use our own build type in cmake
> 
>     Changed files:
>         rpm.macros -> 1.604
> 
> diff --git a/rpm.macros b/rpm.macros
> index 8537d8a..c04033a 100644
> --- a/rpm.macros
> +++ b/rpm.macros
> @@ -245,23 +245,21 @@
>  %{?__cc:CC="%{__cc}"} \\\
>  %{?__cxx:CXX="%{__cxx}"} \\\
>  CPPFLAGS="${CPPFLAGS:-%{rpmcppflags}}" \\\
> -CFLAGS="${CFLAGS:-%{rpmcflags}}" \\\
> -FFLAGS="${FFLAGS:-%{rpmcflags}}" \\\
> -FCFLAGS="${FCFLAGS:-%{rpmcflags}}" \\\
> -CXXFLAGS="${CXXFLAGS:-%{rpmcxxflags}}" \\\
> -LDFLAGS="${LDFLAGS:-%{rpmldflags}}" \\\
>  %{__cmake} \\\
>         -DCMAKE_VERBOSE_MAKEFILE=ON \\\
> -       -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=%{!?debug:Release}%{?debug:Debug} \\\
> +       -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=%{!?debug:PLD}%{?debug:Debug} \\\
> 


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


From qboosh at pld-linux.org  Tue Apr 13 06:28:10 2021
From: qboosh at pld-linux.org (Jakub Bogusz)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 06:28:10 +0200
Subject: query about debuginfo
In-Reply-To: <dd4b1e5d-6e99-3bc5-7bd2-beb67b7f7089@maven.pl>
References: <5a3-60744b80-5-aff0fb0@50985259>
 <2c5c0d72-653c-99f8-6163-e87811be9caf@maven.pl> <2565810.Db1bYrix9X@laptok>
 <cadf8c16-c290-8d66-6399-a5c2bb1a12ed@maven.pl>
 <dd4b1e5d-6e99-3bc5-7bd2-beb67b7f7089@maven.pl>
Message-ID: <20210413042810.GA22875@mail>

On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 10:12:12PM +0200, Arkadiusz Mi?kiewicz wrote:
> W dniu 12.04.2021 o?21:53, Arkadiusz Mi?kiewicz pisze:
> > W dniu 12.04.2021 o?21:20, Peri Noid pisze:
> >> Dnia poniedzia?ek, 12 kwietnia 2021 20:56:49 CEST Arkadiusz Mi?kiewicz pisze:
> >> [...]
> >>> Should we change our default rpm macro?
> >>>
> >>> $ rpm --showrc|grep CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE
> >>>         -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=%{!?debug:PLD}%{?debug:Debug} \
> >>
> >> Yes please! Make it either conditional or "the opposite". I couldn't compile 
> >> kile recently just becouse of this since I didn't understand the source of the 
> >> problem.
> >>
> > 
> > I have no idea why we use PLD there.
> 
> Probably to avoid default release optimizations that cmake adds (because
> we use our own CFLAGS etc).

That's the reason AFAIR.


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


From glen at pld-linux.org  Tue Apr 20 12:18:25 2021
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Elan_Ruusam=c3=a4e?=)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 13:18:25 +0300
Subject: [packages/nagios-plugins] Rediff patches.
In-Reply-To: <d76fcccde43410804284990886ba8e82bec2374c_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
References: <e600c8461a99848f6f4b3a885e4534193e90ec71_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <d76fcccde43410804284990886ba8e82bec2374c_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <6fa95c05-fc4b-191a-121d-71f613a23cc5@pld-linux.org>


On 19.04.2021 13:02, arekm wrote:
> commit d76fcccde43410804284990886ba8e82bec2374c
> Author: Arkadiusz Mi?kiewicz <arekm at maven.pl>
> Date:   Mon Apr 19 12:02:10 2021 +0200
>
>      Rediff patches.
>
>   nagios-plugins-check_hpjd-no-paper-out.patch | 23 ++++++++++++-----------
>   nagios-plugins-check_radius_segfault.patch   | 14 +++++++-------
>   nagios-plugins-noroot.patch                  |  9 +++++----
>   nagios-plugins-pgsql.patch                   | 10 +++++-----
>   nagios-plugins-tainted.patch                 | 22 ++++++++++++----------
>   nagios-plugins.spec                          |  2 ++
>   6 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
> ---
> diff --git a/nagios-plugins.spec b/nagios-plugins.spec
> index afac646..d23f8bf 100644
> --- a/nagios-plugins.spec
> +++ b/nagios-plugins.spec
> @@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ Patch9:		%{name}-paths.patch
>   Patch10:	%{name}-ping.patch
>   Patch11:	dns-config.patch
>   Patch12:	%{name}-check_http-nocache.patch
> +Patch13:	ipv6.patch
>   URL:		http://www.nagiosplugins.org/
>   BuildRequires:	autoconf
>   BuildRequires:	automake
> @@ -525,6 +526,7 @@ mv nagios-plugins-config-*/* .
>   %patch10 -p1
>   %patch11 -p1
>   %patch12 -p1
> +#%patch13 -p1
>   

this change not included in commit message.

still not have learned `git add -p` and/or `git show` before push?



From glen at pld-linux.org  Fri Apr 23 10:38:07 2021
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Elan_Ruusam=c3=a4e?=)
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:38:07 +0300
Subject: [packages/proftpd] - rediff patches - fix triggerposttun tag not
 supported by rpm4 - add more modules - adapterized - r
In-Reply-To: <400535c3c6f3453dc4e153950f1a6ee6cd0bc696_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
References: <c0c40ac383293285c496ad6dde9fb67713174236_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <400535c3c6f3453dc4e153950f1a6ee6cd0bc696_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <4888cfd6-af6c-30f8-dc2a-115384b757e9@pld-linux.org>

On 23.04.2021 10:11, baggins wrote:

> commit 400535c3c6f3453dc4e153950f1a6ee6cd0bc696
> Author: Jan R?korajski <baggins at pld-linux.org>
> Date:   Fri Apr 23 09:10:01 2021 +0200
>
>
>      - fix triggerposttun tag not supported by rpm4

technically it isn't just supported by rpm by rpm.org

rpm 4.5 from rpm5.org supports it.






From glen at pld-linux.org  Sun Apr 25 21:16:31 2021
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Elan_Ruusam=c3=a4e?=)
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2021 22:16:31 +0300
Subject: [packages/nginx] Direct mod security url.
In-Reply-To: <701bd771466c352e21ce7e10f397fa77953e4396_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
References: <9ccdc6d2129c7dc4a95b1d543bec737eba079d3e_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <701bd771466c352e21ce7e10f397fa77953e4396_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <25f730e1-3a07-ecf9-9f94-b6632004c290@pld-linux.org>


On 25.04.2021 20:27, arekm wrote:
> commit 701bd771466c352e21ce7e10f397fa77953e4396
> Author: Arkadiusz Mi?kiewicz <arekm at maven.pl>
> Date:   Sun Apr 25 19:27:48 2021 +0200
>
>      Direct mod security url.
>
>   nginx.spec | 4 ++--

> -Source22:	http://www.modsecurity.org/tarball/%{modsecurity_version}/modsecurity-%{modsecurity_version}.tar.gz
> -# Source22-md5:	96718664193ad308a5ba91d90414710a
> +Source33:	https://github.com/SpiderLabs/ModSecurity/releases/download/v%{modsecurity_version}/modsecurity-v%{modsecurity_version}.tar.gz
> +# Source22-md5:	42c9860e0c073ca32a4a015ead970774


SourceXX and SourceXX-md5 do not match.


did you encounter bug in builder script, or typo made manually?