similar to: [PATCH 0/4] rpm: Choose providers better (RHBZ#1266918).

This is v2 of the 4/4 patch from the original series. Changes: - memoize the function this time - check packages are installed using rpm_package_of_string However I didn't combine the two case together, because the code is a bit simpler with them separate. Rich.

Hi, this work makes supermin use the rpm library instead of invoking rpm directly. This, together with a needed refactoring of the dependency resolution, should help in make supermin faster on rpm-based systems. Surely the patches will still need polishing, especially for behaviours of newly added stuff, but at least it's a good starting point. Noting that you need rpm-devel on most of rpm

In the referenced bug, a customer had installed a web browser called 'palemoon'. The RPM of this web browser provides and requires various core libraries, such as: Provides: libnss3.so()(64bit) # normally provided by 'nss' Requires: libxul.so()(64bit) # normally provided by 'firefox' Our previous algorithm -- inherited from the days when we used to run 'rpm'

Add the package that raised the issue, so it can be used to provide better diagnostic. --- src/librpm-c.c | 15 ++++++++++----- src/librpm.ml | 4 ++-- src/librpm.mli | 2 +- 3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/librpm-c.c b/src/librpm-c.c index 3bd25a2..75ca4d7 100644 --- a/src/librpm-c.c +++ b/src/librpm-c.c @@ -66,10 +66,15 @@ librpm_handle_closed (void) }

This patch series fixes the way supermin sorts the list of installed packages when resolving a name, picking the right package for the host architecture. Pino Toscano (5): rpm: do not unpack parameters rpm: fix version comparison rpm: query the RPM architecture rpm: fix package sorting (RHBZ#1696822) utils: remove unused 'compare_architecture' function src/librpm-c.c | 10

On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 04:25:49PM -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > > I for one am looking for decent replacement for firefox for at least 5 > years (no, do not suggest chrome, or google anything, please), still > without success. The bizarre with Firefox started shortly after a guy I > know (as undergraduate student in our Department) became production > director of Mozilla

Bind and use rpmvercmp to compare versions of packages when sorting them, instead of an own string-based comparison function. --- src/librpm-c.c | 12 ++++++++++++ src/librpm.ml | 1 + src/librpm.mli | 1 + src/rpm.ml | 2 +- 4 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/src/librpm-c.c b/src/librpm-c.c index 1ae3bad..fc847d6 100644 --- a/src/librpm-c.c +++

Hi Pino, On 04/02/2015 05:23 AM, Pino Toscano wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > On Wednesday 01 April 2015 16:37:26 Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote: >> The one that got upstream does not work in ibm-powerkvm due to the >> rpm_is_avaiable verification >> in the detection (I've attached the wrong version in bugzilla). > the new version of the patch is somehow confusing.

Hi Pino, On 04/02/2015 09:51 AM, Pino Toscano wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > On Thursday 02 April 2015 09:34:17 Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote: >> On 04/02/2015 05:23 AM, Pino Toscano wrote: >>> Hi Daniel, >>> >>> On Wednesday 01 April 2015 16:37:26 Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote: >>>> The one that got upstream does not work in ibm-powerkvm due to the

On 04/02/2015 11:47 AM, Pino Toscano wrote: > On Thursday 02 April 2015 11:15:07 Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote: >> Hi Pino, >> >> On 04/02/2015 09:51 AM, Pino Toscano wrote: >>> Hi Daniel, >>> >>> On Thursday 02 April 2015 09:34:17 Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote: >>>> On 04/02/2015 05:23 AM, Pino Toscano wrote: >>>>> Hi

Hello, I tried to install guestfish on my Fedora 29 and used the commands from documentation sudo dnf install libguestfs-tools but I got an error when I tried to execute run. You will find below logs below: ************************************************************ * IMPORTANT NOTICE * * When reporting bugs, include the COMPLETE, UNEDITED * output

Yes David, I'm using a release 32 of Firefox to reach my olds C6100 IDRAC7 interface. The problem is for latest Firefox versions as they require libgtk-3 not available in Centos6/RHEL6 distribution. Today I use a very very bad solution to reach my switch with latest firmware version from the latest Firefox available in CentOS: I disable https and use http.... Even if it is on a private

The one that got upstream does not work in ibm-powerkvm due to the rpm_is_avaiable verification in the detection (I've attached the wrong version in bugzilla). Thanks and sorry for the confusion, Daniel -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 0001-Adding-ibm-powerkvm-distro-detection.patch Type: text/x-patch Size: 1306 bytes Desc: not available

Hi, few cleanups in the supermin codebase; no actual functional change. Thanks, -- Pino Toscano (3): ext2: simplify tracking of visited modules utils: remove unused run_python function Add and use an helper error function src/build.ml | 20 +++++----------- src/dpkg.ml | 4 +--- src/ext2_initrd.ml | 10 ++++---- src/kernel.ml | 27

On Sat, June 18, 2016 6:50 pm, Always Learning wrote: > > On Sat, 2016-06-18 at 15:39 -0700, Gordon Messmer wrote: > >> I'm not interested in turning this in to a discussion on epistemology. >> This is based on the experience (the evidence) of some of the world's >> foremost experts in the field (Akamai, Cisco, EFF, Mozilla, etc). > > The same Mozilla

Hello. Maybe after work with FreeBSD I become too spoilt, but I expect that packages from one distribution kit works among themselves well. But that I see: $ rpm -qa | grep rpm rpm-libs-4.3.13_nonptl rpm-python-4.3.13_nonptl rpm-4.3.13_nonptl rpm-build-4.3.13_nonptl $python >>> import rpm ImportError /usr/lib/librpm-4.3.so: undefined symbol: rpm_execcon Thanks.

Centos replaced well-running customise Firefox with version ESR 45.1.0 * All the add-ons (language dictionaries, Adblock Plus, Classic Theme Restorer etc.) were disabled with no simple method of reactivating them. Reason given was they were "unsigned". * About:config xpinstall.signatures.required = false partially reduced the problem. * Then possible to reactivate some disabled

CentOS 4.1 and Heartbeat 2.0.0. I'm trying to install the rpm's for heartbeat and heartbeat-stonith and get these failed dependencies. error: Failed dependencies: libcrypto.so.0.9.7 is needed by heartbeat-2.0.0-1.i586 libnet.so.0 is needed by heartbeat-2.0.0-1.i586 librpm-4.1.so is needed by heartbeat-2.0.0-1.i586 librpmdb-4.1.so is needed by

On Fri, 21 Jul 2017, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 04:19:20PM +0100, Phil Perry wrote: >> Say a package has a dependency for libfoo.so.1, and 2 (or more) >> packages provide libfoo.so.1, how does yum decide which package to >> install to meet the dependency? > > It has a series of heuristics: > > http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/CompareProviders

Hi list, Say a package has a dependency for libfoo.so.1, and 2 (or more) packages provide libfoo.so.1, how does yum decide which package to install to meet the dependency?