[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Print binaries when found in noarch package (PR #4060)

[Michal Domonkos]

@dmnks commented on this pull request.



> +	    rpmlog(RPMLOG_WARNING,
+		   _("Binaries arch (%d) not matching the package arch (%d).\n"),
+		   header_color, arch_color);
+	}
+    } else if (header_color != 0) {
+	int terminate = rpmExpandNumeric("%{?_binaries_in_noarch_packages_terminate_build}");
+	string files;
+	for (unsigned ix = 0; ix < fc->nfiles; ix++) {
+	    if (fc->fcolor[ix] == 0)
+		continue;
+	    string f = fc->fn[ix].substr(fc->buildRoot.size());
+	    files += string(4, ' ') + f + '\n';
+	}
+	rpmlog(terminate ? RPMLOG_ERR : RPMLOG_WARNING, 
+	       _("Arch dependent binaries in noarch package:\n%s"),
+	       files.c_str());

Indeed :sweat_smile: But, to be honest, I don't mind the "error:" variant either. It'd simplify the code a bit and we wouldn't need to worry about indenting etc. It would also make the message stand out better - these are all basically error lines in the output.

One could say every log message should be meaningful on its own (which these wouldn't) but then, it doesn't really matter as we always print them together anyway.

Then there's the precedent of the "unpackaged files" error which also dumps them in one log entry, but... I kinda like the prefixed variant more now :smile: We'll see. I'll throw a coin, I guess.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/4060#discussion_r2584217089
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/4060/review/3533912389 at github.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-maint/attachments/20251203/2b0623d8/attachment-0001.htm>