Re: [opensuse-packaging] New default warning for -Wall (-Wstrict-prototypes)
Am Dienstag 29 Januar 2008 schrieb Dirk Mueller: > On Wednesday 23 January 2008, Richard Guenther wrote: > > > > > We will include -Wstrict-prototypes in RPM_OPT_FLAGS via enabling > > > > > it for -Wall soon, which will warn about non-prototypes like > > > > There might be adjustments to the autobuild checks that parse the log > > file, but for now we'll just see what happens ;) > > Note that I consider the autobuild logfile parser to be deprecated in the > longer future, so I would rather have a -Werror=strict-prototypes in the > RPM_OPT_FLAGS than yet another custom weird hack. But the warning is not fatal. It would mean way too many fallouts for false positives. Greetings, Stephan -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] New default warning for -Wall (-Wstrict-prototypes)
Am Mittwoch 23 Januar 2008 schrieb Pavol Rusnak: > Richard Guenther wrote: > > We will include -Wstrict-prototypes in RPM_OPT_FLAGS via enabling > > it for -Wall soon, which will warn about non-prototypes like > > Will there also be a rpmlint check for these warnings ? rpmlint does not compile the sources, so no - there can't be a rpmlint check. Greetings, Stephan -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Installing beagle removes gimp-unstable
Am Sonntag 20 Januar 2008 schrieb Rajko M.: > Any problems to make a beagle-lang direct dependency of beagle and skip > step with deinstallation of gimp-unstable if it is incompatible with > bundle-lang-common-en . Is this factory? In any case we need a test case, not the output. It's weired at least. Greetings, Stephan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] openSUSE 11.0 - call for package updates
Am Mittwoch 16 Januar 2008 schrieb Klaus Singvogel: > I think, if you blame on people in the public (!) about being late at > their work, and as a result leaving credits on them, I expect that you > check out your database double, before doing so. Sorry, but it leaves > always a bad taste in my opinion, if you do it in such a denouncing > way. A personal e-mail might should do better in future. Thanks for > understanding. Oh come on, no-one blamed anyone. It was just a gentle reminder with the remark that the result is automatically generated. Greetings, Stephan -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] openSUSE 11.0 - call for package updates
Am Samstag 12 Januar 2008 schrieb Christian Morales Vega: > 2008/1/12, Stephan Kulow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Am Samstag 12 Januar 2008 schrieb Christian Morales Vega: > > > And what happens with agfa-fonts? It is in the 10.3 DVD, but no in the > > > online repository. And is still missing in Factory. > > > > It was never in Factory. Its license only allows shipping with products. > > > > Greetings, Stephan > > So makes sense to mantain susedoc in the online repository? It can't > be installed without the DVD, so... > Or perhaps that dependency can be removed? Should be reduced a recommends I would think. the spec file already differs between building in the build service or with internal build system, so it's there. Greetings, Stephan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[opensuse-packaging] new perl, new glibc
Hi! There is now perl 5.10, glibc 2.7 and NetworkManager 0.7 in Factory (not yet synced out though). So don't be suprised if you see new failures - you have to fix them yourself :) Greetings, Stephan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] openSUSE 11.0 - call for package updates
Am Samstag 12 Januar 2008 schrieb Christian Morales Vega: > And what happens with agfa-fonts? It is in the 10.3 DVD, but no in the > online repository. And is still missing in Factory. It was never in Factory. Its license only allows shipping with products. Greetings, Stephan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] openSUSE 11.0 - call for package updates
Am Freitag 11 Januar 2008 schrieb Johannes Meixner: > Wow! > The first very official confession from the management > that there is no such thing as a fixed schedule and that the > time intervals between the releases increase over the time ;-) They only appear longer as soon as you're in them. Greetings, Stephan -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] openSUSE 11.0 - call for package updates
Am Donnerstag 10 Januar 2008 schrieb Andreas Jaeger: > Marcus Meissner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Hi folks (SUSE packagers), > > > > openSUSE 11.0 Beta1 is coming closer and now is a good time > > to do version updates for your packages. > > Beta1? Alpha1 is coming but not beta1 ;-) > beta1 is coming closer too - just slower :) Greetings, Stephan -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] -lang packages and requirements
Am Sonntag 06 Januar 2008 schrieb Wolfgang Rosenauer: > Marcus Meissner wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 11:07:40PM +0100, Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote: > >> So that leaves two basic questions for me: > >> > >> What is the purpose of a sub-package if it is always hard required by > >> the main package? > >> > >> And what I understood is the recommended (or even mandatory?) way to > >> handle language package dependencies the one described here: > >> http://en.opensuse.org/Software_Management/Dependencies/Language > >> > >> If that's correct I think that the %lang_package macro is useless since > >> it doesn't define a locale provides. the bundles provide the locale, the mc-lang package will always be pulled in, so there is no need to provide the languages. > >> > >> So what's the policy (or recommendation) actually? > > > > The %name-lang is also provided by the bundle-lang-* RPMs, so we can > > leave out languages... > > Ok, so it works for those bundled in bundle-lang-* RPMs that way. No, but we made it a general recommendation to split out langs so we can bundle as needed (if mc goes on GNOME CD) Greetings, Stephan -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] problem with spec file for kdepim3
Am Montag 31 Dezember 2007 schrieb Rajko M.: > I tried to build source package for kdepim and rpmbuild complained on > missing dependencies. > > # rpmbuild -bs kdepim3.spec > error: Failed build dependencies: > pilot-link-devel is needed by > kdepim3-3.5.7.enterprise.0.20070904.708012-9.i586 > gpgme-devel is needed by > kdepim3-3.5.7.enterprise.0.20070904.708012-9.i586 > > # zypper in pilot-link-devel gpgme-devel > package 'pilot-link-devel' not found > package 'gpgme-devel' not found use zypper install -C and it will install the packages providing it Greetings, Stephan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] rpmbuild glibc for OpenSuse?
Am Dienstag 27 November 2007 schrieb Jonathan E. Brickman: > Cristian Rodríguez wrote: > > Jonathan E. Brickman escribió: > >> Greetings. I am trying to rebuild glibc under OpenSUSE 10.3, optimizing > >> for CPU, and am running into a peculiar problem. I am running the > >> command: > > > > Care to explain WHY are you doing this ? it isnt enough with our glibc > > packages ? > > > > glibc: ***gentoo syndrome detected *** ;-P > > ;-PPP Might be gentoo-syndrome indeed, not quite sure. What it is, is > when I recompiled glibc with CPU optimizations before, in Ark Linux and > at least one or two others, I got a ~40% boost in subjective performance > overall. Not unlike Swiftfox for WWW: > Please note that our glibc is already optimized for i686 by default for a similiar reason. So I don't think "athlon" will give you 40% Greetings, Stephan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[opensuse-packaging] glibc 2.7 in Beta testing
Hi! Petr checked in glibc 2.7 into autobuild and we see build failures in quite some packages that look like this one: In function 'int open(const char*, int, ...)', inlined from 'void NCurses::RedirectToLog()' at NCurses.cc:587: /usr/include/bits/fcntl2.h:51: error: call to '__open_missing_mode' declared with attribute error: open with O_CREAT in second argument needs 3 arguments I think the error is speaking for itself, in case it does not: this is about int open(const char *pathname, int flags); int open(const char *pathname, int flags, mode_t mode); So please fix the code, for most cases 0666 or 0600 should be the right choice. BTW: as far as I can tell, glibc 2.6 did not have a default value, so the code in question should be buggy and can't have worked before. Greetings, Stephan -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] libSieve, wherefore art thou?
Am Freitag 23 November 2007 schrieb tabris: > It seems that libSieve dropped out of OpenSuSE 10.3 (but was in OpenSuSE > 10.2), and I can find no note in google or the changelog as to why. Any > takers? Hi! I can't see such a package for 10.2: http://benjiweber.co.uk:8080/webpin/index.jsp?searchTerm=libsieve Greetings, Stephan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Requires in -devel packages
Am Donnerstag 22 November 2007 schrieb Marcus Rueckert: > On 2007-11-22 14:25:42 +0100, Philipp Thomas wrote: > > * Adrian Schröter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [20071121 10:43]: > > > It should NOT require a compiler package like gcc or gcc-c++. > > > > OK, the C compiler is default, but how in the world should I express that > > these are C++ sources and therefore need a C++ compiler? Or do you want > > to introduce automatic detection? > > how about using external compilers that dont come as rpm? like intel > compiler? Stuff that is not coming as rpm is a pretty bad argument, because in that name you basically can remove all requires Greetings, Stephan -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] licenses.rpm again
Am Freitag 16 November 2007 schrieb Dirk Mueller: > On Friday 09 November 2007, Lukas Ocilka wrote: > > I remember deciding that we'll not use the licenses.rpm... or am I > > wrong? What's the current status, please :)? > > I don`t know either. Juergen, Coolo? > I didn't take part in that discussion and Juergen is on vacation for the next weeks. So we won't find out :) Greetings, Stephan -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] How to deal with Python .pyc and .pyo files?
Am Mittwoch 14 November 2007 schrieb JP Rosevear: > On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 15:08 +0100, Johannes Meixner wrote: > > Hello, > > > > what is the recommended way for packaging Python stuff? > > > > Either > > have byte-compiled Python .pyc and .pyo files packaged into the RPM > > or > > let this be done by the currently actually installed Python system > > during run-time on the end-user's computer and not by whatever > > (perhaps different) Python system during package build-time? > > This is kind of what I was trying to figure out myself for > python-gtkglext. The python automake macros seem to create both at > install time, but the files are identical. > The problem is: they don't have to be identical. And python -O will look for .pyo and python looks for .pyc. So you need to package both, but can hardlink them if they are the same (fdupes is your friend) Greetings, Stephan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] KMP package file
Am Dienstag 13 November 2007 schrieb Alex Lau: > Dear all packagers > > Let say we wanted to put document into the kmp is that possible and is > it against police? > It won't work as you wouldn't be able to install two flavors in parallel. So put the documentation into a separate subpackage and require it from the KMP Greetings, Stephan -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] -mini packages purpose
Am Freitag 09 November 2007 schrieb Wolfgang Rosenauer: > Michal Marek wrote: > > Cristian Rodriguez wrote: > >> What is the specific reason for having foobar-mini packages ? > >> > >> I guess those provides less functionality but for what use cases are > >> needed or what is the rationale behind them ? > > > > To minimize build dependencies and/or break cycles. They only live > > inside autobuild, because they have no use in a running system. > > OK, so what is rpmlint-mini doing in > http://download.opensuse.org/distribution/10.3/repo/oss/suse/i586/ > in that case? Providing a rpmlint with minimal dependencies to "minimize build dependencies". I hope you're not protesting that we upload packages only interesting inside autobuild to the public. Greetings, Stephan -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] *-examples subpackage
Am Dienstag 06 November 2007 schrieb Petr Gajdos: > Hi, > it's not possible to have source files in *-examples subpackage in beta? Well, one or two - the badness is 50, so only 20 are a problem :) You can mark them as %doc and then rpmlint will know Greetings, Stephan > > -- cut -- > > JFYI: package Source-Navigator failed to build in distribution beta-i386. > Build started Thu 2007-11-01 10:34:56 on alsa2. > > http://w3d.suse.de/abuildstat/failed/beta-i386/Source-Navigator > See /work/built/info/failed/beta-i386/Source-Navigator for details. > > tail -n 30 /work/built/info/failed/beta-i386/Source-Navigator > E: Source-Navigator-examples.i586 devel-file-in-non-devel-package (Badness: > 50) /opt/snavigator/share/demos/c++_demo/glish/Queue.h > > --- end cut --- > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] RPM dependencies vs. post-install scripts
Am Donnerstag 01 November 2007 schrieb Lukas Ocilka: > Hi, > > I've found that some packages containing post-install scripts might not > have defined RPM dependencies correctly. All those commands used in > post-scripts should be explicitly requested. Please, correct me if I'm > wrong :) > > --- examples --- > 2007-10-31 19:20:46 lukemftp-1.5-660.x86_64.rpm installed ok > Additional rpm output: > /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.16471: line 1: rm: command not found > > 2007-10-31 19:21:50 preload-0.2-110.x86_64.rpm installed ok > Additional rpm output: > /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.11270: line 16: sed: command not found > --- examples --- > > Please, check and fix your packages. > Thanks > > Maybe someone could extend our 'build' scripts to check the post-install > scripts whether they contain only commands (binaries) mentioned in RPM > dependencies? > Do you speak python? Extend rpmlint's PostCheck.py Greetings, Stephan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] %debug_package issues with Suse only
Am Mittwoch 31 Oktober 2007 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Sent originally to -buildservice by mistake
>
> Hi,
>
> I have hit a weird issue when enabling %debug_package when wrapped
> inside something like this:
>
> %if 0%{?suse_version}
> %debug_package
> Build Requires: blah...
> %endif
>
> If %debug_package is enabled, the install portion fails on all Suse
> versions by seemingly unsetting RPM_BUILD_ROOT so the install part tries
> to install into /usr not /var/tmp/package/usr
>
> Package in question is:
> https://build.opensuse.org/package/show?project=home%3Amrdocs&package=gsvie
>w
>
> Now Mandriva seems to automagically enable debug packages, so there is
> no need to enable it in the spec file.
>
> This package has reliably built before on OBS on all rpm distros and
> arches.
>
> Is this a subtle difference in the rpm versions from FC. Mdk and Suse ?
> or could this be an OBS issue?
>
> Thoughts ?
%debug_package expands to a full package. So you can't put that macro
in all places in the spec file, but namely as subpackage of it's own.
So your BuildRequires line following makes me think you put it in between the
main package declaration - this will break in funny ways.
Put it right before the %prep line, there it should do less harm. I thought
OBS got a "build debuginfo" flag per project lately, but I never tried it.
Greetings, Stephan
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[opensuse-packaging] Re: [Research] Re: [devel] 2nd reminder to fix your packages for compiling with GCC 4.3
Am Montag 22 Oktober 2007 schrieb Miklos Szeredi: > On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 15:08 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: > > this is a reminder for you to have a look at your packages that fail > > in the BETA distribution (which has GCC 4.3 as its compiler). If you > > think that the compiler is at fault feel free to report these issues > > back to me or file a bugzilla for them. > > A couple of my packages (and >100 others it seems) are failing with > > error: 'foo' was not declared in this scope > > I'm rather clueless about C++ issues, so I don't have a clear idea if > this is indeed a bug in all these programs or if it's a gcc problem. > > But even if these are bugs, wouldn't it have been prudent to make this a > warning, for couple of releases, before turning it into an error? As in "Warning: you obviously did not include all header files you need, but I invented some for you"? I don't think that would work. If 'foo' needs foo.h, you need to include it. If bar.h of gcc 4.1 happend to include it, there is no guarantee whatsoever that it will continue so. Greetings, Stephan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] -lang subpackages
Am Sonntag 07 Oktober 2007 schrieb Wolfgang Rosenauer:
> Hi,
>
> maybe I missed some announcement or document but I noticed that some
> packages (seems mainly Gnome ones) splitted the locale files out into an
> extra %{name}-lang package.
>
> What's the purpose of doing that? Is there any package conventions
> document about it?
> Is it to prepare an en-US only media and keeping the package sizes as
> small as possible?
The one CD / live CD for 10.3 is english only. But also for the DVD we group
some package translations into so called language bundles, so that only only
e.g. german or czech is installed.
Greetings, Stephan
--
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Library naming
Am Donnerstag 04 Oktober 2007 schrieb Jan Engelhardt: > On Oct 4 2007 17:25, Stephan Kulow wrote: > >> I notice, for example, > >> > >> -rw-r--r-- 1 455 5200 66727 Sep 22 00:02 > >> libelf0-devel-0.8.9-17.i586.rpm > >> > >> while I agree with the new naming scheme (libelf0), I do not for -devel > >> packages that cannot reasonably be installed alongside each other. > >> Think of libelf0-devel and libelf1-devel which both provided a file with > > > >libelf-devel conflicts with libelf0-devel. Where is your point? > > Ah ok, I did not see libelf-devel since I was looking for > lib*[0-9]-devel*.rpm. Ok, I try again, with a better package example. > But not all packages follow the curl scheme, e.g. libxfcegui4: > The library is named like this? Check your "shouldn't it be all like in debian" reference: http://packages.debian.org/etch/libxfcegui4-dev You really need to come up with better examples! :) Greetings, Stephan -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Library naming
Am Donnerstag 04 Oktober 2007 schrieb Jan Engelhardt: > Hi, > > > I notice, for example, > > -rw-r--r-- 1 455 5200 66727 Sep 22 00:02 libelf0-devel-0.8.9-17.i586.rpm > > while I agree with the new naming scheme (libelf0), I do not for -devel > packages that cannot reasonably be installed alongside each other. > Think of libelf0-devel and libelf1-devel which both provided a file with libelf-devel conflicts with libelf0-devel. Where is your point? Greetings, Stephan -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[opensuse-packaging] 10.3 updates
Hi! I would like to mention it explicitly even though I expect everyone to figure it out: Factory is no longer 10.3. So you have to remember to submit a package into both 10.3 and Factory/STABLE if you do an update for 10.3 We will wait with changing Factory a bit though to not put too much traffic on the mirrors. Greetings, Stephan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] [Fwd: [package check i386] sabayon-admin changes]
Am Donnerstag 13 September 2007 schrieb Federico Mena Quintero: > Hi, > > Does anyone know why I get messages like the attached one once per > day? :) Is there anything I should change in the Sabayon specfile? I > couldn't see anything wrong in it. > Well, rpmlint doesn't like requires on release because they are usually a pain (as in sending tons of mail :). So remove the %release in your requires from sabayon-admin to sabayon. Or put a sabayon-rpmlintrc as SOURCE in your spec file that filters on that warning. Greetings, Stephan -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[opensuse-packaging] Next Steps openSUSE 10.3
Hi! Just an heads up for the next steps in 10.3 development. Beta 3 was released and has shown still quite some problems. I went through most of the critical+blocker bugs and tried to check if some can be downgraded - unfortunately that wasn't too successful. So there is still plenty to do. So please everyone check and update your release critical bugs. A little reminder: after beta2 we're in "Only major/critical/blocker bugfixes allowed.". Taking that I still see version updates submitted, I don't think everyone knows. I know that every missed version hurts, but we have to draw the line somewhere and we drew it end of august. So please spend your valuable time in testing and fixing what we have instead of enhancing it. Three more things: * The next milestone is friday, Sep 14. After that we're working straight towards RC1, which means after that only fixes for blocker bugs are checked in. So make sure you have your updates for critical and major submitted then. * Every change entry needs to have a bugzilla entry. If there is no bug for a change you think needs to be done, create one assigned to yourself and CC me. * Bugs that won't be fixed for 10.3 can be moved to 11.0 in bugzilla now. I suggest to take that option for every bug you're not planning to do an online update later (should be a minority of the current bugs). Greetings, Stephan -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] %fdupes
Am Dienstag 04 September 2007 schrieb Cristian Rodriguez: > Marcus Rueckert escribió: > > and he declined to fix > > that in rpm. > > Sure, because RPM is not broken, what seems to be broken is the idea of > using this %fdupes thingy, as AFAICS it will cause more harm than good. Thanks for your warm words. Fact 1: hard links are a normal part of the UNIX world, not handling them can be considered a bug (aka being broken). If it's an important bug is another issue. Fact 2: The good %fdupes thingy does is making it possible to have a 700MB ISO Fact 3: Many packages are broken in installing massive overlap of files Fact 4: Yes, running fdupes in hardlink mode without thinking twice might not not be the best idea. But as a matter of fact, I consider every tool not good or bad per se. It always depends on the use of the tools. Fact 5: Your communication style is broken, you should check the facts before calling other people's ideas broken. Greetings, Stephan -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] %fdupes
Am Wednesday 29 August 2007 schrieb Jan Engelhardt: > On Aug 24 2007 17:52, Vladimir Nadvornik wrote: > >> It's pretty simple: BuildRequire fdupes and then use "%fdupes > >> $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" in your install section. This will check for duplicated > >> files and make them hardlink. Just be careful that these duplicated > >> files do not end up in different subpackages - I haven't tried what rpm > >> does in that case. > > > >There seems to be another problem. %fdupes can create hardlinks between > >files that would finally end on different partitions. > >See https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=304167 > > > >Using something like > >%fdupes $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr > >%fdupes $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/srv > >... > > > >fixes the problem. > > What if /srv/ftp and /srv/www were separate mounts? Then you still had to find a package that puts files in both? Greetings, Stephan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] %fdupes
Am Friday 24 August 2007 schrieb Vladimir Nadvornik: > On středa 16 květen 2007, Stephan Kulow wrote: > > It's pretty simple: BuildRequire fdupes and then use "%fdupes > > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" in your install section. This will check for duplicated > > files and make them hardlink. Just be careful that these duplicated files > > do not end up in different subpackages - I haven't tried what rpm does in > > that case. > > There seems to be another problem. %fdupes can create hardlinks between > files that would finally end on different partitions. > See > https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=304167 > > Using something like > %fdupes $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr > %fdupes $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/srv > ... > > fixes the problem. > > Do you think that the %fdupes macro should be changed to do this > automatically? > I think it would be logical to make this automatic. Greetings, Stephan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[opensuse-packaging] Next Milestones openSUSE 10.3
Hi! [resent to the packagers list as it's mostly for packagers] Just a heads up, so you don't need to read the roadmap all week :) Aug 17 (friday in one week): - translations are done and will be integrated into the packages, some might come late as we had trouble with translation process. - Last day for any kind of version updates and only possible for non-crypto leaf packages in patch level versions (e.g. 2.4.0 -> 2.4.3) - The features that got a late admission approval need to be submitted unless they got an extended deadline (which should be just one if I remember correctly) We will only allow package splits if they are: a) strictly necessary b) not affecting any other package (include patterns) c) approved by me (or by Christoph in my absense) (can in rare cases overrule the other two rules) Aug 20 (monday after): - Last round of bugfixes that need to go into beta 2 Happy Bugfixing. Greetings, Stephan -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Packages for sale
Am Thursday 12 July 2007 schrieb Stephan Hermann: > What is the prefered way to apply for package maintainer ship for the > opensuse distribution (core). Coming from Ubuntu, there is a way to > enter the project without any hassles. So, if it's nowadays the way to > maintain an official package by community members, what is the way to > apply for "official opensuse community upload rights"? > > Regarding my time schedule, I could take some, or push new packages into > it... Currently there is no good way. I say currently, because it's very high on our list to change. The currently preferred way is to become the co-maintainer, maintain the package in a build service project and let the other co-maintainer, which has to be a SUSE packager, copy the package. That process works for some packages already. Greetings, Stephan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Packages for sale
Am Mittwoch 11 Juli 2007 schrieb Bernhard Walle: > * Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-07-11 15:21]: > > On Wed, 11 Jul 2007, Pavol Rusnak wrote: > > > Dirk Mueller wrote: > > > > first come first serve > > > > > > Hope you don't mind if I add some of mine packages: > > > > > > Debian tools: > > > - deb (Tools for Debian Packages) > > > > We (coolo and me) have this one packaged differently in the build-service > > under Ports:DebianBased:Tools, so if there are no internal build > > dependencies you can drop it. > > Well, it's needed to view deb files in the Midnight Commander, isn't > it? > No, dpkg is. But that deb package has all kind of other things in there. Greetings, Stephan -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Packages for sale
Am Mittwoch 11 Juli 2007 schrieb Ladislav Michnovič: > 2007/7/11, Dirk Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I can't find this one in PDb: > > listtre > > I'll take these: > > desktop-translations > > boson > > xbase > > xbsql > > Where can I find sources of desktop-translations? Getpac doesn't work. :( It's update-desktop-files, which is my package. So Dirk is trying to make a fortune in selling my packages. You can have it, but you need to take the ugly step brother collect-desktop-files too then :) Greetings, Stephan -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[opensuse-packaging] updated update-desktop-files
Hi! I changed update-desktop-files do not provide "templates" and icons anymore. I tried to change and submit every package from factory that relies on this feature, but I might have missed some. In this case your package will fail in %suse_update_desktop_file - in this case you need to copy the file from ~coolo/Export/update-desktop-files. I sure hope no package in the build service relies on this, in this case you need to install 10.2's update-desktop-files and copy from there. Greetings, Stephan -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] icecream cross compile
Am Montag 25 Juni 2007 schrieb Peter Czanik: > Hello, > > Michael Matz wrote: > > Hence you need the > > cross-ppc-gcc-icecream-backend-*.i586.rpm > > from the i586 tree. > > Thanks, this was not really clear from the doc. Actually these packages > are not mentioned at all, but I found them on each architecture I tested. It's a wiki... Greetings, Stephan -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] rpmlint and /usr/bin/env
Am Donnerstag 31 Mai 2007 schrieb Jan Matejek:
> Dirk Mueller napsal(a):
> > On Thursday, 31. May 2007, Stephan Kulow wrote:
> > b) the main reason is that correct file-requires are not added to the
> > package. e.g if your script starts with "#!/usr/bin/env python", then
> > /usr/bin/env will be required while actually /usr/bin/python should have
> > been required.
> >
> > Debian for example goes down the long and ugly road of patching each and
> > every script that contains /usr/bin/env - for the reason that coolo gave
> > you.
>
> does this mean that /usr/bin/env should not be used in place of an
> interpreter? from what i knew, "#!/usr/bin/env python" is the commonly
> accepted best way of identifying python interpreter. i even have an
> oneliner that replaces every sensible shebang string with this one.
>
> looks like this:
> find . -name '*.py' -type f -print0 | xargs -0 grep -lE '^#!
> ?(/usr/.*bin/)?python' | xargs sed -rie
> '[EMAIL PROTECTED]:space:]]*(/usr/(local/)?bin/)[EMAIL PROTECTED]/usr/bin/env
> python@'
>
> should this be replaced by /usr/bin/python or python${version}, and
> perhaps used in other python packages as well?
>
For sources you want to ship, /usr/bin/env is fine. But for the distribution
it should be /usr/bin/python - I guess python${version} would do, but sounds
like overkill to me.
Greetings, Stephan
--
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] rpmlint and /usr/bin/env
Am Donnerstag 31 Mai 2007 schrieb Vladimir Nadvornik: > Hi, > > Why rpmlint prints a warning about /usr/bin/env as a script > interpreter? I could not find any related documentation. I asked the same and the answer I got was: Because /usr/bin/env takes the user's path into account and as such makes the script unpredictable - and less secure. I suggest we create a rpm macro to replace /usr/bin/env with the correct path to ARG though as this might be a common task in quite some packages. Greetings, Stephan -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] %fdupes
Am Mittwoch 16 Mai 2007 schrieb Cristian Rodriguez R.: > Stephan Kulow escribió: > > Hi! > > > > We did some analysis on how much space is wasted by packages storing the > > same file twice (or more). While few packages waste megabytes (only 88 > > waste more than 1000Mib), 657 waste more than 20K - which sums up to > > 703MiB in total. > > Interesting.. that is one CD less ,, wow.;-) Most of the packages wasting a lot are also big enough to not be on our CDs. > > Will be nice if the list of offending packages can be published in order > to fix them ;) I'd prefer if every packager checks his own rpmlint reports instead of putting out a list of blame[¹] Greetings, Stephan [1] And yes, that means one or two KDE packages score pretty well ;) -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[opensuse-packaging] %fdupes
Hi! We did some analysis on how much space is wasted by packages storing the same file twice (or more). While few packages waste megabytes (only 88 waste more than 1000Mib), 657 waste more than 20K - which sums up to 703MiB in total. Impressed? Consider using fdupes in your package. It's pretty simple: BuildRequire fdupes and then use "%fdupes $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" in your install section. This will check for duplicated files and make them hardlink. Just be careful that these duplicated files do not end up in different subpackages - I haven't tried what rpm does in that case. But you can also use %fdupes -s, which will create symlinks, which are easier to grasp for rpm :) So you can also combine this like this # create symlinks for my man pages %fdupes -s $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%_mandir # create hardline for the rest %fdupes $RPM_BUILD_ROOT I also added an rpmlint check that will give an error for the package if it's wasting more than 20KB (which is basically a random number). Greetings, Stephan -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] suse_update_desktop_file
Am Dienstag 15 Mai 2007 schrieb Dirk Mueller: > On Tuesday, 15. May 2007, Stephan Kulow wrote: > > If you have desktop files from SVN somewhere, make sure the translations > > are either uptodate all the time or are stripped out of the files - > > including the X-SuSE-translate line. > > The check is BTW already in rpmlint. > How does rpmlint know how the files looked before suse_update_desktop_file ran? You only read the second paragraph, didn't you? Greetings, Stephan -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[opensuse-packaging] suse_update_desktop_file
Hi! I added a check to the rpm macro that makes sure that desktop files don't contain X-SuSE-translate line - because most of the times this is a sign that people copied desktop files from living system without changing them. If you have desktop files from SVN somewhere, make sure the translations are either uptodate all the time or are stripped out of the files - including the X-SuSE-translate line. Greetings, Stephan -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Proposal: Any "rm" in .spec %install must be commented
Am Thursday 15 March 2007 schrieb Michael Matz: > > I don't see what the build team has to do with that. > Are you really making the case for not writing comments? I can't believe > that. There are things on earth harder to believe - say Matz before 9 on a thursday :) I'm not speaking against comments but against having a policy to reject packages without comments. Because rm calls are no special than sed calls or grep -v calls or _anything_ hacky. But as others said: what is hacky lies in the eye of the reader/writer, so I don't want to see that in a policy. "Packagers should have a clue what they're doing or document they have none" is as good as it gets for me :) Greetings, Stephan -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Proposal: Any "rm" in .spec %install must be commented
Am Thursday 15 March 2007 schrieb Juergen Weigert: > On Mar 15, 07 14:53:50 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Stanislav Brabec wrote: > > > Hallo. > > > > > > I have just notified, that many people "fix" (i. e. break) their > > > packages to pass QA checks by removing required files instead of fixing > > > them, i. e. removing .desktop files instead of installing icon or > > > fixing Categories, removing gconf schemas instead of correct > > > installation. > > > > If they "fix" or "break" their package what does it help to add a > > comment? It looks like you are proposing that package maintainers have a > > clue ;) > > No. Especially cluelessness needs documentation. > Example: > "# I don't care about this gconf stuff. Remove seems to help." > > This is a very useful comment. > It pinpoints the actual problem that the maintainer has. Yeah, what good is this comment then? Unless of course the build team sees itself in a position that it has to be too much time, so it wants to verify the clueness of all packager comments. I doubt it. Greetings, Stephan -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] looking for SuSE rpmlint packager
Am Dienstag, 5. Dezember 2006 12:57 schrieb Nadia Derbey: > That's why I wanted to get a "standard" silent rpmlint. Then don't install packman's rpmlint Greetings, Stephan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] looking for SuSE rpmlint packager
Am Dienstag, 5. Dezember 2006 12:04 schrieb Stephan Kulow: > Am Dienstag, 5. Dezember 2006 12:01 schrieb Nadia Derbey: > > Hi, > > > > Can somebody redirect me to the rpmlint packager for SuSE Linux (I'm > > using rpmlint-0.78-0.pm.1 on a SL 10.1) -or give me a way on how to find > > I give you a way: File a bug at bugzilla.novell.com OK, I take that back: SL 10.1 only has 0.77, so it's indeed a packman bug and that is not going through bugzilla. Greetings, Stephan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] looking for SuSE rpmlint packager
Am Dienstag, 5. Dezember 2006 12:01 schrieb Nadia Derbey: > Hi, > > Can somebody redirect me to the rpmlint packager for SuSE Linux (I'm > using rpmlint-0.78-0.pm.1 on a SL 10.1) -or give me a way on how to find I give you a way: File a bug at bugzilla.novell.com Greetings, Stephan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] No libstdc++.la on 10.2
Am Freitag, 27. Oktober 2006 08:20 schrieb Michal Marek: > (*) OK, the package could hardcode -l/usr/lib/libstc++.la in a Makefile, > but that's broken anyway. > The syntax would be without -l, but it's broken indeed. Because either it's a C++ program and links against libstdc++ automatically or it's not and then it can hardly make use of libstdc++. Greetings, Stephan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] suse_update_desktop_files question
Am Sonntag, 2. Juli 2006 19:06 schrieb Dinar Valeev: > strange.. > having this bug ,how suse peaple can build rpms? > If you read the bug report: we don't know yet :) But our internal build system overwrites the susemacro file from a copy, but that copy is supposed to be just temporarly out of sync. Greetings, Stephan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse-packaging] OpenOffice, Gambas packaging
Am Mittwoch, 22. März 2006 03:12 schrieb Shriramana Sharma: > Hello. > > I just signed up to this list to suggest that the SUSE OOo package, as well > as the Gambas package be split up into many packages, so that we can > download and install only those components we want. Not all of us use all > components of OOo -- so it is only disk space waste and menu clutter to > install all the unnecessary components. > > I am currently using OOo from the original RPMs distributed from the ooo > website. > > Similarly for Gambas, there are a lot of modules, and SUSE just throws them > all into one. This can be split up. > If you send us an updated .spec file that has been tested with all variants of subpackages installed, I don't mind. Greetings, Stephan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
