Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
Hi, latest update! epm is now handled similar to dmake and can be seen as a prerequisite. 1. epm is searched on the path and has to be a patched version of epm 3.7 2. --with-epm= where the path has to point to a patched version of epm 3.7 3. --with-epm-url= for example "http://ftp.easysw.com/pub/epm/3.7/epm-3.7-source.tar.gz"; The original source package is downloaded and build if explicitly triggered by using this configure switch. "configure --help" will provide the link to the original source. 4. --disable-epm, disables epm and on platforms where epm is required no packages are build. Long term solution is to adapt the packaging process to work with an unpatched system epm or find another packaging solution. Juergen
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
On 11/23/11 2:47 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: Hi Jürgen, On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 02:10:38PM +0100, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: the hint with rpmbuild was good, it seems that my built epm (no special configure switches) haven't found rpmbuild during the configure step and switched back to rpm. I will check this but i assume i will run in the same problems as Ariel then. you're right, you must have rpmbuild installed according to epm's configure.in: if test "x$RPMBUILD" != x; then AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED(EPM_RPMBUILD, "$RPMBUILD") AC_DEFINE(EPM_RPMTOPDIR) else if test "x$RPM" != x; then AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED(EPM_RPMBUILD, "$RPM") else AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED(EPM_RPMBUILD, "rpm") fi fi i solved this, after a rebuild of epm it worked But i got the same error as you now yesterday I was trying to debug epm to see how it works, just in case anyone tries this, --enable-debug is useless because binaries are stripped when installed, you have to hack Makefile.am and remove all the lines invoking $(STRIP). Packaging debs with epm 4.2 is also broken here on Fedora16: Success: Executed "LD_PRELOAD=/mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/solver/340/unxlngx6/bin/getuid.so /home/ariel/src/devel/epm/epm-4.2/INST/bin/epm -f deb ooobasis3.4-ogltrans /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/deb/listfile/en-US/epm_gid_Module_Optional_OGLTrans.lst --output-dir DEBS -v9 2>&1 |" successfully! Moved directory from /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US_inprogress to /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US_witherror Removing directory /tmp/ooopackaging/i_60551321544337 *** ERROR: More than one new package in directory /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US_inprogress/DEBS ( /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US_inprogress/DEBS/ooobasis3.4-ogltrans-3.4.0-1-linux-3.1-x86_64 /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US_inprogress/DEBS/ooobasis3.4-ogltrans-3.4.0-1-linux-3.1-x86_64.deb) in function: determine_new_packagename (packagepool) *** disable the packagepool process In instsetoo_native/util/openoffice.lst look for POOLPRODUCT=1 and set it to 0. Juergen Regards
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
Hi Jürgen, On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 02:10:38PM +0100, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > the hint with rpmbuild was good, it seems that my built epm (no > special configure switches) haven't found rpmbuild during the > configure step and switched back to rpm. I will check this but i > assume i will run in the same problems as Ariel then. you're right, you must have rpmbuild installed according to epm's configure.in: if test "x$RPMBUILD" != x; then AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED(EPM_RPMBUILD, "$RPMBUILD") AC_DEFINE(EPM_RPMTOPDIR) else if test "x$RPM" != x; then AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED(EPM_RPMBUILD, "$RPM") else AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED(EPM_RPMBUILD, "rpm") fi fi yesterday I was trying to debug epm to see how it works, just in case anyone tries this, --enable-debug is useless because binaries are stripped when installed, you have to hack Makefile.am and remove all the lines invoking $(STRIP). Packaging debs with epm 4.2 is also broken here on Fedora16: Success: Executed "LD_PRELOAD=/mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/solver/340/unxlngx6/bin/getuid.so /home/ariel/src/devel/epm/epm-4.2/INST/bin/epm -f deb ooobasis3.4-ogltrans /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/deb/listfile/en-US/epm_gid_Module_Optional_OGLTrans.lst --output-dir DEBS -v9 2>&1 |" successfully! Moved directory from /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US_inprogress to /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US_witherror Removing directory /tmp/ooopackaging/i_60551321544337 *** ERROR: More than one new package in directory /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US_inprogress/DEBS ( /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US_inprogress/DEBS/ooobasis3.4-ogltrans-3.4.0-1-linux-3.1-x86_64 /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US_inprogress/DEBS/ooobasis3.4-ogltrans-3.4.0-1-linux-3.1-x86_64.deb) in function: determine_new_packagename (packagepool) *** Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgpVSy7QDaq9c.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
the hint with rpmbuild was good, it seems that my built epm (no special configure switches) haven't found rpmbuild during the configure step and switched back to rpm. I will check this but i assume i will run in the same problems as Ariel then. Juergen On 11/23/11 1:58 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: and of course rpmbuild would understand the parameters --bb --buildroot= mmh, strange i will check it ones more and will try to understand why rpm is called instead of rpmbuild. Any hints are welcome. Juergen On 11/23/11 1:54 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: On 11/22/11 11:18 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:25:43PM +0100, Michael Stahl wrote: On 22.11.2011 11:57, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: I stumbled over problems using a downloaded epm 4.2 (http://www.epmhome.org), build and install it on a Fedora 16 system (rpm based). The epm call failed to build the rpm packages. It seems that epm triggers /bin/rpm with some parameters that are not accepted. I don't understand why at the moment. /bin/rpm on a recent Fedora can not build packages, it can only do the things necessary on a running system: install etc.; there is an extra package "rpm-build" with a /usr/bin/rpmbuild program that is used to build packages. epm executes rpmbuild here (Fedora 16): /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/listfile/en-US/epm_gid_Module_Root_Files_Images.lst --output-dir RPMS -v9 2>&1 | Building target platforms: x86_64 Building for target x86_64 Processing files: ooobasis3.4-images-3.4.0-9584.x86_64 Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames)<= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix)<= 4.0-1 Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/buildroot Wrote: /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/RPMS/x86_64/ooobasis3.4-images-3.4.0-9584.x86_64.rpm Executing(%clean): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG + umask 022 + cd /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/BUILD /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG: line 27: cd: /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/BUILD: No such file or directory PROBLEM: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG (%clean) The error is clear: when trying to clean, it cds into a non-existent directory and thus aborts. /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG is also clear about it. Looking at RPMS folder while generating the first package, there is no BUILD folder inside. With the patched epm 3.7 the BUILD folder is there, and removed after the package is built. I'm not sure where the issue is here, the whole thing does not look very rpmbuild standard. In a standard rpmbuild you have a root folder, usually ~/rpmbuild with the following content: RPMS BUILD SOURCES SPECS SRPMS and packages are built inside ~/rpmbuild/BUILD, that's why rpmbuild tries to cd there and clean. i am now confused where you see that rpmbuild is used? When i try to use a fresh downloaded unpatched version of epm 4.2 and check the output and the log file i can only see that epm is called with /usr/bin/epm -f rpm ooobasis3.4-gnome-integration /home/jsc/dev/git/currentwork/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6.pro/OpenOffice/rpm/listfile/en-US/epm_gid_Module_Optional_Gnome.lst --output-dir RPMS -v2 2>&1 | and in the log file i can see that epm triggers rpm (well it looks that epm trigger this) Building RPM binary distribution... /bin/rpm -bb --buildroot "/home/jsc/dev/git/currentwork/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6.pro/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/buildroot" --target x86_64 RPMS/ooobasis3.4-gnome-integration.spec I haven't noticed any call of rpmbuild. Juergen
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
and of course rpmbuild would understand the parameters --bb --buildroot= mmh, strange i will check it ones more and will try to understand why rpm is called instead of rpmbuild. Any hints are welcome. Juergen On 11/23/11 1:54 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: On 11/22/11 11:18 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:25:43PM +0100, Michael Stahl wrote: On 22.11.2011 11:57, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: I stumbled over problems using a downloaded epm 4.2 (http://www.epmhome.org), build and install it on a Fedora 16 system (rpm based). The epm call failed to build the rpm packages. It seems that epm triggers /bin/rpm with some parameters that are not accepted. I don't understand why at the moment. /bin/rpm on a recent Fedora can not build packages, it can only do the things necessary on a running system: install etc.; there is an extra package "rpm-build" with a /usr/bin/rpmbuild program that is used to build packages. epm executes rpmbuild here (Fedora 16): /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/listfile/en-US/epm_gid_Module_Root_Files_Images.lst --output-dir RPMS -v9 2>&1 | Building target platforms: x86_64 Building for target x86_64 Processing files: ooobasis3.4-images-3.4.0-9584.x86_64 Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames)<= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix)<= 4.0-1 Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/buildroot Wrote: /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/RPMS/x86_64/ooobasis3.4-images-3.4.0-9584.x86_64.rpm Executing(%clean): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG + umask 022 + cd /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/BUILD /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG: line 27: cd: /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/BUILD: No such file or directory PROBLEM: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG (%clean) The error is clear: when trying to clean, it cds into a non-existent directory and thus aborts. /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG is also clear about it. Looking at RPMS folder while generating the first package, there is no BUILD folder inside. With the patched epm 3.7 the BUILD folder is there, and removed after the package is built. I'm not sure where the issue is here, the whole thing does not look very rpmbuild standard. In a standard rpmbuild you have a root folder, usually ~/rpmbuild with the following content: RPMS BUILD SOURCES SPECS SRPMS and packages are built inside ~/rpmbuild/BUILD, that's why rpmbuild tries to cd there and clean. i am now confused where you see that rpmbuild is used? When i try to use a fresh downloaded unpatched version of epm 4.2 and check the output and the log file i can only see that epm is called with /usr/bin/epm -f rpm ooobasis3.4-gnome-integration /home/jsc/dev/git/currentwork/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6.pro/OpenOffice/rpm/listfile/en-US/epm_gid_Module_Optional_Gnome.lst --output-dir RPMS -v2 2>&1 | and in the log file i can see that epm triggers rpm (well it looks that epm trigger this) Building RPM binary distribution... /bin/rpm -bb --buildroot "/home/jsc/dev/git/currentwork/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6.pro/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/buildroot" --target x86_64 RPMS/ooobasis3.4-gnome-integration.spec I haven't noticed any call of rpmbuild. Juergen
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
On 11/22/11 11:18 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:25:43PM +0100, Michael Stahl wrote: On 22.11.2011 11:57, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: I stumbled over problems using a downloaded epm 4.2 (http://www.epmhome.org), build and install it on a Fedora 16 system (rpm based). The epm call failed to build the rpm packages. It seems that epm triggers /bin/rpm with some parameters that are not accepted. I don't understand why at the moment. /bin/rpm on a recent Fedora can not build packages, it can only do the things necessary on a running system: install etc.; there is an extra package "rpm-build" with a /usr/bin/rpmbuild program that is used to build packages. epm executes rpmbuild here (Fedora 16): /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/listfile/en-US/epm_gid_Module_Root_Files_Images.lst --output-dir RPMS -v9 2>&1 | Building target platforms: x86_64 Building for target x86_64 Processing files: ooobasis3.4-images-3.4.0-9584.x86_64 Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames)<= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix)<= 4.0-1 Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/buildroot Wrote: /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/RPMS/x86_64/ooobasis3.4-images-3.4.0-9584.x86_64.rpm Executing(%clean): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG + umask 022 + cd /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/BUILD /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG: line 27: cd: /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/BUILD: No such file or directory PROBLEM: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG (%clean) The error is clear: when trying to clean, it cds into a non-existent directory and thus aborts. /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG is also clear about it. Looking at RPMS folder while generating the first package, there is no BUILD folder inside. With the patched epm 3.7 the BUILD folder is there, and removed after the package is built. I'm not sure where the issue is here, the whole thing does not look very rpmbuild standard. In a standard rpmbuild you have a root folder, usually ~/rpmbuild with the following content: RPMS BUILD SOURCES SPECS SRPMS and packages are built inside ~/rpmbuild/BUILD, that's why rpmbuild tries to cd there and clean. i am now confused where you see that rpmbuild is used? When i try to use a fresh downloaded unpatched version of epm 4.2 and check the output and the log file i can only see that epm is called with /usr/bin/epm -f rpm ooobasis3.4-gnome-integration /home/jsc/dev/git/currentwork/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6.pro/OpenOffice/rpm/listfile/en-US/epm_gid_Module_Optional_Gnome.lst --output-dir RPMS -v2 2>&1 | and in the log file i can see that epm triggers rpm (well it looks that epm trigger this) Building RPM binary distribution... /bin/rpm -bb --buildroot "/home/jsc/dev/git/currentwork/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6.pro/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/buildroot" --target x86_64 RPMS/ooobasis3.4-gnome-integration.spec I haven't noticed any call of rpmbuild. Juergen
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:25:43PM +0100, Michael Stahl wrote: > On 22.11.2011 11:57, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > > I stumbled over problems using a downloaded epm 4.2 > > (http://www.epmhome.org), build and install it on a Fedora 16 system > > (rpm based). > > > > The epm call failed to build the rpm packages. It seems that epm > > triggers /bin/rpm with some parameters that are not accepted. I don't > > understand why at the moment. > > /bin/rpm on a recent Fedora can not build packages, it can only do the > things necessary on a running system: install etc.; there is an extra > package "rpm-build" with a /usr/bin/rpmbuild program that is used to build > packages. epm executes rpmbuild here (Fedora 16): /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/listfile/en-US/epm_gid_Module_Root_Files_Images.lst --output-dir RPMS -v9 2>&1 | Building target platforms: x86_64 Building for target x86_64 Processing files: ooobasis3.4-images-3.4.0-9584.x86_64 Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/buildroot Wrote: /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/RPMS/x86_64/ooobasis3.4-images-3.4.0-9584.x86_64.rpm Executing(%clean): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG + umask 022 + cd /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/BUILD /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG: line 27: cd: /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/BUILD: No such file or directory PROBLEM: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG (%clean) The error is clear: when trying to clean, it cds into a non-existent directory and thus aborts. /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG is also clear about it. Looking at RPMS folder while generating the first package, there is no BUILD folder inside. With the patched epm 3.7 the BUILD folder is there, and removed after the package is built. I'm not sure where the issue is here, the whole thing does not look very rpmbuild standard. In a standard rpmbuild you have a root folder, usually ~/rpmbuild with the following content: RPMS BUILD SOURCES SPECS SRPMS and packages are built inside ~/rpmbuild/BUILD, that's why rpmbuild tries to cd there and clean. Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgpWyV8SIjqJb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
Hi Michael, Le 22 nov. 11 à 22:25, Michael Stahl a écrit : On 22.11.2011 11:57, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: I stumbled over problems using a downloaded epm 4.2 (http:// www.epmhome.org), build and install it on a Fedora 16 system (rpm based). The epm call failed to build the rpm packages. It seems that epm triggers /bin/rpm with some parameters that are not accepted. I don't understand why at the moment. /bin/rpm on a recent Fedora can not build packages, it can only do the things necessary on a running system: install etc.; there is an extra package "rpm-build" with a /usr/bin/rpmbuild program that is used to build packages. Thanks, I didn't remember the exact name :) [ i have no idea why we use a "patched" epm, or whether an unpatched epm would work ] There is a beginning of answer in main/solenv/bin/ make_installer.pl , around line 1642 + more information in main/solenv/modules/installer/epmfile.pm (around line 859) Regards, Eric -- qɔᴉɹə Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
On 22.11.2011 11:57, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > I stumbled over problems using a downloaded epm 4.2 > (http://www.epmhome.org), build and install it on a Fedora 16 system > (rpm based). > > The epm call failed to build the rpm packages. It seems that epm > triggers /bin/rpm with some parameters that are not accepted. I don't > understand why at the moment. /bin/rpm on a recent Fedora can not build packages, it can only do the things necessary on a running system: install etc.; there is an extra package "rpm-build" with a /usr/bin/rpmbuild program that is used to build packages. IIRC i once changed configure to complain if you have a /bin/rpm that cannot build and no rpmbuild, perhaps that check bitrotted... [ i have no idea why we use a "patched" epm, or whether an unpatched epm would work ] regards, michael
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
Well ... We need something that works now and basically something that will produce RPMs. Having something to do this is handy but should not a requirement for building. I think with just having it disabled by default we comply with the ASF policies. All other packages that I know of just have an installation script and leave the packaging for someone else to do: for FreeBSD we use a script that calls tar (it's more portable than cp), and then we have some support in the ports tree to package that stuff automatically. Hmm... since you are apparently planning to further edit fetch_tarballs.sh, perhaps you can test my update to that script? (attached). cheers, Pedro. --- On Tue, 11/22/11, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > Hi Pedro, > > On 11/22/11 1:52 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > > > > Hmmm ... > > > > Nevermind, OpenPKG is rather bulky. > > Unfortunately portable packagers seem not > > to be too common anymore. > > the point is simply that we have to understand the whole > packaging > process better. I thought it was worse to check if it's > possible to use > a system epm. Sometimes things become easier over time or > even obsolete. > But in this case it seems that we have to stick with the > 3.7 epm and the > patches we have because they are very specific for OOo. > > I hope that we can simplify this packaging process in the > future a > little bit because we can concentrate on one product only. > In the past > all processes here were designed to make it possible to > build a > StarOffice/Oracle Office version on top of it. > > The problem is that we have to analyze the whole process to > understand > how it works. In the past one developer worked full-time on > this > packaging stuff ... > > Juergen >
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
Le 22 nov. 11 à 14:33, Jürgen Schmidt a écrit : Hi Pedro, On 11/22/11 1:52 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: Hmmm ... Nevermind, OpenPKG is rather bulky. Unfortunately portable packagers seem not to be too common anymore. the point is simply that we have to understand the whole packaging process better. I thought it was worse to check if it's possible to use a system epm. Sometimes things become easier over time or even obsolete. But in this case it seems that we have to stick with the 3.7 epm and the patches we have because they are very specific for OOo. I don't think so : system epm *should* work out of the box, if not, we need to fix the issue. I'll try a build tonight on Linux, and if broken, I'll have a look. I hope that we can simplify this packaging process in the future a little bit because we can concentrate on one product only. Sure. That's exactly what I did with OOo4Kids. Most of the options are given at configure time. The result is environment variables. At the end, the packaging is done using perl scripts, all located in solenv/bin. setup_native will produce the Control files, and only sysui has another process, to build the menu entries. In the past all processes here were designed to make it possible to build a StarOffice/Oracle Office version on top of it. The problem is that we have to analyze the whole process to understand how it works. In the past one developer worked full-time on this packaging stuff ... I'd suggest to document it on the wiki. We are several to know well the build process on this list. What is your issue ? Do you have a log ? Lat but not least, I really think we should make IRC ClassRoom, and invite newcomers to try building Apache OpenOffice.org (sorry, I'll keep the .org) : 10 or + builders, means the most little issue is immediately detected, and often, directly fixed. Eric
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
Hi Pedro, On 11/22/11 1:52 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: Hmmm ... Nevermind, OpenPKG is rather bulky. Unfortunately portable packagers seem not to be too common anymore. the point is simply that we have to understand the whole packaging process better. I thought it was worse to check if it's possible to use a system epm. Sometimes things become easier over time or even obsolete. But in this case it seems that we have to stick with the 3.7 epm and the patches we have because they are very specific for OOo. I hope that we can simplify this packaging process in the future a little bit because we can concentrate on one product only. In the past all processes here were designed to make it possible to build a StarOffice/Oracle Office version on top of it. The problem is that we have to analyze the whole process to understand how it works. In the past one developer worked full-time on this packaging stuff ... Juergen Pedro. --- On Tue, 11/22/11, Pedro Giffuni wrote: From: Pedro Giffuni Subject: Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm? To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2011, 7:24 AM Hi Juergen; I dont have an easy solution for you but perhaps you should try OpenPKG, as it produces RPM and has a better license: http://www.openpkg.net/ And dont worry about FreeBSD as none of those packagers work with the new pkgng format. Cheers, Pedro. --- On Tue, 11/22/11, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: From: Jürgen Schmidt Subject: Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm? To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2011, 5:57 AM Hi, i would like to gave a short update. I stumbled over problems using a downloaded epm 4.2 (http://www.epmhome.org), build and install it on a Fedora 16 system (rpm based). The epm call failed to build the rpm packages. It seems that epm triggers /bin/rpm with some parameters that are not accepted. I don't understand why at the moment. I expect also problems on other systems (e.g. FreeBSD, solaris, ...). To move forward for now i plan to go back to use the version 3.7 of epm and apply our patches. The plan is to handle it similar to dmake and investigate to a later time in more detail into the packaging process. I assume there is still some room for improvements ones the process is understand completely. But at the moment i would like to focus and to move forward with the IP clearance. Means epm is only a build tool and not part of a binary release or a source release. The idea is to download the source directly from the homepage and apply our patches and use it. Alternatively epm can be specified directly with the configure switch -with-epm. Any opinions or ideas. I highly appreciate any useful idea that help us to move forward. Juergen On 11/16/11 3:36 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: On 11/15/11 5:00 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Hi, i am currently trying to build with a system available epm tool. And i am right now building on a Ubuntu 11.10 with epm 4.2. Does anybody have built with a system epm on a Linux system? a short update on this topic. I was able to build an office on an Ubuntu 11.10 using the system epm tool 4.2. With disabling a packagepool process in instsetoo_native the build finished and i got my deb packages. The difference compared to an earlier build is that the package names has changed a little bit and that i have directories with the same name in the .../DEPS folder which were probably the base for the packages. But that is a minor issue i would say. Anyway the installed office works and i have not yet identified a real problem. But that was to easy and i expect more problems on other platforms. Solaris (that i can't build) and a rpm based Linux system, ... I am no expert in this packaging area on all the different systems and may be we lose the relocation feature or something else. So if anybody has deep knowledge with epm or packing of deb or rpm packages and is interested to help, please contact me. Any kind of help is appreciated. Juergen
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
Hmmm ... Nevermind, OpenPKG is rather bulky. Unfortunately portable packagers seem not to be too common anymore. Pedro. --- On Tue, 11/22/11, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > From: Pedro Giffuni > Subject: Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm? > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2011, 7:24 AM > Hi Juergen; > > I dont have an easy solution for you but perhaps > you should try OpenPKG, as it produces RPM > and has a better license: > http://www.openpkg.net/ > > And dont worry about FreeBSD as none of those > packagers work with the new pkgng format. > > Cheers, > > Pedro. > > --- On Tue, 11/22/11, Jürgen Schmidt > wrote: > > > From: Jürgen Schmidt > > Subject: Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm? > > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > > Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2011, 5:57 AM > > Hi, > > > > i would like to gave a short update. > > > > I stumbled over problems using a downloaded epm 4.2 > (http://www.epmhome.org), build and install it on a > > Fedora 16 system (rpm based). > > > > The epm call failed to build the rpm packages. It > seems > > that epm triggers /bin/rpm with some parameters that > are not > > accepted. I don't understand why at the moment. > > > > I expect also problems on other systems (e.g. > FreeBSD, > > solaris, ...). To move forward for now i plan to go > back to > > use the version 3.7 of epm and apply our patches. > > > > The plan is to handle it similar to dmake and > investigate > > to a later time in more detail into the packaging > process. I > > assume there is still some room for improvements ones > the > > process is understand completely. > > > > But at the moment i would like to focus and to move > forward > > with the IP clearance. Means epm is only a build tool > and > > not part of a binary release or a source release. > > > > The idea is to download the source directly from the > > homepage and apply our patches and use it. > Alternatively epm > > can be specified directly with the configure switch > > -with-epm. > > > > Any opinions or ideas. I highly appreciate any useful > idea > > that help us to move forward. > > > > Juergen > > > > > > On 11/16/11 3:36 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > > > On 11/15/11 5:00 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> i am currently trying to build with a system > > available epm tool. And i > > >> am right now building on a Ubuntu 11.10 with > epm > > 4.2. Does anybody have > > >> built with a system epm on a Linux system? > > >> > > > > > > a short update on this topic. I was able to build > an > > office on an Ubuntu > > > 11.10 using the system epm tool 4.2. > > > > > > With disabling a packagepool process in > > instsetoo_native the build > > > finished and i got my deb packages. The > difference > > compared to an > > > earlier build is that the package names has > changed a > > little bit and > > > that i have directories with the same name in > the > > .../DEPS folder which > > > were probably the base for the packages. But that > is a > > minor issue i > > > would say. > > > > > > Anyway the installed office works and i have not > yet > > identified a real > > > problem. But that was to easy and i expect more > > problems on other > > > platforms. Solaris (that i can't build) and a > rpm > > based Linux system, ... > > > > > > I am no expert in this packaging area on all the > > different systems and > > > may be we lose the relocation feature or > something > > else. So if anybody > > > has deep knowledge with epm or packing of deb or > rpm > > packages and is > > > interested to help, please contact me. Any kind > of > > help is appreciated. > > > > > > Juergen > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
Hi Juergen; I dont have an easy solution for you but perhaps you should try OpenPKG, as it produces RPM and has a better license: http://www.openpkg.net/ And dont worry about FreeBSD as none of those packagers work with the new pkgng format. Cheers, Pedro. --- On Tue, 11/22/11, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > From: Jürgen Schmidt > Subject: Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm? > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2011, 5:57 AM > Hi, > > i would like to gave a short update. > > I stumbled over problems using a downloaded epm 4.2 (http://www.epmhome.org), > build and install it on a > Fedora 16 system (rpm based). > > The epm call failed to build the rpm packages. It seems > that epm triggers /bin/rpm with some parameters that are not > accepted. I don't understand why at the moment. > > I expect also problems on other systems (e.g. FreeBSD, > solaris, ...). To move forward for now i plan to go back to > use the version 3.7 of epm and apply our patches. > > The plan is to handle it similar to dmake and investigate > to a later time in more detail into the packaging process. I > assume there is still some room for improvements ones the > process is understand completely. > > But at the moment i would like to focus and to move forward > with the IP clearance. Means epm is only a build tool and > not part of a binary release or a source release. > > The idea is to download the source directly from the > homepage and apply our patches and use it. Alternatively epm > can be specified directly with the configure switch > -with-epm. > > Any opinions or ideas. I highly appreciate any useful idea > that help us to move forward. > > Juergen > > > On 11/16/11 3:36 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > > On 11/15/11 5:00 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> i am currently trying to build with a system > available epm tool. And i > >> am right now building on a Ubuntu 11.10 with epm > 4.2. Does anybody have > >> built with a system epm on a Linux system? > >> > > > > a short update on this topic. I was able to build an > office on an Ubuntu > > 11.10 using the system epm tool 4.2. > > > > With disabling a packagepool process in > instsetoo_native the build > > finished and i got my deb packages. The difference > compared to an > > earlier build is that the package names has changed a > little bit and > > that i have directories with the same name in the > .../DEPS folder which > > were probably the base for the packages. But that is a > minor issue i > > would say. > > > > Anyway the installed office works and i have not yet > identified a real > > problem. But that was to easy and i expect more > problems on other > > platforms. Solaris (that i can't build) and a rpm > based Linux system, ... > > > > I am no expert in this packaging area on all the > different systems and > > may be we lose the relocation feature or something > else. So if anybody > > has deep knowledge with epm or packing of deb or rpm > packages and is > > interested to help, please contact me. Any kind of > help is appreciated. > > > > Juergen > > > > > >
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
Le 22 nov. 11 à 11:57, Jürgen Schmidt a écrit : Hi, Hi, i would like to gave a short update. I stumbled over problems using a downloaded epm 4.2 (http:// www.epmhome.org), build and install it on a Fedora 16 system (rpm based). The epm call failed to build the rpm packages. It seems that epm triggers /bin/rpm with some parameters that are not accepted. I don't understand why at the moment. I remember an issue caused by rpmbuild (or buildrpm maybe) missing. Maybe you hit it ? FYI, the rpm thing is detected at configure time Eric -- qɔᴉɹə Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
Hi, i would like to gave a short update. I stumbled over problems using a downloaded epm 4.2 (http://www.epmhome.org), build and install it on a Fedora 16 system (rpm based). The epm call failed to build the rpm packages. It seems that epm triggers /bin/rpm with some parameters that are not accepted. I don't understand why at the moment. I expect also problems on other systems (e.g. FreeBSD, solaris, ...). To move forward for now i plan to go back to use the version 3.7 of epm and apply our patches. The plan is to handle it similar to dmake and investigate to a later time in more detail into the packaging process. I assume there is still some room for improvements ones the process is understand completely. But at the moment i would like to focus and to move forward with the IP clearance. Means epm is only a build tool and not part of a binary release or a source release. The idea is to download the source directly from the homepage and apply our patches and use it. Alternatively epm can be specified directly with the configure switch -with-epm. Any opinions or ideas. I highly appreciate any useful idea that help us to move forward. Juergen On 11/16/11 3:36 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: On 11/15/11 5:00 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Hi, i am currently trying to build with a system available epm tool. And i am right now building on a Ubuntu 11.10 with epm 4.2. Does anybody have built with a system epm on a Linux system? a short update on this topic. I was able to build an office on an Ubuntu 11.10 using the system epm tool 4.2. With disabling a packagepool process in instsetoo_native the build finished and i got my deb packages. The difference compared to an earlier build is that the package names has changed a little bit and that i have directories with the same name in the .../DEPS folder which were probably the base for the packages. But that is a minor issue i would say. Anyway the installed office works and i have not yet identified a real problem. But that was to easy and i expect more problems on other platforms. Solaris (that i can't build) and a rpm based Linux system, ... I am no expert in this packaging area on all the different systems and may be we lose the relocation feature or something else. So if anybody has deep knowledge with epm or packing of deb or rpm packages and is interested to help, please contact me. Any kind of help is appreciated. Juergen
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
On 11/15/11 5:00 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Hi, i am currently trying to build with a system available epm tool. And i am right now building on a Ubuntu 11.10 with epm 4.2. Does anybody have built with a system epm on a Linux system? a short update on this topic. I was able to build an office on an Ubuntu 11.10 using the system epm tool 4.2. With disabling a packagepool process in instsetoo_native the build finished and i got my deb packages. The difference compared to an earlier build is that the package names has changed a little bit and that i have directories with the same name in the .../DEPS folder which were probably the base for the packages. But that is a minor issue i would say. Anyway the installed office works and i have not yet identified a real problem. But that was to easy and i expect more problems on other platforms. Solaris (that i can't build) and a rpm based Linux system, ... I am no expert in this packaging area on all the different systems and may be we lose the relocation feature or something else. So if anybody has deep knowledge with epm or packing of deb or rpm packages and is interested to help, please contact me. Any kind of help is appreciated. Juergen
[CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
Hi, i am currently trying to build with a system available epm tool. And i am right now building on a Ubuntu 11.10 with epm 4.2. Does anybody have built with a system epm on a Linux system? Juergen
