Re: [SPECS] rc-boot - more work
Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> no. but why do you need to call rc-boot from rc-boot %post and %preun?
> it shouldn't it be called just only in kernel package %post, like grubby?
> (...)
> i really did mean rc-boot* and question was why it's needed to call from
> there, rather from kernel package.
>
> as it's kernel* package that provides the image to be added, isn't it?
Ok, propably I now understand what you mean.
This is quite good question so I have long answer;)
In last days I add to memtest86+, memtest86 and rescuecd subpackages which
provides "images" for rc-boot. I add them to automate proces of adding those
applications to bootloader. So when you install one of rc-boot-image-* it
will automaticly add them to bootloader menu.
Now when you try to upgrade one of this rc-boot "images" or application then
rc-boot will reload bootloader.
In first case for example rc-boot-image-memtest86 requires memtest86 so it
will be installed by dependency and then will be called rc-boot from %post in
rc-boot-image-memtest86.
In second case becouse for example rc-boot-image-memtest86 requires memtest86
in exacly version, poldek will install it by greedy dependency and then
will be called rc-boot from %post in rc-boot-image-memtest86.
Also on uninstall there is called rc-boot so it will remove application from
bootloader menu.
Simple, automatic and works good.
But now comes one more image which I add - rc-boot-image-PLD. I add it becouse
of this same reason why I add other rc-boot "images". To simplify adding
kernel to bootloader menu. So simply install rc-boot-image-PLD to add PLD to
bootloader menu (which is default kernel).
But in this case this solution is not perfect. rc-boot-image-PLD doesn't
require kernel at all so we need to put rc-boot call in two places - in
kernel and rc-boot-image-PLD. Leaving rc-boot call only in kernel is not
enough becouse then when we install rc-boot-image-PLD, bootloader will be not
reloaded so PLD will be not added to bootloader menu.
I can't add R: kernel to rc-boot-image-PLD becouse:
- We have many kernels (kernel, grsecurity, desktop) and all (not sure) of
them uses /boot/vmlinuz and /boot/initrd
- I read somewhere that following PLD policy nothing should R: kernel (with
what I agree... but not in this case;))
Now proposition part;) Propably this will be not accepted (I didn't even
search if this will not break anything) but I don't have any other idea. So
here it is:
- add rc-boot-image-* subpackage to all kernels (which are on ftp)
- put in them R: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
- remove from kernels rc-boot call
- create uniq simlinks for each type of kernel in /boot
(/boot/vmlinuz, /boot/vmlinuz-grsecurity, /boot/vmlinuz-desktop) (not sure if
this is already done)
With this everyting will be ok. Also we will get in rc-boot support for
simply, automatic installing simultaneously diffrent types of kernel
(rc-boot-image-PLD, rc-boot-image-PLD-grsecurity, rc-boot-image-PLD-desktop).
This is just my little idea... feel free to criticise it;)
--
Regards, Kamil Dziedzic
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
No mails with buildlogs from th-x86_64
Dnia niedziela 06 styczeń 2008, Tomasz Wittner napisał: > BTW: I don't get mails with buildlogs from th-x86_64 Not only you. -- Regards, Kamil Dziedzic signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: heath of th packages
On Sunday 06 January 2008, 17:28, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > http://ep09.pld-linux.org/~pldth/mvpkg.log > > please have look at that log and if you find your package there please fix > it or point out that can be moved without the missing arch packages listed > there as WARN 1. ERR: fwbuilder-2.1.16-2 has only src.rpm built error: Failed build dependencies: antlr conflicts with fwbuilder-2.1.16-2.src I can't help another way (for now) - I've put Conflict. 2. ERR: python-pexpect-2.2-1 moving would remove archs: ['ppc', 'x86_64', 'athlon', 'i486', 'i686'] It is OK - I've changed it to noarch - look at next entry (just the opposite) 3. ERR: qjackctl-0.3.2-1 moving would remove archs: ['x86_64'] Fix provided - builds on carme x86_64, rel. bumped & sent to builders (BTW: I don't get mails with buildlogs from th-x86_64) -- Tomasz Wittner ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: SPECS: fortunes-pl.spec - add todo
Bartosz Taudul wrote: > On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 07:05:14PM +0100, Andrzej Krzysztofowicz wrote: > > > > - uses ISO-8859-2 charset which is deprecated in specs > > > Convert README to utf-8, add declaration to templates, problem fixed. > > READE.en, README.pl, etc. ? > Nah. > > > > > - puts incomprehensible Polish descriptions as C ones, using characters > > > > invalid in us-ascii encoding > > > Encoding can be fixed by using iconv, and what do you expect to put in C > > # echo 'że dodać prośby' | iconv -f iso8859-2 -t us-ascii//translit > > ?e doda? pro?by > % echo 'że dodać prośby' | iconv -f utf-8 -t us-ascii//translit > > ze dodac prosby > > > Will you fix transliteration rules in glibc or suggest appropriate pl-en > > dictionary for these forms? > iso8859-2 is obsolete. But necessary for compatibility with older systems. -- === Andrzej M. Krzysztofowicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone (48)(58) 347 19 36 Faculty of Applied Phys. & Math., Gdansk University of Technology ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: SPECS: fortunes-pl.spec - add todo
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 07:05:14PM +0100, Andrzej Krzysztofowicz wrote: > > > - uses ISO-8859-2 charset which is deprecated in specs > > Convert README to utf-8, add declaration to templates, problem fixed. > READE.en, README.pl, etc. ? Nah. > > > - puts incomprehensible Polish descriptions as C ones, using characters > > > invalid in us-ascii encoding > > Encoding can be fixed by using iconv, and what do you expect to put in C > # echo 'że dodać prośby' | iconv -f iso8859-2 -t us-ascii//translit > ?e doda? pro?by % echo 'że dodać prośby' | iconv -f utf-8 -t us-ascii//translit ze dodac prosby > Will you fix transliteration rules in glibc or suggest appropriate pl-en > dictionary for these forms? iso8859-2 is obsolete. wolf -- Bartek . Taudul : .: w o l f @ p l d - l i n u x . o r g.:. http://wolf.valkyrie.one.pl/ ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: SPECS: fortunes-pl.spec - add todo
Bartosz Taudul wrote: > On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 05:06:14PM +0100, Jakub Bogusz wrote: > > > fortunes-pl.spec generator is really simple. > > And it's broken > It's broken because the spec was fixed, not generator. > > > if used for something more than pregeneration of initial spec: > The initial generated spec should also be final spec. > > > - drops spec changelog > cvs log fortunes-pl.spec or write some parser to put output of that > command into generated spec. If using generator this information will probably be useless. The information what has been changed in the generator since the previous spec generation would be more appropriate. But I see no way to automate this. > > - uses ISO-8859-2 charset which is deprecated in specs > Convert README to utf-8, add declaration to templates, problem fixed. READE.en, README.pl, etc. ? > > - puts incomprehensible Polish descriptions as C ones, using characters > > invalid in us-ascii encoding > Encoding can be fixed by using iconv, and what do you expect to put in C # echo 'że dodać prośby' | iconv -f iso8859-2 -t us-ascii//translit ?e doda? pro?by Will you fix transliteration rules in glibc or suggest appropriate pl-en dictionary for these forms? > description? The contents are polish, so is the description. If someone > doesn't understand the description, neither will he understand the The C description is generally for those who do not understand Polish. They should get information why they should (not) install the package. > contnts. The generic "XXX polish fortunes." description doesn't look > good to me, although that's some solution. Maybe. -- === Andrzej M. Krzysztofowicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone (48)(58) 347 19 36 Faculty of Applied Phys. & Math., Gdansk University of Technology ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: SPECS: fortunes-pl.spec - add todo
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 05:06:14PM +0100, Jakub Bogusz wrote: > > fortunes-pl.spec generator is really simple. > And it's broken It's broken because the spec was fixed, not generator. > if used for something more than pregeneration of initial spec: The initial generated spec should also be final spec. > - drops spec changelog cvs log fortunes-pl.spec or write some parser to put output of that command into generated spec. > - uses ISO-8859-2 charset which is deprecated in specs Convert README to utf-8, add declaration to templates, problem fixed. > - puts incomprehensible Polish descriptions as C ones, using characters > invalid in us-ascii encoding Encoding can be fixed by using iconv, and what do you expect to put in C description? The contents are polish, so is the description. If someone doesn't understand the description, neither will he understand the contnts. The generic "XXX polish fortunes." description doesn't look good to me, although that's some solution. wolf -- Bartek . Taudul : .: w o l f @ p l d - l i n u x . o r g.:. http://wolf.valkyrie.one.pl/ ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: SPECS: rpm-build-macros.spec - 1.412: _autostrip* support
On Sunday 06 January 2008 16:54:28 qboosh wrote: > Author: qboosh Date: Sun Jan 6 14:54:28 2008 GMT > Module: SPECS Tag: HEAD > Log message: > - 1.412: _autostrip* support is there written anywhere (other than source) what it is and how to use? -- glen ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
heath of th packages
http://ep09.pld-linux.org/~pldth/mvpkg.log please have look at that log and if you find your package there please fix it or point out that can be moved without the missing arch packages listed there as WARN -- glen ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: SPECS: fortunes-pl.spec - add todo
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 04:23:55PM +0100, Bartosz Taudul wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 03:59:06PM +0100, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
> > I mean generators are only useful when they make your work easier. If
> > it's easier to fix and maintain the result than to fix the generator
> > then it shouldn't be a real problem.
> fortunes-pl.spec generator is really simple.
And it's broken if used for something more than pregeneration of initial
spec:
- drops spec changelog
- puts invalid character ('ł') in C Summary
- uses ISO-8859-2 charset which is deprecated in specs
- puts incomprehensible Polish descriptions as C ones, using characters
invalid in us-ascii encoding
--
Jakub Boguszhttp://qboosh.pl/
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: SPECS: fortunes-pl.spec - add todo
Patryk Zawadzki wrote: 2008/1/6, Bartosz Taudul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 03:59:06PM +0100, Patryk Zawadzki wrote: I mean generators are only useful when they make your work easier. If it's easier to fix and maintain the result than to fix the generator then it shouldn't be a real problem. fortunes-pl.spec generator is really simple. It's just concatenating spec parts, with one loop for the subpackages. I don't understand why it is easier to change something in fortunes-pl.spec than in one of the spec parts used by generator. Take a look, this file is part of generator: http://cvs.pld-linux.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/fortunes-pl/SPEC/spec-template-header?rev=1.5;content-type=text%2Fplain Ah, ok then porting the changes should be really straightforward. I thought it involved some more magic in the process. How bout putting a brief explanation of the generator in the final .spec so the next guy doesn't have the same misunderstanding? ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: SPECS: fortunes-pl.spec - add todo
2008/1/6, Bartosz Taudul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 03:59:06PM +0100, Patryk Zawadzki wrote: > > I mean generators are only useful when they make your work easier. If > > it's easier to fix and maintain the result than to fix the generator > > then it shouldn't be a real problem. > fortunes-pl.spec generator is really simple. It's just concatenating > spec parts, with one loop for the subpackages. I don't understand why it > is easier to change something in fortunes-pl.spec than in one of the > spec parts used by generator. Take a look, this file is part of > generator: > > http://cvs.pld-linux.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/fortunes-pl/SPEC/spec-template-header?rev=1.5;content-type=text%2Fplain Ah, ok then porting the changes should be really straightforward. I thought it involved some more magic in the process. -- Patryk Zawadzki PLD Linux Distribution ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: SPECS: fortunes-pl.spec - add todo
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 03:59:06PM +0100, Patryk Zawadzki wrote: > I mean generators are only useful when they make your work easier. If > it's easier to fix and maintain the result than to fix the generator > then it shouldn't be a real problem. fortunes-pl.spec generator is really simple. It's just concatenating spec parts, with one loop for the subpackages. I don't understand why it is easier to change something in fortunes-pl.spec than in one of the spec parts used by generator. Take a look, this file is part of generator: http://cvs.pld-linux.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/fortunes-pl/SPEC/spec-template-header?rev=1.5;content-type=text%2Fplain wolf -- Bartek . Taudul : .: w o l f @ p l d - l i n u x . o r g.:. http://wolf.valkyrie.one.pl/ ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: SPECS: fortunes-pl.spec - add todo
On Sunday 06 January 2008 14:55:07 Tomasz Pala wrote: > On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 14:46:27 +0200, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > > one difference there is -- fortunes-pl is fun for -pl people only. > > So I doesn't make any sense to translate any parts of it. i did mean by that i couldn't fix package because i don't speak polish. nevermind now. -- glen ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: SPECS: fortunes-pl.spec - add todo
2008/1/6, Bartosz Taudul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 03:41:16PM +0100, Patryk Zawadzki wrote: > > I often use a simple script to convert Fedora specs to proper PLD > > format (for obvious reasons: most of the Fedora specs make adapter cry > > even after 3+ runs and these guys tend to override lots of macros in > > each spec file). Had I shared this script, I wouldn't ask for each of > > these files to carry a big fat warning: "once upon a time someone > > decided to generate the file." > How does that relate to fortunes-pl.spec? I mean generators are only useful when they make your work easier. If it's easier to fix and maintain the result than to fix the generator then it shouldn't be a real problem. Not that fortunes require a lot of attention on daily basis. -- Patryk Zawadzki PLD Linux Distribution ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: SPECS: fortunes-pl.spec - add todo
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 03:41:16PM +0100, Patryk Zawadzki wrote: > I often use a simple script to convert Fedora specs to proper PLD > format (for obvious reasons: most of the Fedora specs make adapter cry > even after 3+ runs and these guys tend to override lots of macros in > each spec file). Had I shared this script, I wouldn't ask for each of > these files to carry a big fat warning: "once upon a time someone > decided to generate the file." How does that relate to fortunes-pl.spec? wolf -- Bartek . Taudul : .: w o l f @ p l d - l i n u x . o r g.:. http://wolf.valkyrie.one.pl/ ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: SPECS: fortunes-pl.spec - add todo
2008/1/6, Tomasz Pala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 13:37:14 +0100, Marcin Krol wrote: > > > 2. Someone interested in generating this spec atuomatically should merge > > in-spec changes into that scipt or whatever it is so they won't be lost. > No - the person who made in-spec changes should had made them in > the script. I often use a simple script to convert Fedora specs to proper PLD format (for obvious reasons: most of the Fedora specs make adapter cry even after 3+ runs and these guys tend to override lots of macros in each spec file). Had I shared this script, I wouldn't ask for each of these files to carry a big fat warning: "once upon a time someone decided to generate the file." If it's easier to fix in CVS then leave that be, bumping version numbers manually does not involve killing little children nor effing goats. -- Patryk Zawadzki PLD Linux Distribution ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: SPECS: fortunes-pl.spec - add todo
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 01:36:20PM +0100, Tomasz Pala wrote: > On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 14:13:42 +0200, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > > > you can not generate that spec, because that will discard translations and > > few > > other changes. > > THIS spec was generated. If you want other rules, just create another > spec. > > > besides, last time i asked some POLISH developer to fix things in the spec, > > he > > sent me to hell with reason if i care then fix my self (i was helping ac rm > > And what did you think? > Last time I've reported broken (by someone!) sshd_config YOU told me to > fix it myself. > Last time I've reported some dumb reqs in boost-*-devel YOU told me to > fix it myself. > > > and you can use the generator script to introduce new spec fragments, but > > you > > Not if this spec is generated entirely. And it's bad practice. Per analogiam: perl*.spec are often pregenerated (using pldcpan or so), but all updates are done on existing spec, without losing changelog and manual changes. fortunes-pl update script could do the following tasks: - pregenerate spec from scratch (once) - update version in existing spec - introduce new subpackages in existing spec -- Jakub Boguszhttp://qboosh.pl/ ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: SPECS: fortunes-pl.spec - add todo
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 14:46:27 +0200, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > one difference there is -- fortunes-pl is fun for -pl people only. So I doesn't make any sense to translate any parts of it. -- Tomasz Pala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: SPECS: fortunes-pl.spec - add todo
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 13:37:14 +0100, Marcin Krol wrote: > 2. Someone interested in generating this spec atuomatically should merge > in-spec changes into that scipt or whatever it is so they won't be lost. No - the person who made in-spec changes should had made them in the script. -- Tomasz Pala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: SPECS: fortunes-pl.spec - add todo
On Sunday 06 January 2008 14:36:20 Tomasz Pala wrote: > And what did you think? > Last time I've reported broken (by someone!) sshd_config YOU told me to > fix it myself. one difference there is -- fortunes-pl is fun for -pl people only. -- glen ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: SPECS: fortunes-pl.spec - add todo
>> And I will revert that revert and the cdg will have to decide whether >> are we following some sensible standards (like understanding how things > > +1 >From what I understand spec in question was being generated automagically. However someone have included some translation or other fixes in it using regular CVS and now we have conflict. I see two options: 1. Anyone doing some changes to that spec should do it carefully by partial merges (as glen already proposed) to not overwrite existing fixes. 2. Someone interested in generating this spec atuomatically should merge in-spec changes into that scipt or whatever it is so they won't be lost. M. ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: SPECS: fortunes-pl.spec - add todo
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 14:13:42 +0200, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > you can not generate that spec, because that will discard translations and > few > other changes. THIS spec was generated. If you want other rules, just create another spec. > besides, last time i asked some POLISH developer to fix things in the spec, > he > sent me to hell with reason if i care then fix my self (i was helping ac rm And what did you think? Last time I've reported broken (by someone!) sshd_config YOU told me to fix it myself. Last time I've reported some dumb reqs in boost-*-devel YOU told me to fix it myself. > and you can use the generator script to introduce new spec fragments, but you Not if this spec is generated entirely. > should really review what you commit, that means you don't overwrite existing > fixes. If you want to introduce manual changes, add such functionality to the script which is generating spec file. -- Tomasz Pala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: SPECS: fortunes-pl.spec - add todo
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 02:24:53 +0100, Bartosz Taudul wrote: > And I will revert that revert and the cdg will have to decide whether > are we following some sensible standards (like understanding how things +1 -- Tomasz Pala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: SPECS: fortunes-pl.spec - add todo
On Sunday 06 January 2008 03:24:53 Bartosz Taudul wrote: > On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 11:27:35PM +0200, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: > > > > -# THIS IS GENERATED FILE. DO NOT EDIT BY HAND. > > > > > > All your changes will be lost. > > > > i will revert that commit and choke personally who will lose the changes. > > And I will revert that revert and the cdg will have to decide whether > are we following some sensible standards (like understanding how things > work), or are we just making random commits ignoring other people's work > and obvious warnings. > > Your actions are both dangerous (the removal of warning may lead other > people to thinking that fortunes-pl.spec may be modified by hand) and > incompetent (you failed to remove "If you want to modify or regenerate > it use script from CVS: fortunes-pl/SPEC/*"). > > This may seem like an over exaggerated reaction, considering how > insignificant fortunes-pl is, but I don't think that there should be one > set of rules for important specs/people and another one for the rest. you can not generate that spec, because that will discard translations and few other changes. besides, last time i asked some POLISH developer to fix things in the spec, he sent me to hell with reason if i care then fix my self (i was helping ac rm at that time). and you can use the generator script to introduce new spec fragments, but you should really review what you commit, that means you don't overwrite existing fixes. > wolf -- glen ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
