Re: abiword

2016-04-16 Thread Lamar Owen

On 04/16/2016 02:29 AM, Yasha Karant wrote:
I may be in a university environment, but we do not waste time 
reinventing the wheel for research or research support activities -- 
and neither does any other viable research group. 


No insult was intended, incidentally, but you are still in a different 
environment than most of us, myself included.  In my environment I run 
the IT department (and we run an open IT using as much open source as 
possible, with as much user feedback listened to as is practical).  I am 
cognizant that my situation is probably also a bit unique in that I have 
flexibility (and authority in my environment as CIO) that many people on 
this list do not have.


However, it was my understanding that the EPEL or other similar 
automata are not readily available -- for deploying production code 
through porting there is no reason not to use an existing "automaton" 
that can resolve dependencies (I recall a correspondent referring to 
these sorts of things as :dependency hell") from whatever source code 
repositories as required and ultimately build a working executable 
application. 


The full EPEL build system is open source; it's called koji and is what 
the Fedora Project uses to build packages.  You can replicate the full 
Fedora build infrastructure yourself on your own server farm if you 
wished (and had time/resources) to do so.  See the following links:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/KojiBuildSystem
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Koji
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Koji/ServerHowTo

Your understanding of the availability of the EPEL buildsystem was 
correct only in part; EPEL is built against RHEL packages that are not 
publicly available, but there is nothing preventing you from using the 
koji software to build/rebuild EPEL (Fedora) source packages using 
ScientificLinux packages to populate the buildroot. And, in my opinion, 
EPEL needs to continue to be built using RHEL packages to populate the 
buildroot, as that seems to be the most compatible with the from-source 
rebuilds like SL and CentOS.  But your own, private, Fedora Extra 
Packages for SL is not impossible to do, and all software and processes 
are openly available.


...But -- I would very much like a working SL7 binary executable of a 
reasonably current Abiword.


There are channels to request EPEL packages (especially if the package 
is already in Fedora), and that mechanism has been documented in this 
thread; thanks, Pat!  I chimed in on this thread because I also have 
application for abiword on 7; my particular need has not yet been pressing.


Had the need been pressing I would have built my own abiword packages 
(following the process Russ did and recursively building the 
dependencies) and gone about my merry way without commenting on the 
list. and, in fact, I have done that with other packages in the past 
that I have needed; I have a number of packages that I have built myself 
because no repo had the particular version I needed (a slightly older 
kicad, for instance).


But I am not in the business of being a repo, either; there are definite 
ramifications for binary distribution, and I have no desire to be 
'responsible' again for a widely distributed binary package, outside of 
an established repository, and I would have to have a pressing need to 
do that.  As an explanation for that, I would just point you to the 
following archived mailing list messages: 
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/200410251354.53583.j...@agliodbs.com http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/200410251334.36550.lo...@pari.edu


Since it appears EPEL7 will have abiword reasonably soon, I'm not going 
to duplicate the effort for my own non-pressing need, but I will thank 
Russ for poking the process along.


Re: abiword

2016-04-16 Thread Yasha Karant

On 04/15/2016 12:54 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:

On 04/15/2016 11:48 AM, R P Herrold wrote:
as well as a well documented, and solved problem with the buildsystem 
which EPEL uses (I was perhaps too eliptical yesterday), and thus my 
dis-interest in re-inventing or re-documenting this wheel ** yet 
again ** -- Russ herrold 


Thanks for working on this, Russ.  While reinventing the wheel is 
frowned upon most of the time, there are settings where reinventing 
wheels should be encouraged, particularly the educational setting. 
Sometimes it is worthwhile to do some calculations by hand or by slide 
rule, then go back to the calculators and spreadsheets; the act of 
reinventing enhances the understanding of why things are done the way 
that they are done. You better appreciate koji if you build your own 
mini-beehive.


For most of us, though, it's just a time sink.  Yasha is in a 
different environment than most of us.
I may be in a university environment, but we do not waste time 
reinventing the wheel for research or research support activities -- and 
neither does any other viable research group.  However, it was my 
understanding that the EPEL or other similar automata are not readily 
available -- for deploying production code through porting there is no 
reason not to use an existing "automaton" that can resolve dependencies 
(I recall a correspondent referring to these sorts of things as 
:dependency hell") from whatever source code repositories as required 
and ultimately build a working executable application.   At the moment, 
my group does not have a porting machine that we could dedicate to this 
sort of problem.  This is not an issue of "critical thinking", etc., but 
rather pure technological implementation.  However, the development of 
that technology does require a variety of "critical thinking" 
activities.  I definitely do not want to get into the repo "business" at 
this time -- we do not have the resources that we can spare from other 
activities, and are not likely to get the necessary external funding to 
become a repo development "house".  But -- I would very much like a 
working SL7 binary executable of a reasonably current Abiword.


Yasha Karant


Re: abiword

2016-04-15 Thread Lamar Owen

On 04/14/2016 03:49 PM, R P Herrold wrote:

Lamar -- could you please pull and build SRPMs out of the
'local' path, and confirm that no gremlins have crept in, via
a cross-check on your buildsystem?  I don't use 'mock' for
scratch solves

I did not get this done; too many work-related things having to do with 
GNUradio, an ODroid C2, and CentOS 7/aarch64.


Re: abiword

2016-04-15 Thread Lamar Owen

On 04/15/2016 11:48 AM, R P Herrold wrote:
as well as a well documented, and solved problem with the buildsystem 
which EPEL uses (I was perhaps too eliptical yesterday), and thus my 
dis-interest in re-inventing or re-documenting this wheel ** yet again 
** -- Russ herrold 


Thanks for working on this, Russ.  While reinventing the wheel is 
frowned upon most of the time, there are settings where reinventing 
wheels should be encouraged, particularly the educational setting. 
Sometimes it is worthwhile to do some calculations by hand or by slide 
rule, then go back to the calculators and spreadsheets; the act of 
reinventing enhances the understanding of why things are done the way 
that they are done.  You better appreciate koji if you build your own 
mini-beehive.


For most of us, though, it's just a time sink.  Yasha is in a different 
environment than most of us.


Re: abiword

2016-04-15 Thread R P Herrold
On Fri, 15 Apr 2016, Lamar Owen wrote:

> On 04/14/2016 03:49 PM, R P Herrold wrote:
> > Lamar -- could you please pull and build SRPMs out of the 'local' path, and
> > confirm that no gremlins have crept in, via a cross-check on your
> > buildsystem? I don't use 'mock' for scratch solves Thanks -- Russ 

> scratch builds on C7 yet, although I need to do so. 

we all need more round tuits  ;)

as you were the original desiring 'consumer' of abiword, I had 
asked you.  Events have moved a bit in that I have been now 
added as a co-administrator of abiword at EPEL 7, and so 
anticipate moving it through that buildsystem over the next 
week

> Yasha, this is a classic automaton problem, and should be 
> solved accordingly. The state machine needs inputs of 
> dependencies, and the build order for the dependencies will 
> become clear.  It is also a *solved* problem, in the form of 
> the 'smock' perl script, which you can find at

> https://github.com/richm/scripts/blob/master/smock.pl

as well as a well documented, and solved problem with the 
buildsystem which EPEL uses (I was perhaps too eliptical 
yesterday), and thus my dis-interest in re-inventing or 
re-documenting this wheel ** yet again **

-- Russ herrold


Re: abiword

2016-04-15 Thread Lamar Owen

On 04/14/2016 03:49 PM, R P Herrold wrote:
Lamar -- could you please pull and build SRPMs out of the 'local' 
path, and confirm that no gremlins have crept in, via a cross-check on 
your buildsystem? I don't use 'mock' for scratch solves Thanks -- Russ 
Russ, I'll try to look at it later today.  While I have a full-blown  
mock buildsystem on the IA64 box, that's CentOS 5. I haven't done 
the same on CentOS 7 as yet, as I haven't had the need.  Yeah, I've not 
been doing clean scratch builds on C7 yet, although I need to do so.  I 
need to add RAM to make it faster, and I need to add disk for the repo 
cache (I have 20GB of RAM now in my laptop (Dell M6500 Core i7), but I 
need 32GB to really be able to put the buildroot entirely in RAM during 
the build, and a second 1TB drive (putting the boot SSD on mSATA module 
for three drives) Well, I don't *need* to do that, but I *want* to 
do that, as 'buildroot in RAMdisk' makes builds fly. at least that 
has been my experience on the Altix IA64 boxen, where putting the 
buildroot in a RAMdisk cut build iteration times (especially for the 
kernel, glibc, and gcc) to 10% of what they had been, since the Altix is 
not an I/O monster, but the RAM bandwidth is very high.


Yasha, this is a classic automaton problem, and should be solved 
accordingly.  The state machine needs inputs of dependencies, and the 
build order for the dependencies will become clear.  It is also a 
*solved* problem, in the form of the 'smock' perl script, which you can 
find at https://github.com/richm/scripts/blob/master/smock.pl


But you may want to not pass up the teaching opportunity of applying 
'critical thinking' about 'what constitutes an automaton?' as it relates 
to depsolving.  Russ has done the legwork of getting all the inputs you 
need in the ftp area he posted.  Simple (and not so simple) depsolving 
is a really good way to get state machine theory into a hands-on 
learning activity to bring the abstract into the realm of the concrete.  
At least I think it is an interesting problem.  The next step is solving 
something like the fpc (Free Pascal Compiler) build dependencies.


Re: abiword

2016-04-15 Thread Nico Kadel-Garcia
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Yasha Karant <ykar...@csusb.edu> wrote:
> On 04/14/2016 02:01 PM, R P Herrold wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016, R P Herrold wrote:
>>
>>> The content is now at:
>>>     ftp://ftp.owlriver.com/pub/local/ORC/abiword/
>>> and will move to:
>>> ftp://ftp.owlriver.com/pub/mirror/ORC/abiword/
>>
>> just got a clean build with RawHide's
>> abiword-3.0.1-4.orc7.src.rpm
>>
>> which I have pushed and will appear in 'local'
>>
>> -- R
>
>
> This probably will require either EPEL or someone on this list who can
> generate a working binary.  A naive rpmbuild --rebuild yields:
>
> error: Failed build dependencies:
> aiksaurus-devel is needed by abiword-1:3.0.1-4.el7.x86_64
> aiksaurus-gtk-devel is needed by abiword-1:3.0.1-4.el7.x86_64
> asio-devel is needed by abiword-1:3.0.1-4.el7.x86_64
> goffice-devel is needed by abiword-1:3.0.1-4.el7.x86_64
> gtkmathview-devel is needed by abiword-1:3.0.1-4.el7.x86_64
> librevenge-devel is needed by abiword-1:3.0.1-4.el7.x86_64
> libwmf-devel is needed by abiword-1:3.0.1-4.el7.x86_64
> libwpd-devel is needed by abiword-1:3.0.1-4.el7.x86_64
> libwpg-devel is needed by abiword-1:3.0.1-4.el7.x86_64
> link-grammar-devel is needed by abiword-1:3.0.1-4.el7.x86_64
> loudmouth-devel is needed by abiword-1:3.0.1-4.el7.x86_64
>     ots-devel is needed by abiword-1:3.0.1-4.el7.x86_64
> poppler-devel is needed by abiword-1:3.0.1-4.el7.x86_64
>     t1lib-devel is needed by abiword-1:3.0.1-4.el7.x86_64
> telepathy-glib-devel is needed by abiword-1:3.0.1-4.el7.x86_64
> wv-devel is needed by abiword-1:3.0.1-4.el7.x86_64

It's a lot of backporting to get things like this onto older OS
releases, such as RHEL. versus Fedora. I publish a *lot* of these over
at https://github.com/nkadel/ including backports of Samba 4.x, and
used to publish Subversion backports over at RPMforge. Repoforge has
an out of date abiword compatible for SL 6, perhaps you could start
from there, so you might try starting from http://apw.sw.be/source/

EPEL is unwilling to replace RHEL, and thus CentOS and Scientitific
Linux, base packages, and building up the dependency tree for older
packages can get into dependency hell *really fast*.  If it's only a
few components, it's fairly easy to set up a local SRPM build
environment, with a localized yum repo setup, to build up the
components with "mock". Take a look at my setup for RT 4.4, at
https://github.com/nkadel/rt4builder-4.4.x, for a pretty powerful
example with subdirectories for individual components, and the
dependencies laid out to build in order.

That was for RT, which has a *big* Perl dependency tree. I used to
backport it to SL 6, but the dependencies cot out of hand when I had
to update libwww. I've been trying to do it for the awscli, the AWS
command line interface, and that is *really, really painful*.


Re: abiword

2016-04-14 Thread Yasha Karant

On 04/14/2016 02:01 PM, R P Herrold wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016, R P Herrold wrote:


The content is now at:
ftp://ftp.owlriver.com/pub/local/ORC/abiword/
and will move to:
ftp://ftp.owlriver.com/pub/mirror/ORC/abiword/

just got a clean build with RawHide's
abiword-3.0.1-4.orc7.src.rpm

which I have pushed and will appear in 'local'

-- R


This probably will require either EPEL or someone on this list who can 
generate a working binary.  A naive rpmbuild --rebuild yields:


error: Failed build dependencies:
aiksaurus-devel is needed by abiword-1:3.0.1-4.el7.x86_64
aiksaurus-gtk-devel is needed by abiword-1:3.0.1-4.el7.x86_64
asio-devel is needed by abiword-1:3.0.1-4.el7.x86_64
goffice-devel is needed by abiword-1:3.0.1-4.el7.x86_64
gtkmathview-devel is needed by abiword-1:3.0.1-4.el7.x86_64
librevenge-devel is needed by abiword-1:3.0.1-4.el7.x86_64
libwmf-devel is needed by abiword-1:3.0.1-4.el7.x86_64
libwpd-devel is needed by abiword-1:3.0.1-4.el7.x86_64
libwpg-devel is needed by abiword-1:3.0.1-4.el7.x86_64
link-grammar-devel is needed by abiword-1:3.0.1-4.el7.x86_64
loudmouth-devel is needed by abiword-1:3.0.1-4.el7.x86_64
ots-devel is needed by abiword-1:3.0.1-4.el7.x86_64
poppler-devel is needed by abiword-1:3.0.1-4.el7.x86_64
t1lib-devel is needed by abiword-1:3.0.1-4.el7.x86_64
telepathy-glib-devel is needed by abiword-1:3.0.1-4.el7.x86_64
wv-devel is needed by abiword-1:3.0.1-4.el7.x86_64

and when I start with the first failed dependency:

yum install aiksaurus-devel
No package aiksaurus-devel available.
Error: Nothing to do

Hopefully, someone will have both the time (and required effort) to 
build abiword (more or less current) and to be able to
release either a consistent and ready to build set of rpm.src files for 
SL7, etc., or a built binary RPM along with whatever other built
RPMs are required again for SL7. As it appears that there are business 
restrictions that prevent Owlriver from offering any such binaries,
I hope that someone else may -- or EPEL will come through in short 
order. (I was under the impression that a business could offer executable
software without cost for download provided the usual "disclaim all" was 
part of the download and use "license".)   abiword  is available for

 ubuntu http://abiword.en.uptodown.com/ubuntu/download
(not to claim that Ubuntu LTS is somehow better than SL) from at least 
one site on the web .


Yasha Karant


Re: abiword

2016-04-14 Thread R P Herrold
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016, R P Herrold wrote:

> The content is now at: 
>   ftp://ftp.owlriver.com/pub/local/ORC/abiword/ 
> and will move to: 
>   ftp://ftp.owlriver.com/pub/mirror/ORC/abiword/ 

just got a clean build with RawHide's 
    abiword-3.0.1-4.orc7.src.rpm

which I have pushed and will appear in 'local'

-- R


Re: abiword

2016-04-14 Thread R P Herrold
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016, Yasha Karant wrote:


> Thank you very much for providing the above URLs.
> 
> From the above reference web site, I am guessing that only 
> orc7 (owlriver 7) extension files are needed for SL 7, in 
> which case here is the list of what I have downloaded:

no idea if your guess is right, and checking my binary solve 
environment is not something that is fast or free -- SRPMs are 
offered for what they are.  If the main distribution, or 
something EPEL should happen to 'overtake' and 
displace something in that pile while running a 'yum update 
...'  it would be fine with me, as I strive, but to not test 
that

> Are there other files that are needed other than those 
> provided in the "standard" EL7 public repos?  (I believe 
> that the Red Hat subscriber repos are not readily available 
> to the non-paying, only CentOS repos under the Red Hat 
> "umbrella".)

The Red Hat provided 'git' which CentOS is fed from may be 
used to build SRPMs seemingly without change by the CentOS 
folks
 
> By the way, as a university (not a business), are we allowed 
> to redistribute binary RPMS made from the above .src.rpm 
> files with the usual acknowledgement (thanking you and your 
> firm, but no guarantee that anything works and no guarantee 
> that the binaries will not "destroy" any system upon which 
> these are installed)?  If we do build from your .src.rpm s 
> and things work, why should others have re-invent the wheel 
> and/or redo the labor?

umm -- at the top of the archive:
ftp://ftp.owlriver.com/pub/mirror/ORC/README

(go read -- I'll wait)

I add no non-freely licensed content to the archive at: 
ftp.owlriver.com

all is redistributable save that something might be 
retro-actively found as containing non-free matter.  As I 
don't patrol for that, I would not remove such (There was an 
instance some years ago where an upstream CD respin was 
needed when non-free content was found in (as memory serves) a 
non-free font was found in RHL.  I would miss seeing that]

-- Russ herrold


Re: abiword

2016-04-14 Thread Yasha Karant

On 04/14/2016 12:49 PM, R P Herrold wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016, R P Herrold wrote:


I have a local solution in a 'scratch build' environment,
yielding: abiword-3.0.1-2.el7.centos.src.rpm.  It 'runs' at
soon, soon

and now done

The content is now at:
ftp://ftp.owlriver.com/pub/local/ORC/abiword/
and will move to:
ftp://ftp.owlriver.com/pub/mirror/ORC/abiword/

Lamar -- could you please pull and build SRPMs out of the
'local' path, and confirm that no gremlins have crept in, via
a cross-check on your buildsystem?  I don't use 'mock' for
scratch solves

Thanks

-- Russ

Thank you very much for providing the above URLs.

From the above reference web site, I am guessing that only orc7 
(owlriver 7) extension
files are needed for SL 7, in which case here is the list of what I have 
downloaded:


abiword-3.0.1-2.orc7.src.rpm
abiword.spec
aiksaurus-1.2.1-33.orc7.src.rpm
aiksaurus.spec
asio-1.4.8-3.orc7.src.rpm
asio.spec
gtkmathview-0.8.0-19.orc7.src.rpm
gtkmathview.spec
librevenge-0.0.2-6.orc7.src.rpm
librevenge.spec
link-grammar-5.0.8-6.orc7.src.rpm
link-grammar.spec
loudmouth-1.4.3-17.orc7.src.rpm
loudmouth.spec
ots-0.5.0-11.orc7.src.rpm
ots.spec
wv-1.2.9-12.orc7.src.rpm
wv.spec

Are there other files that are needed other than those provided in the 
"standard" EL7 public repos?  (I believe that
the Red Hat subscriber repos are not readily available to the 
non-paying, only CentOS repos under the Red Hat "umbrella".)


By the way, as a university (not a business), are we allowed to 
redistribute binary RPMS made from the above .src.rpm files with the
usual acknowledgement (thanking you and your firm, but no guarantee that 
anything works and no guarantee that the binaries will not
"destroy" any system upon which these are installed)?  If we do build 
from your .src.rpm s and things work, why should others have re-invent 
the wheel

and/or redo the labor?

Yasha Karant


Re: abiword

2016-04-14 Thread R P Herrold
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016, R P Herrold wrote:

> I have a local solution in a 'scratch build' environment, 
> yielding: abiword-3.0.1-2.el7.centos.src.rpm.  It 'runs' at 

> soon, soon

and now done

The content is now at: 
ftp://ftp.owlriver.com/pub/local/ORC/abiword/ 
and will move to: 
ftp://ftp.owlriver.com/pub/mirror/ORC/abiword/ 

Lamar -- could you please pull and build SRPMs out of the 
'local' path, and confirm that no gremlins have crept in, via 
a cross-check on your buildsystem?  I don't use 'mock' for 
scratch solves

Thanks

-- Russ


Re: abiword

2016-04-14 Thread R P Herrold
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016, Yasha Karant wrote:

> > so, thus, my earlier mention of poking EPEL

As the day has passed, I 'poked' the EPEL package database

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/abiword/

and as the link Pat noted earlier in the day says, this starts 
a countdown clock to slide the package into eligibility for 
EPEL 7

> Although EPEL "should", being like CentOS these days a 
> more-or-less "wholly owned subsidiary" of Red Hat, but the 
> time it is done we may be at RHEL 8.

only if one does not poke ;)
 
> You indicated that you are willing to release the SRPMs that 
> have already been ported (both for source code and 
> dependencies) to SL 7 and that upon using a command syntax 
> like:

... snip snip

package building has many paths for solution -- At this state 
of the art, the one EPEL uses with 'mock' and 'koji' and 
signing and bugzilla and more is mature and worth using, in 
deference to local solutions

I have a local solution in a 'scratch build' environment, 
yielding: abiword-3.0.1-2.el7.centos.src.rpm.  It 'runs' at 
least to the extent of showing the Help | About dialog [1].  I 
have it rebuilding 'for external record' and in about an hour 
MY version of the SRPM will be up at my FTP site.  I know it 
pulls out some Pythonic API and 'gir' parts.  As I don't use 
them, I don't care about ripping them out


According to 'RawHide', Fedora and so EPEL should be at:

$ srcfind abiword | grep -i rawhide
 ... 
/var/ftp/pub/nfs/mirror/redhat/rawhide2016/a/abiword-3.0.1-4.fc23.src.rpm

with some minor changes in the Changelog after the point I 
forked from: 

* Sat May 02 2015 Kalev Lember <kalevlem...@gmail.com> - 
1:3.0.1-4
- Rebuilt for GCC 5 C++11 ABI change

* Thu Mar 26 2015 Richard Hughes <rhug...@redhat.com> - 
1:3.0.1-3
- Add an AppData file for the software center

* Tue Jan 27 2015 Petr Machata <pmach...@redhat.com> - 
1:3.0.1-2
- Rebuild for boost 1.57.0

* Wed Dec 24 2014 Peter Robinson 
<pbrobin...@fedoraproject.org> 1:3.0.1-1
- Update to 3.0.1 stable

soon, soon

-- Russ herrold

1. http://gallery.herrold.com/stuff/abiword-3.0.1.png


Re: abiword

2016-04-14 Thread Yasha Karant

On 04/14/2016 11:22 AM, R P Herrold wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016, Yasha Karant wrote:


I don't and haven't 'publish' binaries for a long time now,

Although you evidently are not a "repo", are you willing to
allow others access to the built RPMs (not SRPMs) needed for
an executable install of abiword? The RPMs I have are all
2.x, nothing in 3.x .  Are there any "conflicts" between
what is needed by a more recent abiword and the standard
install (from SL/CentOS, EPEL, ElRepo repos)?  That is,
package M conflicts with whatever during the binary install?

Long ago and far away, with the pre-cursor product to CentOS
(cAos), I built and released binaries.  With the turn-down of
RHL, and the rise of the 'Enterprise' distributions, I spent
some time considering 'policy' as to releasing sources vs.
binaries, and concluded that there were obligations to 'stand
behind' binaries, which did not arise with a simple set of
related sources.  Unless one is a commercial customer of Owl
River, binaries are not available ( contrariwise, all binaries
installed at any customer are backed by availability of
sources at the site previously indicated, thus satisfying GPL
and related 'source availability' obligations )

so, thus, my earlier mention of poking EPEL


I could attempt to put personnel (grad students, undergrads)
on the build, but I really do have higher priority work for
these persons.  I myself do not have the spare time right
now to contribute much to the porting effort of a standard
"office enduser" package.

And wonderfully, in the FOSS ethic, EPEL should solve this for
all of us with any luck

-- Russ herrold
Although EPEL "should", being like CentOS these days a more-or-less 
"wholly owned

subsidiary" of Red Hat, but the time it is done we may be at RHEL 8.

You indicated that you are willing to release the SRPMs that have 
already been ported (both for source

code and dependencies) to SL 7 and that upon using a command syntax like:

rpmbuild --rebuild /tmp/mypackage-1.0.0-1.src.rpm

where  .src.rpm is the same as .srpm (as I recall).

will result in a (set) of binary RPM files that will install application 
"binaries" that will execute under SL7.  Any dependencies (e.g., other 
development
packages, not just header file RPMs, but ".so" file RPMs) will be 
revealed by the rpmbuild step and can be "fixed" through
yum install foobar (where foobar is the dependency) from either SL, 
EPEL, or ElRepo, not RPMs for which one has the
merry chase on the web (sometimes resulting in other incompatibilities 
or real vulnerabilities).  I am not trying to be overly specific here, 
but my
group (as I am certain have others on this list) has more than once had 
to chase down RPM dependencies (e.g., libraries) that only were made
at one laboratory somewhere -- and never made it into the "mainstream" 
EL repos (say ported from some other Linux family).


Thanks for any clarification.

Yasha Karant


Re: abiword

2016-04-14 Thread R P Herrold
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016, Yasha Karant wrote:

> > I don't and haven't 'publish' binaries for a long time now,

> Although you evidently are not a "repo", are you willing to 
> allow others access to the built RPMs (not SRPMs) needed for 
> an executable install of abiword? The RPMs I have are all 
> 2.x, nothing in 3.x .  Are there any "conflicts" between 
> what is needed by a more recent abiword and the standard 
> install (from SL/CentOS, EPEL, ElRepo repos)?  That is, 
> package M conflicts with whatever during the binary install?

Long ago and far away, with the pre-cursor product to CentOS 
(cAos), I built and released binaries.  With the turn-down of 
RHL, and the rise of the 'Enterprise' distributions, I spent 
some time considering 'policy' as to releasing sources vs. 
binaries, and concluded that there were obligations to 'stand 
behind' binaries, which did not arise with a simple set of 
related sources.  Unless one is a commercial customer of Owl 
River, binaries are not available ( contrariwise, all binaries 
installed at any customer are backed by availability of 
sources at the site previously indicated, thus satisfying GPL 
and related 'source availability' obligations )

so, thus, my earlier mention of poking EPEL

> I could attempt to put personnel (grad students, undergrads) 
> on the build, but I really do have higher priority work for 
> these persons.  I myself do not have the spare time right 
> now to contribute much to the porting effort of a standard 
> "office enduser" package.

And wonderfully, in the FOSS ethic, EPEL should solve this for 
all of us with any luck

-- Russ herrold


Re: abiword

2016-04-14 Thread Yasha Karant

On 04/14/2016 08:28 AM, R P Herrold wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016, R P Herrold wrote:


I'll poke at it today

and with an older abiword-3.0.1-1 spec I have been working
with, I get a complete build save for:

abiword-3.0.1/plugins/openxml/imp/xp/OXML_LangToScriptConverter.gperf

and
abiword-3.0.1-1.el7.centos.x86_64/usr/lib64/girepository-1.0/Abi-3.0.typelib

... the RPM build turn cycle is slow as there are so many
moving parts, but looking good

I don't and haven't 'publish' binaries for a long time now,
and have a day's delay between 'inside' local content, and
formal mirrored content ... looking, it appears I've been
doing this package for over a decade (it is also my preferred
'Word' format file editing tool, and I have large corpus of
content in such form).  Gnumeric is the other I rely on, to
avoid the LibreOffice trap

but SRPMs end up with a day's delay at:
ftp://ftp.owlriver.com/pub/mirror/ORC/abiword/

-- Russ herrold
Although you evidently are not a "repo", are you willing to allow others 
access to the
built RPMs (not SRPMs) needed for an executable install of abiword? The 
RPMs I have are all 2.x,
nothing in 3.x .  Are there any "conflicts" between what is needed by a 
more recent abiword
and the standard install (from SL/CentOS, EPEL, ElRepo repos)?  That is, 
package M conflicts with whatever

during the binary install?

I could attempt to put personnel (grad students, undergrads) on the 
build, but I really do have higher priority work for
these persons.   I myself do not have the spare time right now to 
contribute much to the  porting effort of a standard

"office enduser" package.

Yasha Karant


Re: abiword

2016-04-14 Thread R P Herrold
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016, R P Herrold wrote:

> I'll poke at it today

and with an older abiword-3.0.1-1 spec I have been working 
with, I get a complete build save for:

abiword-3.0.1/plugins/openxml/imp/xp/OXML_LangToScriptConverter.gperf

and 
abiword-3.0.1-1.el7.centos.x86_64/usr/lib64/girepository-1.0/Abi-3.0.typelib

... the RPM build turn cycle is slow as there are so many 
moving parts, but looking good

I don't and haven't 'publish' binaries for a long time now, 
and have a day's delay between 'inside' local content, and 
formal mirrored content ... looking, it appears I've been 
doing this package for over a decade (it is also my preferred 
'Word' format file editing tool, and I have large corpus of 
content in such form).  Gnumeric is the other I rely on, to 
avoid the LibreOffice trap

but SRPMs end up with a day's delay at:
ftp://ftp.owlriver.com/pub/mirror/ORC/abiword/

-- Russ herrold


Re: [SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS] abiword

2016-04-14 Thread Pat Riehecky

On 04/14/2016 09:26 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:

On 04/14/2016 10:08 AM, Pat Riehecky wrote:


On 04/14/2016 12:27 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
Not sure how difficult that will be to get those packages (and the 
packages the -devel packages depend upon) built.  I have a client 
who is waiting on a CentOS 7-compatible Abiword to migrate to CentOS 
7 from CentOS 6, and Abiword is a blocker.


Has there been a request for an EPEL7 branch?




I don't know, but I would support such a thing.  It is currently 
supported in F23, so it appears to be actively maintained (but I am 
not an EPEL insider).




These links should probably get you started:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/FAQ#How_do_I_request_a_EPEL_branch_for_an_existing_Fedora_package.3F
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Getting_a_Fedora_package_in_EPEL
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers

Pat


Re: abiword

2016-04-14 Thread R P Herrold
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016, R P Herrold wrote:

> looks like libasio -- sounds like a task for EPEL devel ML

actually I got a build there as well, with only a minimal 
rpmlint snark

/home/herrold/rpmbuild/SRPMS/asio-1.4.8-3.orc7.src.rpm
/home/herrold/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/asio-devel-1.4.8-3.orc7.x86_64.rpm

made a local: asio-1.4.8-3.orc7.src.rpm
CWD: /home/herrold/build/7/abiword 

CWD: /tmp/rph-rpmbuild.rpmlint.lJ6q
BAS_NEWSR: asio-1.4.8-3.orc7.src.rpm 
asio.src: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog: 
Tue Aug  3 2011 Peter Robinson <pbrobin...@gmail.com> -  1.4.8-1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.

I'll poke at it today

-- Russ herrold


Re: sci-l-u] Re: abiword

2016-04-14 Thread R P Herrold
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016, Lamar Owen wrote:

> Several of abiword's buildrequires are not in the various EL7 repos.  There
> aren't very many of them; in attempting to rebuild the FC22 Abiword and
> attempting to install the buildreqs I get:
> No package aiksaurus-devel available.
> No package aiksaurus-gtk-devel available.
> No package gtkmathview-devel available.
> No package link-grammar-devel available.
> No package loudmouth-devel available.
> No package ots-devel available.
> No package wv-devel available.
> 
> Not sure how difficult that will be to get those packages (and the packages
> the -devel packages depend upon) built.  I have a client who is waiting on a
> CentOS 7-compatible Abiword to migrate to CentOS 7 from CentOS 6, and Abiword
> is a blocker.

I made a run at it a while back -- most of that list build, 
but there was some blocker ... memory fades

[herrold@centos-7 abiword]$ date ; rpm -q wv ots loudmouth 
link-grammar libwpd librevenge libmspack libasyncns hspell 
gtkmathview aiksaurus asio cabextract fribidi enchant 
centos-release
Thu Apr 14 10:43:18 EDT 2016
wv-1.2.9-12.orc7.x86_64
ots-0.5.0-11.orc7.x86_64
loudmouth-1.4.3-17.orc7.x86_64
link-grammar-5.0.8-6.orc7.x86_64
libwpd-0.10.0-1.el7.x86_64
librevenge-0.0.2-6.orc7.x86_64
libmspack-0.5-0.4.alpha.el7.x86_64
libasyncns-0.8-7.el7.x86_64
hspell-1.2-6.el7.x86_64
gtkmathview-0.8.0-19.orc7.x86_64
aiksaurus-1.2.1-33.orc7.x86_64
package asio is not installed
cabextract-1.5-1.el7.x86_64
fribidi-0.19.4-6.el7.x86_64
enchant-1.6.0-8.el7.x86_64
centos-release-7-2.1511.el7.centos.2.10.x86_64
[herrold@centos-7 abiword]$ 

looks like libasio -- so8nds like a task for EPEL devel ML

-- Russ herrold


Re: [SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS] abiword

2016-04-14 Thread Lamar Owen

On 04/14/2016 10:08 AM, Pat Riehecky wrote:


On 04/14/2016 12:27 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
Not sure how difficult that will be to get those packages (and the 
packages the -devel packages depend upon) built.  I have a client who 
is waiting on a CentOS 7-compatible Abiword to migrate to CentOS 7 
from CentOS 6, and Abiword is a blocker.


Has there been a request for an EPEL7 branch?




I don't know, but I would support such a thing.  It is currently 
supported in F23, so it appears to be actively maintained (but I am not 
an EPEL insider).


Re: [SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS] abiword

2016-04-14 Thread Pat Riehecky

On 04/14/2016 12:27 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:

On 04/11/2016 07:02 AM, Yasha Karant wrote:
Is there any EL7 rpm or other successful build of a recent stable 
release of abiword?  If so, what is URL to download the build 
including whatever other rpms are required (or a large
static image that does not require any .so components that are not 
part of the standard SL 7 repo)?


Yasha Karant

Several of abiword's buildrequires are not in the various EL7 repos.  
There aren't very many of them; in attempting to rebuild the FC22 
Abiword and attempting to install the buildreqs I get:

No package aiksaurus-devel available.
No package aiksaurus-gtk-devel available.
No package gtkmathview-devel available.
No package link-grammar-devel available.
No package loudmouth-devel available.
No package ots-devel available.
No package wv-devel available.

Not sure how difficult that will be to get those packages (and the 
packages the -devel packages depend upon) built.  I have a client who 
is waiting on a CentOS 7-compatible Abiword to migrate to CentOS 7 
from CentOS 6, and Abiword is a blocker.


Has there been a request for an EPEL7 branch?

Pat


Re: abiword

2016-04-13 Thread Lamar Owen

On 04/11/2016 07:02 AM, Yasha Karant wrote:
Is there any EL7 rpm or other successful build of a recent stable 
release of abiword?  If so, what is URL to download the build 
including whatever other rpms are required (or a large
static image that does not require any .so components that are not 
part of the standard SL 7 repo)?


Yasha Karant

Several of abiword's buildrequires are not in the various EL7 repos.  
There aren't very many of them; in attempting to rebuild the FC22 
Abiword and attempting to install the buildreqs I get:

No package aiksaurus-devel available.
No package aiksaurus-gtk-devel available.
No package gtkmathview-devel available.
No package link-grammar-devel available.
No package loudmouth-devel available.
No package ots-devel available.
No package wv-devel available.

Not sure how difficult that will be to get those packages (and the 
packages the -devel packages depend upon) built.  I have a client who is 
waiting on a CentOS 7-compatible Abiword to migrate to CentOS 7 from 
CentOS 6, and Abiword is a blocker.


abiword

2016-04-11 Thread Yasha Karant
Is there any EL7 rpm or other successful build of a recent stable 
release of abiword?  If so, what is URL to download the build including 
whatever other rpms are required (or a large
static image that does not require any .so components that are not part 
of the standard SL 7 repo)?


Yasha Karant


Re: abiword

2014-12-10 Thread Orion Poplawski
On 12/09/2014 05:25 PM, Yasha Karant wrote:
 I have been attempting to build abiword from the source
 
 abiword-3.0.0.tar.gz
 
 configure: error: Package requirements (
   fribidi = 0.10.4
   glib-2.0 = 2.6.0 gthread-2.0 = 2.6.0 gobject-2.0 = 2.6.0
   libgsf-1 = 1.14.18
   wv-1.0 = 1.2.0
   libxslt
   gio-2.0 libebook-1.2 libecal-1.2  libical = 0.46
   cairo-pdf cairo-ps pangocairo
   gtk+-3.0 = 3.0.8 gtk+-unix-print-3.0 librsvg-2.0 = 2.16.0 cairo-fc
  x11) were not met:
 
 Does anyone have a SL 7 abiword ?  Does anyone know how to satisfy for SL 7
 the unmet package requirements
 found by configure?
 
 Yasha Karant

Many of those appear to be available.  The ones I'm not seeing trying to build
the Fedora abiword rpm on EL7 are:

DEBUG util.py:283:  Error: No Package found for aiksaurus-devel
DEBUG util.py:283:  Error: No Package found for aiksaurus-gtk-devel
DEBUG util.py:283:  Error: No Package found for gtkmathview-devel
DEBUG util.py:283:  Error: No Package found for librevenge-devel
DEBUG util.py:283:  Error: No Package found for link-grammar-devel
DEBUG util.py:283:  Error: No Package found for loudmouth-devel
DEBUG util.py:283:  Error: No Package found for ots-devel
DEBUG util.py:283:  Error: No Package found for wv-devel

Again, I would suggest filing a bug against abiword in Fedora EPEL asking for
an EPEL7 build.

Found requirements:
DEBUG util.py:283:   -- autoconf-2.69-11.el7.noarch
DEBUG util.py:283:   -- automake-1.13.4-3.el7.noarch
DEBUG util.py:283:   -- asio-devel-1.10.4-2.el7.x86_64
DEBUG util.py:283:   -- bison-2.7-4.el7.x86_64
DEBUG util.py:283:   -- boost-devel-1.53.0-18.el7.x86_64
DEBUG util.py:283:   -- bzip2-devel-1.0.6-12.el7.x86_64
DEBUG util.py:283:   -- cairo-devel-1.12.14-6.el7.x86_64
DEBUG util.py:283:   -- dbus-glib-devel-0.100-7.el7.x86_64
DEBUG util.py:283:   -- desktop-file-utils-0.21-4.el7.x86_64
DEBUG util.py:283:   -- 1:enchant-devel-1.6.0-8.el7.x86_64
DEBUG util.py:283:   -- flex-2.5.37-3.el7.x86_64
DEBUG util.py:283:   -- fribidi-devel-0.19.4-6.el7.x86_64
DEBUG util.py:283:   -- gobject-introspection-devel-1.36.0-4.el7.x86_64
DEBUG util.py:283:   -- goffice08-devel-0.8.17-10.el7.x86_64
DEBUG util.py:283:   -- gtk3-devel-3.8.8-5.el7.x86_64
DEBUG util.py:283:   -- libgsf-devel-1.14.26-6.el7.x86_64
DEBUG util.py:283:   -- 2:libpng-devel-1.5.13-5.el7.x86_64
DEBUG util.py:283:   -- librsvg2-devel-2.39.0-1.el7.x86_64
DEBUG util.py:283:   -- libsoup-devel-2.42.2-3.el7.x86_64
DEBUG util.py:283:   -- libwmf-devel-0.2.8.4-39.el7.x86_64
DEBUG util.py:283:   -- libwpd-devel-0.9.9-3.el7.x86_64
DEBUG util.py:283:   -- libwpg-devel-0.2.2-4.el7.x86_64
DEBUG util.py:283:   -- libxslt-devel-1.1.28-5.el7.x86_64
DEBUG util.py:283:   -- poppler-devel-0.22.5-6.el7.x86_64
DEBUG util.py:283:   -- popt-devel-1.13-16.el7.x86_64
DEBUG util.py:283:   -- pygobject3-3.8.2-4.el7.x86_64
DEBUG util.py:283:   -- python-devel-2.7.5-16.el7.x86_64
DEBUG util.py:283:   -- python-setuptools-0.9.8-3.el7.noarch
DEBUG util.py:283:   -- readline-devel-6.2-9.el7.x86_64
DEBUG util.py:283:   -- t1lib-devel-5.1.2-14.el7.x86_64
DEBUG util.py:283:   -- telepathy-glib-devel-0.20.4-5.el7.x86_64
DEBUG util.py:283:   -- zlib-devel-1.2.7-13.el7.x86_64

-- 
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane   or...@nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301   http://www.nwra.com


abiword

2014-12-09 Thread Yasha Karant

I have been attempting to build abiword from the source

abiword-3.0.0.tar.gz

configure: error: Package requirements (
  fribidi = 0.10.4
  glib-2.0 = 2.6.0 gthread-2.0 = 2.6.0 gobject-2.0 = 2.6.0
  libgsf-1 = 1.14.18
  wv-1.0 = 1.2.0
  libxslt
  gio-2.0 libebook-1.2 libecal-1.2  libical = 0.46
  cairo-pdf cairo-ps pangocairo
  gtk+-3.0 = 3.0.8 gtk+-unix-print-3.0 librsvg-2.0 = 2.16.0 cairo-fc
 x11) were not met:

Does anyone have a SL 7 abiword ?  Does anyone know how to satisfy for 
SL 7 the unmet package requirements

found by configure?

Yasha Karant