Re: openpkg 1.9 rpm install error
Thomas Lotterer wrote: On Mon, Jun 21, 2004, F. Even wrote: [...] what I'm asking is, can I do the following: Take openpkg-20040609-20040609.src.rpm, modify the spec file as described earlier to make this a 1.9 bootstrap. Then after converting the database, I should install the openpkg-20040609- 20040609.src.rpm again, unmodified, to bring myself from 1.3 to CURRENT. Is that correct? ... to bring myself from 1.9 to CURRENT, exactly. I don't remember all the issues why we introduced the intermediate step. But I do remeber: - OpenPKG 1.3 does not understand the %track section, it will become part of the previous %description. This is a cosmetic issue only. - OpenPKG 1.3 does not understand the Class: header and bails out on rebuilding. This is a showstopper. - The database needs conversion and it's a good idea to do the acutal install with a already converted database but database conversion requires the new rpm. - The new --tagfmt feature requires OpenPKG 2.0 but the upgrade is done using the existing (old) software. This might be a cosmetic issue if you do not use that feature but will be nasty if you use it and the bootstrap package itself receives a wrong filename. The intermediate OpenPKG 1.9 bootstrap resolves all those issues in a very elegant (although CPU time consuming ;-) way and provides a safe and compatible upgrade path. ...but that is where it crapped out on me (not very elegantly), trying to simply rpm --rebuild the source 1.9 bootstrap. So that is why I intend on trying some of these other things steps you suggested. Too late now though...bed time. Thanks for your assistance. I'll probably have a few more questions and errors to post. I've put a list of my installed pkgs, I've removed all of the perl stuff in anticipation of this upgrade (it seems like it was somewhat recommended in the upgrade docs). I'll have another go at it sometime tomorrow. Thanks. [EMAIL PROTECTED] rpm -qa | grep openpkg openpkg-1.3.1-1.3.1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] rpm -qa | sort binutils-2.14-1.3.0 bzip2-1.0.2-1.3.0 cdk-4.9.10.20030418-1.3.0 coreutils-5.0.1-1.3.2 curl-7.10.6-1.3.0 db-4.1.25.1-1.3.0 expat-1.95.6-1.3.0 freetype-2.1.4-1.3.0 fsl-1.3.0-1.3.2 gcc-3.3-1.3.0 jpeg-6b-1.3.0 lzo-1.08-1.3.0 make-3.80-1.3.0 ncurses-5.3.20030726-1.3.0 ntp-4.1.2-1.3.1 openpkg-1.3.1-1.3.1 openssh-3.6.1p2-1.3.2 openssl-0.9.7b-1.3.2 png-1.2.5-1.3.0 procmail-3.22-1.3.0 readline-4.3-1.3.0 sudo-1.6.7p5-1.3.1 zlib-1.1.4-1.3.0 __ The OpenPKG Projectwww.openpkg.org User Communication List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
updated 1.9 intermediate package for upgrade procedure 1.3 - 2.0 available (Was: Re: openpkg 1.9 rpm install error)
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004, F. Even wrote: [...] seem then that the 1.9 bootstrap would need an upgrade I created the upgrade companion packages and added them to the ftp download area ftp://ftp.openpkg.org/release/2.0/UPD/ openpkg-1.9.3-2.0.3.src.rpm openpkg-1.9.2-2.0.2.src.rpm [*] openpkg-1.9.1-2.0.1.src.rpm [*] [*] belated and just for completeness See also http://cvs.openpkg.org/chngview?cn=17591 and http://cvs.openpkg.org/openpkg-re/upgrade.txt = 1.44 Thanks for pointing out. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED], Cable Wireless __ The OpenPKG Projectwww.openpkg.org User Communication List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What happens to openpkg-tools in 2.0 ?
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004, Alexander Belck wrote: To build the packages I used openpkg-tools in ver 1.3 that could check dependencies and build them first if needed. OpenPKG 1.x had openpkg-tool and OpenPKG CURRENT (to be used for 2.0, too) has openpkg-tools (note the 's'). Find more details searching http://cvs.openpkg.org/openpkg-re/upgrade.txt for openpkg-tool. I just updated that document to reflect the change from openpkg-tool to openpkg-tools where appropriate. See http://cvs.openpkg.org/chngview?cn=17592. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED], Cable Wireless __ The OpenPKG Projectwww.openpkg.org User Communication List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: updated 1.9 intermediate package for upgrade procedure 1.3 - 2.0 available (Was: Re: openpkg 1.9 rpm install error)
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004, F. Even wrote: [...] seem then that the 1.9 bootstrap would need an upgrade I created the upgrade companion packages and added them to the ftp download area ftp://ftp.openpkg.org/release/2.0/UPD/ openpkg-1.9.3-2.0.3.src.rpm openpkg-1.9.2-2.0.2.src.rpm [*] openpkg-1.9.1-2.0.1.src.rpm [*] [*] belated and just for completeness See also http://cvs.openpkg.org/chngview?cn=17591 and http://cvs.openpkg.org/openpkg-re/upgrade.txt = 1.44 Thanks for pointing out. You're welcome. But, not to be bothersome, but I think I'm a little bit more confused now. What exactly needs to be done to get from OpenPKG 1.3.1 to anywhere? I think this is a little confusing: - use openpkg-1.3.1 to rebuild and install the openpkg-1.9.0-2.0.0.src.rpm provided with the 2.0 release (intentionally no src.sh available). This intermediate package is a modified openpkg-2.0.0-2.0.0.src.rpm that has the offending Class: header removed. This is the recommended variant. For updated = openpkg-2.0.1-2.0.1 corresponding companion = openpkg-1.9.1-2.0.1 are available. Can or should openpkg-1.9.0-2.0.0.src.rpm be used at all? Under what circumstances would openpkg-1.9.1-2.0.1, openpkg-1.9.2-2.0.2.src.rpm, or openpkg-1.9.3-2.0.3.src.rpm be used? Is there any particular path in the bootstrapping I should use if I want to end up @ CURRENT? Meaning, if I manage to get to openpkg-2.0.0-2.0.0 somehow, someway, can I just short-circuit the rest and install openpkg-20040609-20040609.src.rpm? Thanks for your assistance. Frank __ The OpenPKG Projectwww.openpkg.org User Communication List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1.3 to 2.0/CURRENT upgrade on FreeBSD 4.0 (Was: Re: openpkg 1.9 rpm install error)
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004, F. Even wrote: It dies in pretty much the same place trying to go from 1.9.1-2.0.1. OK, I assume you give 1.9.3 or a very recent CURRENT a try, too. [EMAIL PROTECTED] rpm --rebuild openpkg-1.9.1-2.0.1.src.rpm snip main.c:1014:2: #error lack of strtoll() needs fixing If the error persists the first actions digging down are a man strtoll and a look in libc having that function defined using $ nm /usr/lib/libc.a | egrep 'T strtoll' T strtoll -- [EMAIL PROTECTED], Cable Wireless __ The OpenPKG Projectwww.openpkg.org User Communication List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: updated 1.9 intermediate package for upgrade procedure 1.3 - 2.0 available (Was: Re: openpkg 1.9 rpm install error)
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004, F. Even wrote: [...] seem then that the 1.9 bootstrap would need an upgrade I created the upgrade companion packages and added them to the ftp download area ftp://ftp.openpkg.org/release/2.0/UPD/ openpkg-1.9.3-2.0.3.src.rpm openpkg-1.9.2-2.0.2.src.rpm [*] openpkg-1.9.1-2.0.1.src.rpm [*] [*] belated and just for completeness See also http://cvs.openpkg.org/chngview?cn=17591 and http://cvs.openpkg.org/openpkg-re/upgrade.txt = 1.44 Thanks for pointing out. You're welcome. But, not to be bothersome, but I think I'm a little bit more confused now. What exactly needs to be done to get from OpenPKG 1.3.1 to anywhere? I think this is a little confusing: - use openpkg-1.3.1 to rebuild and install the openpkg-1.9.0-2.0.0.src.rpm provided with the 2.0 release (intentionally no src.sh available). This intermediate package is a modified openpkg-2.0.0-2.0.0.src.rpm that has the offending Class: header removed. This is the recommended variant. For updated = openpkg-2.0.1-2.0.1 corresponding companion = openpkg-1.9.1-2.0.1 are available. Well, after clearing out all of the cruft in SRC and TMP, I decided to give 1.9.0-2.0.0 another whirl. Same error still. On to 1.9.1-2.0.1 I guess It dies in pretty much the same place trying to go from 1.9.1-2.0.1. I can really only think of one other thing that might be a little odd in my config, but has never caused a problem before, and that is that I have /cw symlinked: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ls -lrt | grep cw lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 13 Nov 10 2003 cw - /home/openpkg ...it is most definitely bedtime now. I couldn't sleep is the only reason I didn't leave this for tomorrow. ;-) [EMAIL PROTECTED] rpm --rebuild openpkg-1.9.1-2.0.1.src.rpm snip using piecewise archive linking... /cw/bin/ar cru .libs/libcurl.a file.o timeval.o base64.o hostip.o progress.o formdata.o : .libs/libcurl.a /cw/bin/ar cru .libs/libcurl.a cookie.o http.o sendf.o ftp.o url.o dict.o if2ip.o speedcheck.o : .libs/libcurl.a /cw/bin/ar cru .libs/libcurl.a getdate.o ldap.o ssluse.o version.o getenv.o escape.o : .libs/libcurl.a /cw/bin/ar cru .libs/libcurl.a mprintf.o telnet.o netrc.o getinfo.o transfer.o strequal.o : .libs/libcurl.a /cw/bin/ar cru .libs/libcurl.a easy.o security.o krb4.o memdebug.o http_chunks.o strtok.o : .libs/libcurl.a /cw/bin/ar cru .libs/libcurl.a connect.o llist.o hash.o multi.o content_encoding.o : .libs/libcurl.a /cw/bin/ar cru .libs/libcurl.a share.o http_digest.o md5.o http_negotiate.o http_ntlm.o : .libs/libcurl.a /cw/bin/ar cru .libs/libcurl.a inet_pton.o strtoofft.o ranlib .libs/libcurl.a creating libcurl.la (cd .libs rm -f libcurl.la ln -s ../libcurl.la libcurl.la) make[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/home/openpkg/RPM/TMP/openpkg-1.9.1/curl-7.11.0/lib' make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/home/openpkg/RPM/TMP/openpkg-1.9.1/curl-7.11.0/lib' Making all in src make[1]: Entering directory `/usr/home/openpkg/RPM/TMP/openpkg-1.9.1/curl-7.11.0/src' /cw/RPM/TMP/openpkg-1.9.1/make-3.80/make all-am make[2]: Entering directory `/usr/home/openpkg/RPM/TMP/openpkg-1.9.1/curl-7.11.0/src' if /cw/bin/cc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I../include -I../src -I../src -I/cw/RPM/TMP/openpkg-1.9.1/curl-7.11.0/../zlib-1.2.1 -I/cw/RPM/TMP/openpkg-1.9.1/curl-7.11.0/../zlib-1.2.1 -MT main.o -MD -MP -MF .deps/main.Tpo -c -o main.o main.c; \ then mv -f .deps/main.Tpo .deps/main.Po; else rm -f .deps/main.Tpo; exit 1; fi main.c:1014:2: #error lack of strtoll() needs fixing make[2]: *** [main.o] Error 1 make[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/home/openpkg/RPM/TMP/openpkg-1.9.1/curl-7.11.0/src' make[1]: *** [all] Error 2 make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/home/openpkg/RPM/TMP/openpkg-1.9.1/curl-7.11.0/src' make: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 + exit 2 + exit 2 error: Bad exit status from /cw/RPM/TMP/rpm-tmp.15631 (%build) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /cw/RPM/TMP/rpm-tmp.15631 (%build) __ The OpenPKG Projectwww.openpkg.org User Communication List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What happens to openpkg-tools in 2.0 ?
I couldn't find the openpkg-tools source in any of the 2.0 ftp directories. I do found a package in the CURRENT branche with this name. Should I use this one ? Is it intencionaly not in the 2.0 branch ? I'm not upgrading, I'm installing 2.0 from scratch, so how should I proceed if the sources for 2.0 do not provide the openpkg-tools. Is there an other sugested way to get the packages and all there dependencies for building ? Thanks, Alex Citando Thomas Lotterer [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Mon, Jun 21, 2004, Alexander Belck wrote: To build the packages I used openpkg-tools in ver 1.3 that could check dependencies and build them first if needed. OpenPKG 1.x had openpkg-tool and OpenPKG CURRENT (to be used for 2.0, too) has openpkg-tools (note the 's'). Find more details searching http://cvs.openpkg.org/openpkg-re/upgrade.txt for openpkg-tool. I just updated that document to reflect the change from openpkg-tool to openpkg-tools where appropriate. See http://cvs.openpkg.org/chngview?cn=17592. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED], Cable Wireless __ The OpenPKG Projectwww.openpkg.org User Communication List [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ATIX Tecnologia e Com Ltda Tel.: +55-(11) 4667-5900 This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. __ The OpenPKG Projectwww.openpkg.org User Communication List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What happens to openpkg-tools in 2.0 ?
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004, Alexander Belck wrote: Alexander, I couldn't find the openpkg-tools source in any of the 2.0 ftp directories. I do found a package in the CURRENT branche with this name. Should I use this one? Is it intencionaly not in the 2.0 branch? Yes and yes. The openpkg-tool has a file conflict with OpenPKG 2.0 and was omitted from the release intentionally. The new openpkg-tools package was not ready at that time so it was not included in the release intentionally. I'm not upgrading, I'm installing 2.0 from scratch, so how should I proceed if the sources for 2.0 do not provide the openpkg-tools. Is there an other sugested way to get the packages and all there dependencies for building ? Start with the latest bootstrap from the RELEASE and the openpkg-tools from CURRENT. As of today this means: ftp://ftp.openpkg.org/release/2.0/UPD/openpkg-2.0.3-2.0.3.src.sh ftp://ftp.openpkg.org/current/SRC/openpkg-tools-0.8.12-20040617.src.rpm The openpkg-tools package has dependencies to other packages and the bootstrap knows how to download and install them to satisfy these requirements and finally install openpkg-tools. After that process has finished you can continue using openpkg build as you already know from OpenPKG 1.x -- [EMAIL PROTECTED], Cable Wireless __ The OpenPKG Projectwww.openpkg.org User Communication List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RH7.3 and OpenPKG 2.0
Should I expect any known problem using OpenPKG over RH-7.3 ? I have a lot done to build a HA cluster between two RH-7.3 and whant use the servers like OpenLdap, Apache, Postfix from OpenPkg-2.0. So far I build tha basic openpkg-2.0.3 rom source, openpkg-tools and gcc with no problems, but whant to know what kind of problems I should expect going on with this configuration. Thanks, Alex This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. __ The OpenPKG Projectwww.openpkg.org User Communication List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Howto build with_option
What is the sintax for `openpkg build foo` and have it use something like: -define with_zlib yes or if possible a short way like -D with_zlib Is it possible to get the same options used when upgrading a package ? How ? thanks, Alex This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. __ The OpenPKG Projectwww.openpkg.org User Communication List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Howto build with_option
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 06:26:56PM -0300, Alexander Belck wrote: What is the sintax for `openpkg build foo` and have it use something like: -define with_zlib yes or if possible a short way like -D with_zlib just as you say: -Dwith_zlib builds with --define with_zlib yes If you have options with a different value then write -Dwith_option=value Is it possible to get the same options used when upgrading a package ? How ? This is done automatically. The build tool will fetch the option values from the installed package and build the upgrade with the same options unless you override these on the command line. -- Michael van Elst Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] A potential Snark may lurk in every tree. __ The OpenPKG Projectwww.openpkg.org User Communication List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package dependency missing ?
Due to build perl-* I tryed to build x11 with openpkg build x11 | sh where I got a lot of errors starting with: ** ERROR: SOME X11 INFORMATION COULD NOT BE DETERMINED!! ** ERROR: SOME X11 INFORMATION COULD NOT BE DETERMINED!! ** ** We found out: **X11 Binary Directory: **X11 Include Directory: **X11 Library Directory: ** ** Unfortunately, some information is missing here. ** ** ERROR: SOME X11 INFORMATION COULD NOT BE DETERMINED!! ** ERROR: SOME X11 INFORMATION COULD NOT BE DETERMINED!! + exit 1 error: Bad exit status from /opkg/RPM/TMP/rpm-tmp.36899 (%install) What should I do ? What have I missed ? Thanks, Alex This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. __ The OpenPKG Projectwww.openpkg.org User Communication List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RH7.3 and OpenPKG 2.0
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 14:59, Alexander Belck wrote: Should I expect any known problem using OpenPKG over RH-7.3 ? I have a lot done to build a HA cluster between two RH-7.3 and whant use the servers like OpenLdap, Apache, Postfix from OpenPkg-2.0. So far I build tha basic openpkg-2.0.3 rom source, openpkg-tools and gcc with no problems, but whant to know what kind of problems I should expect going on with this configuration. I've done OpenPKG 2.0+ (most coming out of current) builds, installs and development of new packages on RH 7.2, 7.3 and ES/AS 3.0, all without problems related to differences in the underlying platform. In fact, one of the reasons for choosing OpenPKG was that those old RH installs are not officially upgradable, but hopefully OpenPKG doesn't end up in end of life builds. I think it's fairly safe to say that a stock RH 7.x shouldn't give any troubles in OpenPKG land. ~paul __ The OpenPKG Projectwww.openpkg.org User Communication List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Subversion Question
Frank,
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 10:16, Frank Torres wrote:
I trying to build subversion with mod_dav_svn has anybody got it compile
with shared libraries on solaris 9/sparc systems.
No experience with it on Solaris, but I do in RH. Should be similar
since it's OpenPKG, supposed to be platform independant, right? :)
I had to fiddle around with the spec file in order to get the shared
libs and the dynamic module built for apache2. Here are the main
changes that I made:
BuildPreReq: libxml, db, openssl, zlib
PreReq: libxml, db, openssl, zlib
---
BuildPreReq: libxml, db, openssl, zlib, apache2, libiconv, swig, neon = 0.24.6
PreReq: libxml, db, openssl, zlib, apache2, libiconv, swig, neon = 0.24.6
%{l_shtool} subst \
-e 's;\($ac_abs_srcdir/configure\) $ac_configure_args;\1 --disable-shared;' \
configure
---
#%{l_shtool} subst \
#-e 's;\($ac_abs_srcdir/configure\) $ac_configure_args;\1 --disable-shared;'
\
#configure
LDFLAGS=%{l_ldflags} \
---
LDFLAGS=%{l_ldflags} -liconv -L$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{l_prefix}/lib \
(don't ask me why I had to do that, for some reason the linking didn't
work properly without it)
--disable-shared
---
--enable-shared
I might have done a myriad of other things to the dependancy packages
that I haven't mentioned here, but see how far these basic changes
get you..
~paul
__
The OpenPKG Projectwww.openpkg.org
User Communication List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
