[opensuse-factory] RPM 4.13.0 in Staging needs your help
Dear Tumleweed hackers and packagers, RPM 4.13.0 has been submitted to openSUSE:Factory for inclusion. But unfortunately it seems to be a lot stricter to what the %files section needs to contain. previous rpm version seem to have transparently packaged %{_defaultdocdir}/%{name} without you specifying it in the %files section. RPM 4.13.0 now claims that the files are not packaged. This in turn gives quite some fallouts The list of failures can be found at Ring0/1: https://goo.gl/bMPSd3 Ring 2: https://goo.gl/yRgfAv Please help to sort out those build failures and have RPM 4.13.0 move forward. Anything NOT in a ring is not validated to still build with the staging process. To avoid surprises it's best for you to test upfront what the results would be. To test your own non-ring package with rpm 4.13.0, you can do a local build using: (from within the checked out source of your package) osc build --alternative-project=Base:System openSUSE_Factory x86_64 Thanks for your great work! Dominique
On Tue, 2017-02-07 at 14:31 +0100, Olaf Hering wrote:
On Tue, Feb 07, Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar wrote:
previous rpm version seem to have transparently packaged %{_defaultdocdir}/%{name} without you specifying it in the %files section.
How is one supposed to replace '%doc COPYING'?
That one usaully does not cause a problem - but files that are installed by make install into %defaultdocdir cause issues (and those need to be explicitly mentioned in %files) Cheers Dominique
On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 02:31:54PM +0100, Olaf Hering wrote:
On Tue, Feb 07, Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar wrote:
previous rpm version seem to have transparently packaged %{_defaultdocdir}/%{name} without you specifying it in the %files section.
How is one supposed to replace '%doc COPYING'?
Not at all. For the curious, the behaviour change is caused by rpm commit f16a522ca4be7090db5a3fc1a507e58a4d4946fd: Don't include not explicitly listed files from doc dir into package Previously if spec file cointained tag %doc then all files located in doc dir (that path was generated by getSpecialDocDir()) was added into package. Now only files explicitly listed in spec are added (rhbz:#728959). Cheers, Michael. -- Michael Schroeder mls@suse.de SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF Jeff Hawn, HRB 16746 AG Nuernberg main(_){while(_=~getchar())putchar(~_-1/(~(_|32)/13*2-11)*13);} -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Tue, Feb 07, Michael Schroeder wrote:
On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 02:31:54PM +0100, Olaf Hering wrote:
How is one supposed to replace '%doc COPYING'? Not at all.
I just looked at the pcre failure and its specfile, which looked odd given that '%doc file file ...' is common usage. But given the low number of failures its clear that the bug is likely in pcre, and there is no need to touch every package. Olaf
On Tue, 2017-02-07 at 16:59 +0100, Olaf Hering wrote:
On Tue, Feb 07, Michael Schroeder wrote:
On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 02:31:54PM +0100, Olaf Hering wrote:
How is one supposed to replace '%doc COPYING'?
Not at all.
I just looked at the pcre failure and its specfile, which looked odd given that '%doc file file ...' is common usage. But given the low number of failures its clear that the bug is likely in pcre, and there is no need to touch every package.
Olaf
I took the time to propose a fix for pcre - which can hopefully serve as an example to show what is going wrong here... the submission can be found at: https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/455313 %doc COPYING instructs rpm to copy 'COPYING' to %_docdir/%{name} - but anything else that was copied there by the .spec file by other means (make install, cp, ...) is NOT listed in the %files section. So, adding %{_docdir}/%{name} to the %files section instructs RPM to also grab those files we put there. Cheers, Dominique
On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 04:59:42PM +0100, Olaf Hering wrote:
On Tue, Feb 07, Michael Schroeder wrote:
On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 02:31:54PM +0100, Olaf Hering wrote:
How is one supposed to replace '%doc COPYING'? Not at all.
I just looked at the pcre failure and its specfile, which looked odd given that '%doc file file ...' is common usage. But given the low number of failures its clear that the bug is likely in pcre, and there is no need to touch every package.
Yes, this is not about %doc, it still works Pine. pcre's install target installs stuff in %{_datadir}/doc/pcre, the specfile then does this: mv %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/doc/pcre %{buildroot}/%{_defaultdocdir}/pcre-doc I.e. files are copied in the doc dir. With old rpm versions, they automatically got picked up when there was a %doc statement (which was a bug), now you need to put them in the file list like all other files. As said, files copied with %doc are still automatically put into the file list, that's why this change only breaks a few packages. Cheers, Michael. -- Michael Schroeder mls@suse.de SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF Jeff Hawn, HRB 16746 AG Nuernberg main(_){while(_=~getchar())putchar(~_-1/(~(_|32)/13*2-11)*13);} -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
hello, On 7.2.2017 12:58, Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar wrote:
Dear Tumleweed hackers and packagers, RPM 4.13.0 now claims that the files are not packaged. This in turn gives quite some fallouts
The list of failures can be found at
Ring0/1: https://goo.gl/bMPSd3
Both python and python3 fail, but this seems unrelated to RPM; instead, rpmlint gets tripped up by *something*. Can somebody please look at it and tell me if this is something that should be fixed on my end? (and if so, how?) thanks m.
On Dienstag, 7. Februar 2017 17:46:32 CET jan matejek wrote:
hello,
Both python and python3 fail, but this seems unrelated to RPM; instead, rpmlint gets tripped up by *something*. Can somebody please look at it and tell me if this is something that should be fixed on my end? (and if so, how?)
thanks m.
Hi m, you you please provide a link to the failing packages resp. the logs? Makes finding the packages you are referring to so much less troublesome for everybody ... Kind regards, Stefan-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 05:46:32PM +0100, jan matejek wrote:
hello,
On 7.2.2017 12:58, Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar wrote:
Dear Tumleweed hackers and packagers, RPM 4.13.0 now claims that the files are not packaged. This in turn gives quite some fallouts
The list of failures can be found at
Ring0/1: https://goo.gl/bMPSd3
Both python and python3 fail, but this seems unrelated to RPM; instead, rpmlint gets tripped up by *something*. Can somebody please look at it and tell me if this is something that should be fixed on my end? (and if so, how?)
That is the reason for the linlpak of rpmlint-mini into Base:System: build rpmlint-mini with latest rpm libraries. Werner -- "Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool." -- Edward Burr
participants (6)
-
Brüns, Stefan -
Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar -
Dr. Werner Fink -
jan matejek -
Michael Schroeder -
Olaf Hering