June 2015 - openSUSE Packaging - openSUSE Mailing Lists

[opensuse-packaging] Berkeley-DB issue in Factory
by Michael Ströder 18 Jun '15

18 Jun '15

HI! This builds for openSUSE 13.2 and SLES12 but not for Factory/Tumbleweed. https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/home:stroeder:branches:network:ldap… Anything changed with libdb recently? Strange enough OpenLDAP builds just fine on my local Tumbleweed system (not a OSC build though). Ciao, Michael.

4 3

[opensuse-packaging] systemd presets vs. package install order
by Christian Boltz 17 Jun '15

17 Jun '15

Hello, AppArmor has a preset "enable by default" (in the separate systemd- presets-branding-openSUSE), but unfortunately the AppArmor package gets installed before systemd-presets-branding-openSUSE gets installed. The result is: AppArmor doesn't get enabled :-( (see also https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=931792 ) Can someone recommend a solution for this, or do I need to add a "systemctl enable apparmor.service" in %post? Regards, Christian Boltz -- Please note that unstable software can harm your computer, your cat and even your dog. [Ismail Dönmez in opensuse-factory] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

9 23

[opensuse-packaging] builds blocked: have choice for libitm1...
by Michael Ströder 17 Jun '15

17 Jun '15

HI! I want to urgently build the following for Tumbleweed: https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/home:stroeder:branches:network:ldap… But it's blocked saying: "have choice for libitm1 >= 4.8.3+r218481-2.3 needed by gcc48: libitm1-gcc48 libitm1-gcc5, have choice for libtsan0 >= 4.8.3+r218481-2.3 needed by gcc48: libtsan0-gcc48 libtsan0-gcc5" Any clue what's going on? Ciao, Michael.

5 4

[opensuse-packaging] problem with python package
by Klaas Freitag 16 Jun '15

16 Jun '15

Hi, I am trying to update devel:languages:python python-netlib to the new version. It's a dependency of mitmproxy that I also wanna update. The new version has some C code embedded with cffi which I haven't seen before. My local build results in http://paste.opensuse.org/25035334 after I added a couple of dependencies. It builds, but has the install errors. Can anybody explain what the problem is? How can that be fixed? How do I handle the debug files? Where should the compiled shared library go? Thanks, Klaas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

2 3

[opensuse-packaging] Sricplet in spec
by Eric Schirra 13 Jun '15

13 Jun '15

Hello, i hope someone can help me. I wan't to add scriptlet in spec. It should run only at upgrade a package not run by new install. So i insert something like: %post if [ "$1" = 2 ]; then %{_bindir}/php %{my_path}/%{name}/console param fi I have try [ "$1" -gt 1 ] too without right result. Obs will run this at build. And so an error is rising up. Can i prevent this from running at build? It should run only at package-install or upgrade. Or is something wrong at my code? Or is something missing in Requires? Best regards Eric -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

2 3

[opensuse-packaging] suse_version handling troubles/solutions
by Tomáš Chvátal 12 Jun '15

12 Jun '15

Hello, As discussed a bit on the 42 thread and I don't wanna get it lost in some crazy deep thread on Factory. %suse_version is not really well set-up for our mix of sle/opensuse so we need to devise something to solve the trouble. There are multiple solutions: 1) Introduce extra macro, ie %opensuse_version YYYYMMDD which would be based on the snapshots and always bumped, so we can seriously finegrain what to enable. This has problem if we backport back the features back to SLE so suddenly they are supposed to be covered just by %suse_version thing. Or we would need to mesh in that anything %suse_version 12 %opensuse_version ANYTHING is older than %suse_version 12.1... 2) Redo how we think about optional features and why we use the suse_version. Instead of %if suse_version > 1140 BuildRequires: bla %endif We could devise in rpm like TryBuildRequires which would pull in packages if they are around and otherwise provide some packagename = 0 for further depending conditions. For defines we could instead of version requirement check for the define and if not found, define it with expected value/behaviour (like in python packages), and so on. As coolo already pointed out on factory ml it is not all uses for the suse_version. But most common usage in spec files is the above and it would reduce the "prone to error" path quite bit I suppose. Would it be worth all the work? Tom

9 15

[opensuse-packaging] python package has a strange egg-info path in one instance?
by Greg Freemyer 11 Jun '15

11 Jun '15

All, I'm test packaging the RC1+ release of plaso. For openSUSE 13.1 and 13.2 I get egg-info files in something like: /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/plaso-1.3.0_20150609-py2.7.egg-info That is what I expect. With factory/Tumbleweed I find those files in: /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/plaso-1.3.0.post20150609-py2.7.egg-info Note that '1.3.0_' is replaced with '1.3.0.post' in the factory version. That strikes me as wrong because I've never noted '.post' in that folder name before, but I'm not sure. I asked upstream and they don't know why. Thought it might be the version of setuptools in factory. Does anyone know if this is expected with factory/tumbleweed, or is there a bug? For now I'm using a filespec of plaso-*-py2.7.egg-info so my RPM build is working. Thanks Greg -- Greg Freemyer www.IntelligentAvatar.net -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

1 0

[opensuse-packaging] Re: How exactly rpm is packaged?
by Andreas Schwab 11 Jun '15

11 Jun '15

Stanislav Baiduzhyi <baiduzhyi.devel(a)gmail.com> writes: > Ah, the stripping... Could you tell me more about that? Maybe some exact > commands performed during the stripping so I could try it locally? See /usr/lib/rpm/brp-suse.d/brp-15-strip-debug (package brp-check-suse). Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, schwab(a)suse.de GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE 1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7 "And now for something completely different." -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

1 0

[opensuse-packaging] How exactly rpm is packaged?
by Stanislav Baiduzhyi 11 Jun '15

11 Jun '15

Could anyone please point me at some exact steps what is performed after the %install macro is finished and when rpm package is written? I've noticed really strange thing, in one of the packages there are 2 libraries with the same name but in different subfolders, probably a legacy of old and complicated build system. After the build their md5sums are different, but after unpacking the rpm - they are identical. Which means that cpio or something before the cpio merges them together or uses bad duplicate finder. If someone knows some magic spec file trick to avoid that de-duplication, please tell me or give me the link. -- Regards, Stas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

2 5

[opensuse-packaging] %{reconfigure_fonts_scriptlets}
by Marcus Rueckert 11 Jun '15

11 Jun '15

Hi, That macro is less than ideal. I think it should be split up in macros per section like e.g. the desktop db macros [1]. If that macro is used you cant not call other per section macros anymore. Thoughts? darix [1] https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_Conventions_RPM_Macros#.25deskto… -- openSUSE - SUSE Linux is my linux openSUSE is good for you www.opensuse.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

6 7