Am 16.03.2012 10:08, schrieb Yamaban:

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 04:52, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:

...

On 15/03/12 18:17, Nelson Marques wrote:

...

A few users from KDE are having issues with cinnamon (mainly lack of packages). Is there a way to pass as requires the GNOME pattern?

no, binary packages must not require patterns, only the other way around.

In other words: It would be better to create a "Cinnamon" Pattern?

That or have a look at the Gnome-Shell package and grab the requires from there?

Can you give a hint about what would be better in your opinion.

Personally I'd like a Cinnamon-Pattern with as little from Gnome3 as feasible and reasonable.

- Thanks, Yamaban.

Doesn't solve the problem. Installing gnome cinnamon needs to trigger the dependencies and the pattern must not be triggered by a binary package. You need to add the requirements to the package. -- Ralf Lang Linux Consultant / Developer Tel.: +49-170-6381563 Mail: lang@b1-systems.de B1 Systems GmbH Osterfeldstraße 7 / 85088 Vohburg / http://www.b1-systems.de GF: Ralph Dehner / Unternehmenssitz: Vohburg / AG: Ingolstadt,HRB 3537 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org

Hello, On Fri, 16 Mar 2012, Yamaban wrote:

Solution needed in this case: 1. Add the needed, but missing "Require:" entries to the package. [..]

You _MUST_ have correct requires in the packages. If the package does not have proper requires (automatic or manual), it is defective and needs to be fixed. A pattern collecting several packages under one meta-require is just one touch of icing on the cake. -dnh -- Error in module Engineer: Buzzword overload. System malfunction immanent. Amok mode initiated. Please leave the building immediately. [Jochen Lillich in dasr] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 15:39, David Haller wrote:

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012, Yamaban wrote:

...

Solution needed in this case: 1. Add the needed, but missing "Require:" entries to the package. [..]

You _MUST_ have correct requires in the packages. If the package does not have proper requires (automatic or manual), it is defective and needs to be fixed.

That is the root of the trouble here in this case. What I'm wondering about, is this: Take a source tarball, make a new minimal spec, no Requires, no Build-Requires, try a rpm-build (locally), add Build-Requires as you need to get it compile successful, end up with a still empty "Require" item and a binary rpm. There, now you have shoot the poodle. Such a package can be committed into obs with no trouble, as it builds correctly, and if you have per chance installed the "needed" packages, it will even work as advertised. I'm no hero in packaging at all, but the cases where Build-Requires are needed should be limited. In my opinion, EVERY Build-Require line should get a companion comment about why it's needed. E.g: #Require: package-y not enough, hidden need for path/file from package-z This way there could be a cronjob on obs that does a "grep -B1 Build-Require *.spec" to find out these sources of Build-Require. Best would be a automated mail to the maintainers of the not well declared packages that cause the need for Build-Require later. Yes, there are exemptions, where Build-Require are the best solution, but these are not the cause for most of the trouble missing Require lines in still successful building packages cause. Cinnamon is just one of the packages where this case hits. If there would have been a pattern "Cinnamon" from the start, the missing Requires could have been totally overlooked, because the needed packages would have been pulled in by the pattern already. That said, how should a user react to such a case of missing Require lines, and, could we get a item in the FAQ / Wiki elaborating this, for future reference? Thanks, - Yamaban. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org

In my opinion, EVERY Build-Require line should get a companion comment about why it's needed. E.g: #Require: package-y not enough, hidden need for path/file from package-z

This way there could be a cronjob on obs that does a "grep -B1 Build-Require *.spec" to find out these sources of Build-Require.

Best would be a automated mail to the maintainers of the not well declared packages that cause the need for Build-Require later.

Yes, there are exemptions, where Build-Require are the best solution, but these are not the cause for most of the trouble missing Require lines in still successful building packages cause.

Cinnamon is just one of the packages where this case hits.

If there would have been a pattern "Cinnamon" from the start, the missing Requires could have been totally overlooked, because the needed packages would have been pulled in by the pattern already.

That said, how should a user react to such a case of missing Require lines, and, could we get a item in the FAQ / Wiki elaborating this, for future reference?

Thanks, - Yamaban.

The packages needed for building (gettext builder for example) and the packages needed for running (web server, database, plugin libraries) can be completely unrelated. While I like comments on requires and BuildRequires (I'm currently building an autogenerator which should mind "manual" entries) I see no relation between Requires and BuildRequires. Moreover, beautifying existing working specs is not a popular task and nagging packagers with reminders for technically irrelevant comments would not make everybody happy. Usually for building you need a lot of -devel stuff which should not be installed just to run a product. -- Ralf Lang Linux Consultant / Developer Tel.: +49-170-6381563 Mail: lang@b1-systems.de B1 Systems GmbH Osterfeldstraße 7 / 85088 Vohburg / http://www.b1-systems.de GF: Ralph Dehner / Unternehmenssitz: Vohburg / AG: Ingolstadt,HRB 3537 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org

By the way I have tested on KDE LiveCD and just by adding cinnamon repo and running "zypper install cinnamon" everything works out of the box. I assume some users have a problem with their systems. Everything is working as intended. NM 2012/3/17 Nelson Marques :

Ralf,

This discussion is off-topic... There is no issue at all with the Build Requirements neither with the Requires. The package has exactly the Requires that it needs to work on GNOME system. The internal RPM dependency generator made a good job and the extra Requires (ex: python-gconf) are present.

The main issue with Cinnamon is that it require the whole GNOME infra-structure present (gnome-session, gsettings, etc) which is installed by GNOME. On KDE users some of those deps aren't pulled/installed properly, furthermore, Cinnamon is built against the GNOME version present in the Distro, so people running other repo's might get issues (which is their own problem, not mine).

The only thing I see to ensure that Cinnamon gets properly deployed on non GNOME installs is to have Requires for all the packages that are part of the GNOME3 pattern... But this is bloating software.... And even if I have a pattern (which exists since day zero), I don't feel it's right to bloat it, neither it solves this issue because if you install the package from http://software.opensuse.org it will still install the package and not the pattern.

This discussion has gone way off-topic, this is a deployment issue under certain conditions and not a build/dependency generator issue.

NM

2012/3/17 Ralf Lang :

...

...

In my opinion, EVERY Build-Require line should get a companion comment about why it's needed. E.g: #Require: package-y not enough, hidden need for path/file from package-z

This way there could be a cronjob on obs that does a "grep -B1 Build-Require *.spec" to find out these sources of Build-Require.

Best would be a automated mail to the maintainers of the not well declared packages that cause the need for Build-Require later.

Yes, there are exemptions, where Build-Require are the best solution, but these are not the cause for most of the trouble missing Require lines in still successful building packages cause.

Cinnamon is just one of the packages where this case hits.

If there would have been a pattern "Cinnamon" from the start, the missing Requires could have been totally overlooked, because the needed packages would have been pulled in by the pattern already.

That said, how should a user react to such a case of missing Require lines, and, could we get a item in the FAQ / Wiki elaborating this, for future reference?

Thanks, - Yamaban.

The packages needed for building (gettext builder for example) and the packages needed for running (web server, database, plugin libraries) can be completely unrelated. While I like comments on requires and BuildRequires (I'm currently building an autogenerator which should mind "manual" entries) I see no relation between Requires and BuildRequires. Moreover, beautifying existing working specs is not a popular task and nagging packagers with reminders for technically irrelevant comments would not make everybody happy.

Usually for building you need a lot of -devel stuff which should not be installed just to run a product.

-- Ralf Lang Linux Consultant / Developer Tel.: +49-170-6381563 Mail: lang@b1-systems.de

B1 Systems GmbH Osterfeldstraße 7 / 85088 Vohburg / http://www.b1-systems.de GF: Ralph Dehner / Unternehmenssitz: Vohburg / AG: Ingolstadt,HRB 3537 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org

-- Nelson Marques // I've stopped trying to understand sandwiches with a third piece of bread in the middle...

-- Nelson Marques // I've stopped trying to understand sandwiches with a third piece of bread in the middle... -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org

Am 16.03.2012 11:01, schrieb Dominique Leuenberger a.k.a DimStar:

Quoting Ralf Lang :

...

Am 16.03.2012 10:08, schrieb Yamaban: Doesn't solve the problem. Installing gnome cinnamon needs to trigger the dependencies and the pattern must not be triggered by a binary package. You need to add the requirements to the package.

Eeeks...

I think it's fair to object to calling it 'gnome cinnamon' and it also does not do any fair to Cinnamon.

By now it is a rather self contained and stable Desktop environment; just like lxde it does makes use of the libraries and infrastructure provided.

The fact though that Cinnamon needs to pull in whatever it needs on its own and not relying on a pattern of another DE is a given in my opinion.

Dominique

Hi Dominique, you are right. I did not intend to be unfair towards the Cinnamon users and maintainers. To me cinnamon was an alternate frontend to gnome but obviously this seems to be incorrect. My point was that the pattern (at least the pattern alone) won't solve the problem that cinnamon is missing require tags. If adding a pattern has additional benefits, I have no problem with that :) -- Ralf Lang Linux Consultant / Developer Tel.: +49-170-6381563 Mail: lang@b1-systems.de B1 Systems GmbH Osterfeldstraße 7 / 85088 Vohburg / http://www.b1-systems.de GF: Ralph Dehner / Unternehmenssitz: Vohburg / AG: Ingolstadt,HRB 3537 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org