[opensuse-packaging] New RPM in Factory
Hi all! New RPM 4.7.1 hit Factory and I created a list of interesting changes from Packagers' point of view. You can read the full post at [1] (and it will probably grow until 11.2 final is out), but I will also post the shortened version here too: * Macro %patch does not behave like %patch0 anymore. Stop using it and use Patch0: and %patch0 in your .spec files. * Fuzz tolerance for patches was changed from 2 to zero. All patches must apply cleanly now. * Sub-packages can be declared as “noarch” now. Such .spec file is incompatible with older RPM but the resulting binary packages are compatible. * Section %files now supports multiple file lists. No need to join the files into one in %install section. * The new macros %{patches} and %{sources} are available. You can use them in for loops to iterate over all patches and sources respectively. [1] http://stick.gk2.sk/blog/2009/09/new-rpm-in-opensuse-factory/ -- Best Regards / S pozdravom, Pavol RUSNAK SUSE LINUX, s.r.o openSUSE Community Multiplier Team Lihovarska 1060/12 PGP 0xA6917144 19000 Praha 9, CR prusnak[at]suse.cz http://www.suse.cz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
Le vendredi 04 septembre 2009, à 16:53 +0200, Pavol Rusnak a écrit :
Hi all!
New RPM 4.7.1 hit Factory and I created a list of interesting changes from Packagers' point of view. You can read the full post at [1] (and it will probably grow until 11.2 final is out), but I will also post the shortened version here too:
I was actually wondering... Is there any other reason than being able to backport the package to 11.1 and earlier to not use the new features without "%if blabla"? I mean, from a maintenance perspective, the package will have been branched anyway, so I doubt this would be for maintenance. Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
Vincent Untz wrote:
Le vendredi 04 septembre 2009, à 16:53 +0200, Pavol Rusnak a écrit :
Hi all!
New RPM 4.7.1 hit Factory and I created a list of interesting changes from Packagers' point of view. You can read the full post at [1] (and it will probably grow until 11.2 final is out), but I will also post the shortened version here too:
I was actually wondering... Is there any other reason than being able to backport the package to 11.1 and earlier to not use the new features without "%if blabla"?
Yes, only for backports inside the OBS. (Lots of devel projects are at the same time backport projects :-/) I will change the text accordingly in the blogpost. -- Best Regards / S pozdravom, Pavol RUSNAK SUSE LINUX, s.r.o openSUSE Community Multiplier Team Lihovarska 1060/12 PGP 0xA6917144 19000 Praha 9, CR prusnak[at]suse.cz http://www.suse.cz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
* Pavol Rusnak (prusnak@suse.cz) [20090904 16:55]:
will probably grow until 11.2 final is out), but I will also post the shortened version here too:
[...] * BuildRoot has become obsolete as it will be ignored. The build root is now /usr/src/packages/BUILDROOT/%{name}-%{version}. Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
Am Freitag 04 September 2009 17:31:40 wrote Philipp Thomas:
* Pavol Rusnak (prusnak@suse.cz) [20090904 16:55]:
will probably grow until 11.2 final is out), but I will also post the shortened version here too:
[...]
* BuildRoot has become obsolete as it will be ignored. The build root is now /usr/src/packages/BUILDROOT/%{name}-%{version}. Instead of /var/tmp/build-root? Is the new Buildroot an chroot too? -- Sincerely yours
Sascha Manns openSUSE Ambassador openSUSE Marketing Team openSUSE Build Service Web: http://saschamanns.gulli.to Project-Blog: http://lizards.opensuse.org/author/saigkill Private-Blog: http://saschasbacktrace.blogspot.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
Sascha 'saigkill' Manns napsal(a):
Am Freitag 04 September 2009 17:31:40 wrote Philipp Thomas:
* Pavol Rusnak (prusnak@suse.cz) [20090904 16:55]:
will probably grow until 11.2 final is out), but I will also post the shortened version here too: [...]
* BuildRoot has become obsolete as it will be ignored. The build root is now /usr/src/packages/BUILDROOT/%{name}-%{version}. Instead of /var/tmp/build-root? Is the new Buildroot an chroot too?
That's two different things: 1) The build script creates a chroot to build the packages reproducibly. This is typically /var/tmp/build-root 2) rpmbuild _inside the chroot_ uses a staging directory where 'make install' is supposed to put files in, this is either defined by the spec file (e.g. BuildRoot: /var/tmp/%name-%version-build) or the new default is used. Michal -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
* Michal Marek (mmarek@suse.cz) [20090905 13:40]:
install' is supposed to put files in, this is either defined by the spec file (e.g. BuildRoot: /var/tmp/%name-%version-build) or the new default is used.
Better tell that rpm :-) The current rpm in factory ignores BuildRoot completely and *always* uses the new default. Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 01:37:25PM +0200, Philipp Thomas wrote:
* Michal Marek (mmarek@suse.cz) [20090905 13:40]:
install' is supposed to put files in, this is either defined by the spec file (e.g. BuildRoot: /var/tmp/%name-%version-build) or the new default is used.
Better tell that rpm :-) The current rpm in factory ignores BuildRoot completely and *always* uses the new default.
Yes, we currently set the buildroot in /usr/lib/rpm/macros (like "upstream" suggests). This overwrites anything from the spec file. Cheers, Michael. -- Michael Schroeder mls@suse.de SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF Markus Rex, HRB 16746 AG Nuernberg main(_){while(_=~getchar())putchar(~_-1/(~(_|32)/13*2-11)*13);} -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009, Pavol Rusnak wrote:
New RPM 4.7.1 hit Factory and I created a list of interesting changes from Packagers' point of view. You can read the full post at [1] (and it will probably grow until 11.2 final is out), but I will also post the shortened version here too:
* Macro %patch does not behave like %patch0 anymore. Stop using it and use Patch0: and %patch0 in your .spec files.
* Fuzz tolerance for patches was changed from 2 to zero. All patches must apply cleanly now.
* Sub-packages can be declared as “noarch” now. Such .spec file is incompatible with older RPM but the resulting binary packages are compatible.
* Section %files now supports multiple file lists. No need to join the files into one in %install section.
* The new macros %{patches} and %{sources} are available. You can use them in for loops to iterate over all patches and sources respectively.
[1] http://stick.gk2.sk/blog/2009/09/new-rpm-in-opensuse-factory/
Thanks, this is really great news.
--
Boyd Gerber
Hi Pavol, Le vendredi 04 septembre 2009, Pavol Rusnak a écrit :
New RPM 4.7.1 hit Factory and I created a list of interesting changes from Packagers' point of view. You can read the full post at [1] (and it will probably grow until 11.2 final is out), but I will also post the shortened version here too:
* Macro %patch does not behave like %patch0 anymore. Stop using it and use Patch0: and %patch0 in your .spec files.
What about Source:? Is it still equivalent to Source0:?
* Fuzz tolerance for patches was changed from 2 to zero. All patches must apply cleanly now.
This is great news :)
* Sub-packages can be declared as “noarch” now. Such .spec file is incompatible with older RPM but the resulting binary packages are compatible.
* Section %files now supports multiple file lists. No need to join the files into one in %install section.
* The new macros %{patches} and %{sources} are available. You can use them in for loops to iterate over all patches and sources respectively.
[1] http://stick.gk2.sk/blog/2009/09/new-rpm-in-opensuse-factory/
Thanks for the great summary! -- Jean Delvare Suse L3 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
Jean Delvare wrote:
What about Source:? Is it still equivalent to Source0:?
No changes wrt to sources. -- Best Regards / S pozdravom, Pavol RUSNAK SUSE LINUX, s.r.o openSUSE Community Multiplier Team Lihovarska 1060/12 PGP 0xA6917144 19000 Praha 9, CR prusnak[at]suse.cz http://www.suse.cz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
Pavol Rusnak napsal(a):
* Fuzz tolerance for patches was changed from 2 to zero. All patches must apply cleanly now.
FYI, this is currently reverted in Factory. Michal -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
Michal Marek wrote:
Pavol Rusnak napsal(a):
* Fuzz tolerance for patches was changed from 2 to zero. All patches must apply cleanly now.
FYI, this is currently reverted in Factory.
I learned that too. But it will be unreverted as soon as Factory is unfrozen, so it's better to get used to that:-) -- Best Regards / S pozdravom, Pavol RUSNAK SUSE LINUX, s.r.o openSUSE Community Multiplier Team Lihovarska 1060/12 PGP 0xA6917144 19000 Praha 9, CR prusnak[at]suse.cz http://www.suse.cz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On Mon, 7 Sep 2009, Michal Marek wrote:
Pavol Rusnak napsal(a):
* Fuzz tolerance for patches was changed from 2 to zero. All patches must apply cleanly now.
FYI, this is currently reverted in Factory.
Which is a bad idea IMHO. Twice already we had interesting miscompiles in gcc just because a backend patch was applied with fuzz 2. Richard. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
Am Dienstag 08 September 2009 schrieb Richard Guenther:
On Mon, 7 Sep 2009, Michal Marek wrote:
Pavol Rusnak napsal(a):
* Fuzz tolerance for patches was changed from 2 to zero. All patches must apply cleanly now.
FYI, this is currently reverted in Factory.
Which is a bad idea IMHO. Twice already we had interesting miscompiles in gcc just because a backend patch was applied with fuzz 2.
Updating rpm only so late in the cycle was a bad idea to begin with :) Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
Stephan Kulow wrote:
Updating rpm only so late in the cycle was a bad idea to begin with :)
I guess this should be reformulated as: "not updating rpm sooner in the cycle was a bad idea" :-) -- Best Regards / S pozdravom, Pavol RUSNAK SUSE LINUX, s.r.o openSUSE Community Multiplier Team Lihovarska 1060/12 PGP 0xA6917144 19000 Praha 9, CR prusnak[at]suse.cz http://www.suse.cz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On 04/09/09 10:53, Pavol Rusnak wrote:
* Sub-packages can be declared as “noarch” now. Such .spec file is incompatible with older RPM but the resulting binary packages are compatible.
then, %lang_package(s) should be declared as "noarch" right ? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
On 04/09/09 10:53, Pavol Rusnak wrote:
* Sub-packages can be declared as “noarch” now. Such .spec file is incompatible with older RPM but the resulting binary packages are compatible.
then, %lang_package(s) should be declared as "noarch" right ?
Yes, that would make sense. See the discussion in opensuse-factory[1]. [1] http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2009-09/msg00051.html -- Best Regards / S pozdravom, Pavol RUSNAK SUSE LINUX, s.r.o openSUSE Community Multiplier Team Lihovarska 1060/12 PGP 0xA6917144 19000 Praha 9, CR prusnak[at]suse.cz http://www.suse.cz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On 08/09/09 03:17, Pavol Rusnak wrote:
then, %lang_package(s) should be declared as "noarch" right ?
Yes, that would make sense. See the discussion in opensuse-factory[1].
Done, submit request number 20114- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
participants (11)
-
Boyd Lynn Gerber -
Cristian Rodríguez -
Jean Delvare -
Michael Schroeder -
Michal Marek -
Pavol Rusnak -
Philipp Thomas -
Richard Guenther -
Sascha 'saigkill' Manns -
Stephan Kulow -
Vincent Untz