I am trying to add a few packages to the SLE:SDK:Extras repository, and would prefer to just link to the ones that exist in OpenSUSE 10.1, but It seems as if this is not possible.
Am I missing something? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+help@opensuse.org
Am Thursday 04 January 2007 00:15 schrieb jay migliaccio:
I am trying to add a few packages to the SLE:SDK:Extras repository, and would prefer to just link to the ones that exist in OpenSUSE 10.1, but It seems as if this is not possible.
Am I missing something?
we do not have sources of 10.1/10.2 in the build service, because these distros where still developed in the SUSE internal autobuild.
But openSUSE:Factory gets the sources now :)
bye adrian
Hi!
Am Donnerstag, 4. Januar 2007 17:20 schrieb Adrian Schröter:
Am Thursday 04 January 2007 00:15 schrieb jay migliaccio:
I am trying to add a few packages to the SLE:SDK:Extras repository, and would prefer to just link to the ones that exist in OpenSUSE 10.1, but It seems as if this is not possible.
Am I missing something?
we do not have sources of 10.1/10.2 in the build service, because these distros where still developed in the SUSE internal autobuild.
...which reminds me of a question I wanted to ask since quite a time: there's no possibility for a buildservice user to provide "binary-only" RPMs to the buildservice somehow, right? I.e. provide an own "repository" or at least some single packages?
On 2007-01-05 08:35:09 +0100, Hillier, Gernot wrote:
...which reminds me of a question I wanted to ask since quite a time: there's no possibility for a buildservice user to provide "binary-only" RPMs to the buildservice somehow, right? I.e. provide an own "repository" or at least some single packages?
no. what would be the use case? why do you need binary-only rpms from opensource software?
darix
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 04:07:48PM +0100, Marcus Rueckert wrote:
On 2007-01-05 08:35:09 +0100, Hillier, Gernot wrote:
...which reminds me of a question I wanted to ask since quite a time: there's no possibility for a buildservice user to provide "binary-only" RPMs to the buildservice somehow, right? I.e. provide an own "repository" or at least some single packages?
no. what would be the use case? why do you need binary-only rpms from opensource software?
One possible use case is that you have a tool that needs itself to build because it does not provide a clean bootstrap method. In that case it can ease the pain to initially inject a working version into the build system.
Robert
On 2007-01-09 16:35:54 +0100, Robert Schiele wrote:
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 04:07:48PM +0100, Marcus Rueckert wrote:
On 2007-01-05 08:35:09 +0100, Hillier, Gernot wrote:
...which reminds me of a question I wanted to ask since quite a time: there's no possibility for a buildservice user to provide "binary-only" RPMs to the buildservice somehow, right? I.e. provide an own "repository" or at least some single packages?
no. what would be the use case? why do you need binary-only rpms from opensource software?
One possible use case is that you have a tool that needs itself to build because it does not provide a clean bootstrap method. In that case it can ease the pain to initially inject a working version into the build system.
i know some possible use cases. i am just curios what his use case is.
darix
Hi!
Am Dienstag, 9. Januar 2007 17:03 schrieb Marcus Rueckert:
On 2007-01-09 16:35:54 +0100, Robert Schiele wrote:
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 04:07:48PM +0100, Marcus Rueckert wrote:
On 2007-01-05 08:35:09 +0100, Hillier, Gernot wrote:
...which reminds me of a question I wanted to ask since quite a time: there's no possibility for a buildservice user to provide "binary-only" RPMs to the buildservice somehow, right? I.e. provide an own "repository" or at least some single packages?
no. what would be the use case? why do you need binary-only rpms from opensource software?
One possible use case is that you have a tool that needs itself to build because it does not provide a clean bootstrap method. In that case it can ease the pain to initially inject a working version into the build system.
i know some possible use cases. i am just curios what his use case is.
Ok, sorry for the delay. I personally see 1.5 use cases:
1) You want to build a package against the native Java packages in SUSE 10.0 let's say. It took me about three days and 30 packages in the build service until I could start my real package work. So this one really hurt me (especially as Java packages are really no fun). But, well - if I wouldn't had the need to do this, I'd never had developed the "createpacfromsrcrpm" extension to osc. :)
2) You want to build a package which has a "legally problematic" package in the dependency chain. Think especially about Multimedia stuff. However, I'm not sure if adding binary RPMs could make the situation more clean in some way...
On 2007-01-12 09:50:20 +0100, Hillier, Gernot wrote:
- You want to build a package against the native Java packages in SUSE 10.0
let's say. It took me about three days and 30 packages in the build service until I could start my real package work. So this one really hurt me (especially as Java packages are really no fun). But, well - if I wouldn't had the need to do this, I'd never had developed the "createpacfromsrcrpm" extension to osc. :)
if the packages in the dependency chain are missing than you have to provide them as regular packages anyway. i dont see the advantage here.
- You want to build a package which has a "legally problematic" package in
the dependency chain. Think especially about Multimedia stuff. However, I'm not sure if adding binary RPMs could make the situation more clean in some way...
no. as the binary rpm is still a legal problem.
darix
Hi!
Am Freitag, 12. Januar 2007 12:00 schrieb Marcus Rueckert:
On 2007-01-12 09:50:20 +0100, Hillier, Gernot wrote:
- You want to build a package against the native Java packages in SUSE
10.0 let's say. It took me about three days and 30 packages in the build service until I could start my real package work. So this one really hurt me (especially as Java packages are really no fun). But, well - if I wouldn't had the need to do this, I'd never had developed the "createpacfromsrcrpm" extension to osc. :)
if the packages in the dependency chain are missing than you have to provide them as regular packages anyway. i dont see the advantage here.
Sorry, but I don't understand that argument. I want to compile a package against /opensuse/distribution/SL-10.0-OSS/inst-source-java. So I would like to add the binary packages from there as a sort of "build repository". In the same way as SUSE adds all the distro versions like Fedora Core, Debian etc.
build won't need the Source RPM of java while building my RPM, but only the binary one. So why do I have to build Java first?
It's actually not really a problem for me as I just added the needed 30 Java packages to my home repository finally. But it was definitely a waste of build server power, bandwith, storage and finally time...
Hi Gernot
Am Fr 12.01.2007 12:33 schrieb "Hillier, Gernot" gernot@hillier.de:
Sorry, but I don't understand that argument. I want to compile a package against /opensuse/distribution/SL-10.0-OSS/inst-source-java. So I would like to add the binary packages from there as a sort of "build repository". In the same way as SUSE adds all the distro versions like Fedora Core, Debian etc.
build won't need the Source RPM of java while building my RPM, but only the binary one. So why do I have to build Java first?
It's actually not really a problem for me as I just added the needed 30 Java packages to my home repository finally. But it was definitely a waste of build server power, bandwith, storage and finally time...
Yes, you're right! Michael has improved the build service with the "Aggregate" functionallity for this. Currently I don't know if osc supports this feature.
But you just need a placeholder package and in there a file named "_aggregate". For example: <aggregatelist> <aggregate project="SL-10.0-OSS"> <package>java</package> </aggregate> </aggregatelist>
I' add a complete example to the documentation as soon as possible.
Hint: An "osc checkout home:mlschroe" seems always a good idea. ;-)
Greetings, Lars
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+help@opensuse.org
On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 11:37:25 +0100, Lars Rupp wrote:
Michael has improved the build service with the "Aggregate" functionallity for this. Currently I don't know if osc supports this feature.
It supports it the same way it supports linked packages at the moment. It checks out the raw _foo file and you can hand edit it, and check it in again.
(I'm saying "at the moment" because we are thinking about changing the way how it is handled, to make it more powerful, for example in order to enable you to build linked packages locally, what doesn't work at the moment. One current idea is that osc checks out a readily patched package.)
Regards, Peter
buildservice@lists.opensuse.org
-
Adrian Schröter -
Dr. Peter Poeml -
Hillier, Gernot -
jay migliaccio -
Lars Rupp -
Marcus Rueckert -
Robert Schiele