Hi, the build server builds my package (sax2) for SuSE dists just fine but to build for RedHat (FC5) I'm using a different spec file. The main reason for this are the package name differences within the BuildRequires statement. For example: SuSE: ghostscript-fonts-std FC5: xorg-x11-server-sdk The package structures on RedHat are very different from the SuSE ones. So it's in many cases not only the name which is different. How do I handle this within one spec file in the opensuse build service ? Thanks Regards Marcus -- Public Key available ------------------------------------------------------- Marcus Schäfer (Res. & Dev.) SUSE LINUX Products GmbH Tel: 0911-740 53 0 Maxfeldstrasse 5 FAX: 0911-740 53 479 D-90409 Nürnberg http://www.suse.de Germany -------------------------------------------------------
Hi, On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 04:21:51PM +0200, Marcus Schäfer wrote:
the build server builds my package (sax2) for SuSE dists just fine but to build for RedHat (FC5) I'm using a different spec file. The main reason for this are the package name differences within the BuildRequires statement.
For example:
SuSE: ghostscript-fonts-std FC5: xorg-x11-server-sdk
The package structures on RedHat are very different from the SuSE ones. So it's in many cases not only the name which is different. How do I handle this within one spec file in the opensuse build service ?
This might work for you: %if %{?suse_version:1}%{?!suse_version:0} BuildRequires: ghostscript-fonts-std %else BuildRequires: xorg-x11-server-sdk %endif Regards, Peter -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH Thought is limitation. Research & Development Free your mind.
Hi,
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 04:21:51PM +0200, Marcus Schäfer wrote:
the build server builds my package (sax2) for SuSE dists just fine but to build for RedHat (FC5) I'm using a different spec file. The main reason for this are the package name differences within the BuildRequires statement.
For example:
SuSE: ghostscript-fonts-std FC5: xorg-x11-server-sdk
The package structures on RedHat are very different from the SuSE ones. So it's in many cases not only the name which is different. How do I handle this within one spec file in the opensuse build service ?
This might work for you:
%if %{?suse_version:1}%{?!suse_version:0} BuildRequires: ghostscript-fonts-std %else BuildRequires: xorg-x11-server-sdk %endif
Thanks this should work for me. Ok one of the packages in BuildRequires is: graphviz this package normally exists on SuSE and RedHat with that name. The build server told me: nothing provides graphviz ? Regards Marcus -- Public Key available ------------------------------------------------------- Marcus Schäfer (Res. & Dev.) SUSE LINUX Products GmbH Tel: 0911-740 53 0 Maxfeldstrasse 5 FAX: 0911-740 53 479 D-90409 Nürnberg http://www.suse.de Germany -------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
Thanks this should work for me. Ok one of the packages in BuildRequires is:
graphviz
this package normally exists on SuSE and RedHat with that name. The build server told me:
nothing provides graphviz
ok, I see graphviz is not part of the FC5 package set. Adrian I have a FC5 DVD including almost all packages Would you like to check the packages there ? Thanks Regards Marcus -- Public Key available ------------------------------------------------------- Marcus Schäfer (Res. & Dev.) SUSE LINUX Products GmbH Tel: 0911-740 53 0 Maxfeldstrasse 5 FAX: 0911-740 53 479 D-90409 Nürnberg http://www.suse.de Germany -------------------------------------------------------
Am Tuesday 25 April 2006 17:13 schrieb Marcus Schäfer:
Hi,
Thanks this should work for me. Ok one of the packages in BuildRequires is:
graphviz
this package normally exists on SuSE and RedHat with that name. The build server told me:
nothing provides graphviz
ok, I see graphviz is not part of the FC5 package set. Adrian I have a FC5 DVD including almost all packages Would you like to check the packages there ?
yes, let's talk about that tomorrow. -- Adrian Schroeter SUSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nuernberg, Germany email: adrian@suse.de
Hi,
Am Tuesday 25 April 2006 17:13 schrieb Marcus Schäfer:
Hi,
Thanks this should work for me. Ok one of the packages in BuildRequires is:
graphviz
this package normally exists on SuSE and RedHat with that name. The build server told me:
nothing provides graphviz
ok, I see graphviz is not part of the FC5 package set. Adrian I have a FC5 DVD including almost all packages Would you like to check the packages there ?
yes, let's talk about that tomorrow.
I will visit you in your office tomorrow. Regards Marcus -- Public Key available ------------------------------------------------------- Marcus Schäfer (Res. & Dev.) SUSE LINUX Products GmbH Tel: 0911-740 53 0 Maxfeldstrasse 5 FAX: 0911-740 53 479 D-90409 Nürnberg http://www.suse.de Germany -------------------------------------------------------
Am Tuesday 25 April 2006 16:43 schrieb Marcus Schäfer:
Hi,
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 04:21:51PM +0200, Marcus Schäfer wrote:
the build server builds my package (sax2) for SuSE dists just fine but to build for RedHat (FC5) I'm using a different spec file. The main reason for this are the package name differences within the BuildRequires statement.
For example:
SuSE: ghostscript-fonts-std FC5: xorg-x11-server-sdk
The package structures on RedHat are very different from the SuSE ones. So it's in many cases not only the name which is different. How do I handle this within one spec file in the opensuse build service ?
This might work for you:
%if %{?suse_version:1}%{?!suse_version:0} BuildRequires: ghostscript-fonts-std %else BuildRequires: xorg-x11-server-sdk %endif
Thanks this should work for me. Ok one of the packages in BuildRequires is:
graphviz
this package normally exists on SuSE and RedHat with that name. The build server told me:
nothing provides graphviz
it is not part of FC . Many packages do need it, so it is maybe a good idea to start a project to build graphviz for FC. This one can be used by all others. bye adrian -- Adrian Schroeter SUSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nuernberg, Germany email: adrian@suse.de
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dr. Peter Poeml wrote: [...]
%if %{?suse_version:1}%{?!suse_version:0} BuildRequires: ghostscript-fonts-std %else BuildRequires: xorg-x11-server-sdk %endif
Or, just for the record, even shorter ;)
%if %{?suse_version:1}0
BuildRequires: ghostscript-fonts-std
%else
BuildRequires: xorg-x11-server-sdk
%endif
cheers
- --
-o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/
/\\
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 08:08:14PM +0200, Pascal Bleser wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Dr. Peter Poeml wrote: [...]
%if %{?suse_version:1}%{?!suse_version:0} BuildRequires: ghostscript-fonts-std %else BuildRequires: xorg-x11-server-sdk %endif
Or, just for the record, even shorter ;)
%if %{?suse_version:1}0 BuildRequires: ghostscript-fonts-std %else BuildRequires: xorg-x11-server-sdk %endif
It would be even nicer, if the %defined/%undefined macros would work. They exist on SUSE, Fedora, Mandrake. It would be possible to use %if %{defined suse_version} or %if %{undefined suse_version} which is much better to read, especially as soon as it gets more complicated. During build, they actually work, but the build system can't handle them at the moment. The resolving of Buildrequires doesn't work with that. Even though the macros simply expand to the %{?suse_version:1}%{?!suse_version:0} stuff. Regards, Peter -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH Thought is limitation. Research & Development Free your mind.
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 03:09:33PM +0200, Dr. Peter Poeml wrote:
It would be even nicer, if the %defined/%undefined macros would work. They exist on SUSE, Fedora, Mandrake.
It would be possible to use %if %{defined suse_version} or %if %{undefined suse_version} which is much better to read, especially as soon as it gets more complicated.
They now work. Cheers, Michael. -- Michael Schroeder mls@suse.de main(_){while(_=~getchar())putchar(~_-1/(~(_|32)/13*2-11)*13);}
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 04:34:19PM +0200, Michael Schroeder wrote:
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 03:09:33PM +0200, Dr. Peter Poeml wrote:
It would be even nicer, if the %defined/%undefined macros would work. They exist on SUSE, Fedora, Mandrake.
It would be possible to use %if %{defined suse_version} or %if %{undefined suse_version} which is much better to read, especially as soon as it gets more complicated.
They now work.
They don't seem to work in every platform -- is that possible? see http://api.opensuse.org/result/Apache/SUSE_Linux_10.0/libapr1/i586/log ... error: parse error in expression error: /usr/src/packages/SOURCES/libapr1.spec:14: parseExpressionBoolean returns -1 error: Version field must be present in package: (main package) error: Release field must be present in package: (main package) error: Summary field must be present in package: (main package) error: Group field must be present in package: (main package) error: License field must be present in package: (main package) Peter -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH Thought is limitation. Research & Development Free your mind.
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:33:48PM +0200, Dr. Peter Poeml wrote:
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 04:34:19PM +0200, Michael Schroeder wrote:
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 03:09:33PM +0200, Dr. Peter Poeml wrote:
It would be even nicer, if the %defined/%undefined macros would work. They exist on SUSE, Fedora, Mandrake.
It would be possible to use %if %{defined suse_version} or %if %{undefined suse_version} which is much better to read, especially as soon as it gets more complicated.
They now work.
They don't seem to work in every platform -- is that possible?
see http://api.opensuse.org/result/Apache/SUSE_Linux_10.0/libapr1/i586/log
Yes, I said that the backend now understands then. They don't work in SL10.0 as they came with rpm-4.4.2. We could also define them for the old distributions, but that would mean that the src.rpms wouldn't built anymore. Opinions? Cheers, Michael. -- Michael Schroeder mls@suse.de main(_){while(_=~getchar())putchar(~_-1/(~(_|32)/13*2-11)*13);}
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Michael Schroeder wrote:
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:33:48PM +0200, Dr. Peter Poeml wrote:
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 04:34:19PM +0200, Michael Schroeder wrote:
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 03:09:33PM +0200, Dr. Peter Poeml wrote:
It would be even nicer, if the %defined/%undefined macros would work. They exist on SUSE, Fedora, Mandrake.
It would be possible to use %if %{defined suse_version} or %if %{undefined suse_version} which is much better to read, especially as soon as it gets more complicated. They now work. They don't seem to work in every platform -- is that possible?
see http://api.opensuse.org/result/Apache/SUSE_Linux_10.0/libapr1/i586/log
Yes, I said that the backend now understands then. They don't work in SL10.0 as they came with rpm-4.4.2.
We could also define them for the old distributions, but that would mean that the src.rpms wouldn't built anymore. Opinions?
Bad idea IMO :\
I think that rebuilding of src.rpms on "old", pristine SUSE Linux
versions is not a feature that should be discarded.
For the record and/or people joining the thread now, note that the
following, equivalent (albeit more cryptic) notation works with 4.x.x:
%if %{?suse_version:1}0
or
%if %{?!suse_version:1}0
Personally, I would much favor using the notation as above and keeping
the possibility of rebuilding src.rpms on pristine SL <= 10.0. The nicer
notation isn't worth the sacrifice IMO.
What do you guys think ?
cheers
- --
-o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/
/\\
participants (5)
-
Adrian Schröter -
Dr. Peter Poeml -
Marcus Schäfer -
Michael Schroeder -
Pascal Bleser