On 2/10/21 4:18 AM, L A Walsh wrote:
On 2021/02/09 05:34, bugzilla_noreply(a)suse.com
Richard Brown <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
changed bug 1180367
What Removed Added
Status REOPENED RESOLVED
CC rbrown(a)suse.com <mailto:email@example.com>
Resolution --- INVALID
*Comment # 7
<https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1180367#c7>> on bug
<https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1180367>> from Richard
Brown <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> *
Due to the following reasons, this bug is INVALID
1) Title is factually incorrect - complete sources are shipped. This
alone makes this bug INVALID.
The rpms are supposed to include the source needed
to regenerate a package. Using the source rpm for a specific
binary doesn't allow for generation. Thus the claim that the
complete sources for generating a given binary package. That
users cannot generate a given binary rpm from the source rpm
has been been noted by others on the public lists.
The source rpm's should include all the source needed to regenerate a
package, under the right environment which involves a version of rpm
that is new enough, and having the right macro's / defines for leap you
can find them here
someone could make an argument that the project config could go in
source rpm's however this would make it harder to rebuild a source rpm
for a different distro.
2) Component is incorrect - this is not a valid
But it is an upgrade problem in that it is trying
to upgrade the rpm-package that is failing from opensuse
Do you mean trying to rebuild the rpm package with an old version of rpm
is failing? Because i'm not sure thats something we need to support.
3) Bug report claims a GPL violation, but the
(Clause 3) clearly spells out the obligation of the licensee is to
distribute "all the source code for
all modules it contains.
By definition opensuse claims that the src-rpm is
sufficient to reproduce the binary package. If this is not
the case, then the src-rpm is broken. If you feel the src-rpm
is broken, you welcome to re-assign this to someone who handles
the release of rpm.
With the right tooling it is sufficient, all the tooling we use is open
source and you are able to download it and install it yourself if you wish.
definition files, plus the scripts used to control
compilation and installation of the executable".
openSUSE fulfills this obligation. Bug reporter clearly states a
desire to use their own scripts and tools to control
I desire to be able to use the src.rpm's open suse delivered to me
to be able to generate them. They are not
my own scripts or tools -- but ones delivered by open suse.
Requiring that one can only install them via a
proprietary build system is breaking the GPL. I cannot verify that the
tools and sources on a remote machine
are the ones I have installed and are trustworthy. Being able to
generate those binaries that the vendor
claims the sources for reside in the corresponding src rpms
are the claim that is broken. Suse's published sources
for rpms won't generate the binaries for those rpms.
I'm not sure where your getting the idea of a "Proprietary build system"
to install them, I presume you mean build them. openSUSE uses Open
Build Service (https://openbuildservice.org/
) to build its rpm's its
completely open source and has detailed instructions on how you can
install it so it could be considered as part of the source required and
if you did need to use it to build our rpm's it wouldn't be a GPL violation.
openSUSE's rpms are all buildable when using any rpmbuild binaries
that support boolean dependencies.
And the rpm-source is supposed to list the tools
needed to generate those tools. If it does not, that is
out of my control.
The fact that the rpm spec file doesn't list a minimum required version
for rpm-build is probably a very minor bug. It is the kind of bug that
probably exists in a very large number of packages, generally as
packagers if the builds everywhere we care about (generally all
supported openSUSE and maybe SLE distros) then we wont bother going
through and updating all the minimum required versions unless we see it
break somewhere. For example if I was building a package that required
Meson 0.56.0 i'd put an explicit version there as that version is
unavailable on Leap and then i'd get a clear error saying I can't build
this package due to not having a new enough meson on OBS rather then a
build fail that i'd have to dig into. On the other hand if my package
requires cmake 3.0.0 or later I probably won't bother mentioning that
because its pretty reasonable to assume that we have atleast that
version of cmake everywhere because its been around forever. (Also I
wouldn't hit an error anywhere so I probably wouldn't bother checking
the version needed).
It is not a
valid bug just because the reporter
wishes to use an unsupported rpmbuild binary of their
I used the listed rpm provided by opensuse. It is
not my version -- it is opensuse's version. If the src rpm
requires some other binary version then open suse needs to
include the source for that version as well. The problem
is that the binary you claim is necessary to build the rpm
is the same rpm that doesn't build. That's a catch-22.
I have rpm V4.11. I'm trying to build the rpm-v4.15 binary
from the v4.15 sources. But you are claiming that I need
rpm 4.15 in order to build 4.15. That is not possible. If
you require a specific version of rpm it, needs to be included
in some "reasonable" pre-req list. So I can upgrade from my
opensuse rpm to the current one. That chain is what is broken.
No I think we are at least somewhat sane and probably required that rpm
v4.14 also built v4.15 so with the right collection of source rpm's for
rpmbuild you probably could upgrade. I don't think its our
responsibility to continue to provide old versions indefinitely. We
provide multiple ways that would allow you to create a new chroot
capable of building the rpm source package, either using obs or rpmbuild.
Original bug title: complete sources to generate rpms
are not shipped with the binaries, violating GPL
Objective reality: complete sources to generate
rpms ARE shipped with the binaries, openSUSE's GPL is not violated.
Complete sources are noted to be the src rpm
of the binary. The src-rpm doesn't generate the given
binaries. This is a FAIL.
Reporters reality: sources do not work with rpmbuild
binary chosen by reporter.
The binary supplied by opensuse. If you have
a different binary you want me to install, I'm more
than open to it.
You could use the binaries for open build service, you could use the
current rpm 4.16 binaries provided in tumbleweed, there is also a high
chance that you could use the 4.14 binaries provided for leap
Reporter needs to choose a different rpmbuild binary or
manually build rpmbuild using the sources that are shipped with
the rpmbuild shipped with openSUSE is the exact binary I am trying
to build. You are claiming I need some
specific version of rpm, like rpm-4.15-build to build rpm-4.15? Too
clearly, that is not possibly. The rpm.spec
is supposed to include the requirements needed to build
that rpm. It doesn't specify a version of rpm.
Yep this is a minor rpm packaging bug, you could file a bug and the
maintainer will fix it if they have time, alternatively it would
probably take you 10 minutes to fork the package on obs fix it then
resubmit it, i'm happy to help with that process if you'd like.
Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net
Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek
SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30
GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B