[opensuse-kde] Multiple obs packages with the same source
I notice in several cases there are several OBS packages with the same source files but with multiple spec files. Examples include kdegames4/kdegames4-carddecks and kdebase4-workspace/python-kdebase4. These seem to make the packages more complicated, harder to maintain, and require additional build resources since everything needs to be built twice. Is there a reason for this separation that overrides the difficulties? If not I can merge them back together. I know something like this wouldn't be done for no reason, but I thought it was possible that these were carried over from earlier days when spec files lacked capabilites they have now (like noarch subpackages) and no one had been seen it as enough of a difficulty to change. -Todd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kde+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-kde+help@opensuse.org
Hi; Am Sat 17 Sep 2011 11:11:51 AM CEST schrieb todd rme <toddrme2178@gmail.com>:
I notice in several cases there are several OBS packages with the same source files but with multiple spec files. Examples include kdegames4/kdegames4-carddecks and kdebase4-workspace/python-kdebase4.
From the look of of both it seems to be the case that they can be merged indeed. Any expert opinions? Regards. -- Ismail Dönmez - openSUSE Booster SUSE LINUX Products GmbH Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kde+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-kde+help@opensuse.org
On Saturday 17 September 2011 11:30:03 Ismail Doenmez wrote:
Hi;
Am Sat 17 Sep 2011 11:11:51 AM CEST schrieb todd rme <toddrme2178@gmail.com>:
I notice in several cases there are several OBS packages with the same source files but with multiple spec files. Examples include kdegames4/kdegames4-carddecks and kdebase4-workspace/python-kdebase4.
From the look of of both it seems to be the case that they can be merged indeed. Any expert opinions?
Regards. Hi Todd and Ismail,
I wish that things would be that simple. If you check the spec-file of python- kdebase4, then you know it has a BuildRequires for python-kde4. Checking the spec-file for python-kde4, you can find a BuildRequires for kdebase4- workspace-devel. As Todd indicated in the past we splitted out packages in separate spec-files based on limitations of the spec-file itself. However there were also some other reasons. One of them I mentioned above as that we never would be able to build things due to dependencies on eachother. Building directly from source on your local workstation is different as that there you normally have an installed KDE environment, but this is not the case with OBS. Another one is to save BuildPower. Most of the noarch packages are build only for the i586 part and NOT on the x86_64 part. Also it could happen that with splitting out you could build a certain part earlier due to less dependencies than the main package. This would allow that more packages are build at the same moment and this has a positive effect on the total buildtime required for the full project. I know that Lubos spend quite some time in finding out the right split for this. The maintenaince is not that big as that most of those packages contain a shell script (pre-checkin.sh) that allows us to change only the spec-file for the main package and then this script would transfer the changes to the other spec-files. My opinion would be to leave them as they are now. But in the end it would be Will to decide how to continue. Maybe an agenda topic for out biweekly team meeting ? Regards Raymond -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kde+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-kde+help@opensuse.org
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Raymond Wooninck <tittiatcoke@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday 17 September 2011 11:30:03 Ismail Doenmez wrote:
Hi;
Am Sat 17 Sep 2011 11:11:51 AM CEST schrieb todd rme <toddrme2178@gmail.com>:
I notice in several cases there are several OBS packages with the same source files but with multiple spec files. Examples include kdegames4/kdegames4-carddecks and kdebase4-workspace/python-kdebase4.
From the look of of both it seems to be the case that they can be merged indeed. Any expert opinions?
Regards. Hi Todd and Ismail,
I wish that things would be that simple. If you check the spec-file of python- kdebase4, then you know it has a BuildRequires for python-kde4. Checking the spec-file for python-kde4, you can find a BuildRequires for kdebase4- workspace-devel.
As Todd indicated in the past we splitted out packages in separate spec-files based on limitations of the spec-file itself. However there were also some other reasons. One of them I mentioned above as that we never would be able to build things due to dependencies on eachother. Building directly from source on your local workstation is different as that there you normally have an installed KDE environment, but this is not the case with OBS.
Another one is to save BuildPower. Most of the noarch packages are build only for the i586 part and NOT on the x86_64 part. Also it could happen that with splitting out you could build a certain part earlier due to less dependencies than the main package. This would allow that more packages are build at the same moment and this has a positive effect on the total buildtime required for the full project. I know that Lubos spend quite some time in finding out the right split for this.
The maintenaince is not that big as that most of those packages contain a shell script (pre-checkin.sh) that allows us to change only the spec-file for the main package and then this script would transfer the changes to the other spec-files.
My opinion would be to leave them as they are now. But in the end it would be Will to decide how to continue. Maybe an agenda topic for out biweekly team meeting ?
Regards
Raymond
I thought it might be something like that, which is why I asked. On a slightly off-topic note: how do you trigger those shell scripts? I am trying to fix some of the translation summaries and descriptions and the shell scripts don't seem to be triggered automatically in my OBS repos. I've also been manually copying and pasting stuff between the packages. -Todd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kde+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-kde+help@opensuse.org
Hi; Am Sat 17 Sep 2011 12:14:29 PM CEST schrieb todd rme <toddrme2178@gmail.com>:
On a slightly off-topic note: how do you trigger those shell scripts? I am trying to fix some of the translation summaries and descriptions and the shell scripts don't seem to be triggered automatically in my OBS repos. I've also been manually copying and pasting stuff between the packages.
Usually, sh ./pre_checkin.sh before commiting. Regards. -- Ismail Dönmez - openSUSE Booster SUSE LINUX Products GmbH Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kde+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-kde+help@opensuse.org
On Saturday 17 September 2011 12:16:19 Ismail Doenmez wrote:
Hi;
Am Sat 17 Sep 2011 12:14:29 PM CEST schrieb todd rme <toddrme2178@gmail.com>:
On a slightly off-topic note: how do you trigger those shell scripts? I am trying to fix some of the translation summaries and descriptions and the shell scripts don't seem to be triggered automatically in my OBS repos. I've also been manually copying and pasting stuff between the packages.
Usually, sh ./pre_checkin.sh before commiting.
Regards.
Correct :-) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kde+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-kde+help@opensuse.org
On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 11:44, Raymond Wooninck <tittiatcoke@...> wrote:
On Saturday 17 September 2011 11:30:03 Ismail Doenmez wrote:
Hi;
Am Sat 17 Sep 2011 11:11:51 AM CEST schrieb todd rme <toddrme2178@gmail.com>:
I notice in several cases there are several OBS packages with the same source files but with multiple spec files. Examples include kdegames4/kdegames4-carddecks and kdebase4-workspace/python-kdebase4.
From the look of of both it seems to be the case that they can be merged indeed. Any expert opinions?
Regards. Hi Todd and Ismail,
I wish that things would be that simple. If you check the spec-file of python- kdebase4, then you know it has a BuildRequires for python-kde4. Checking the spec-file for python-kde4, you can find a BuildRequires for kdebase4- workspace-devel. <snip>
Okay, this would exclude python-kde4, python-kdebase4, kdebase4-workspace from merging. I can't find a similar cause, not even Build-Power conservation for the case of libkdegames4/kdegames4/kdegames4-carddecks. Is kdegames4-carddecks the only one consumer of kdegames4? When one looks via zypper search kdegames it does looks like, and what of libkdegames4? A better naming scheme for the dependants of kdegames4 (base) would be helpfull. Cheers, Yamaban. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kde+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-kde+help@opensuse.org
On Saturday 17 September 2011 12:49:16 Yamaban wrote:
I can't find a similar cause, not even Build-Power conservation for the case of libkdegames4/kdegames4/kdegames4-carddecks.
I never said that my explanation was applicable for all packages. There are some that were build due to old spec-file restrictions, that are currently no longer applicable. However each package should be reviewed step by step, however with the move to GIT, all packages will be build as separate packages, so this issue would resolve itself in time. At the moment it is only applicable for those packages still in SVN.
Is kdegames4-carddecks the only one consumer of kdegames4?
What do you mean with consumer ? kdegames4 builds a number of rpm files which contains the separate games. However there is only one tarball for kdegames.
When one looks via zypper search kdegames it does looks like, and what of libkdegames4?
The rpm file libkdegames4 contains some central library required by most of the games build from the kdegames tarball. That is why it is packaged separately so that all games can be installed separately.
A better naming scheme for the dependants of kdegames4 (base) would be helpfull.
I don't see the point where a better naming scheme would be helpfull. From the kdegames tarball the packages rocs, bomber, bovo, kapman, kbattleship, etc are being build. What different naming scheme do you want to apply here ? the package kdegames4 is nothing but an empty shell (which will disappear in the future) and selecting that one will only result that all kde games packages are being selected at the moment. Raymond -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kde+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-kde+help@opensuse.org
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Raymond Wooninck <tittiatcoke@gmail.com> wrote:
the package kdegames4 is nothing but an empty shell (which will disappear in the future) and selecting that one will only result that all kde games packages are being selected at the moment.
Raymond
"The future" being "a couple of days" hopefully. I am in the process of getting rid of all of those empty shell packages. -Todd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kde+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-kde+help@opensuse.org
Hi, At zaterdag 17 september 2011 11:44:45 wrote Raymond Wooninck:
On Saturday 17 September 2011 11:30:03 Ismail Doenmez wrote:
Hi;
Am Sat 17 Sep 2011 11:11:51 AM CEST schrieb todd rme
<toddrme2178@gmail.com>:
I notice in several cases there are several OBS packages with the same source files but with multiple spec files. Examples include kdegames4/kdegames4-carddecks and kdebase4-workspace/python-kdebase4.
From the look of of both it seems to be the case that they can be
merged indeed. Any expert opinions?
Regards.
Hi Todd and Ismail,
I wish that things would be that simple. If you check the spec-file of python- kdebase4, then you know it has a BuildRequires for python-kde4. Checking the spec-file for python-kde4, you can find a BuildRequires for kdebase4- workspace-devel.
As Todd indicated in the past we splitted out packages in separate spec-files based on limitations of the spec-file itself. However there were also some other reasons. One of them I mentioned above as that we never would be able to build things due to dependencies on eachother. Building directly from source on your local workstation is different as that there you normally have an installed KDE environment, but this is not the case with OBS.
Another one is to save BuildPower. Most of the noarch packages are build only for the i586 part and NOT on the x86_64 part. Also it could happen that with splitting out you could build a certain part earlier due to less dependencies than the main package. This would allow that more packages are build at the same moment and this has a positive effect on the total buildtime required for the full project. I know that Lubos spend quite some time in finding out the right split for this.
The maintenaince is not that big as that most of those packages contain a shell script (pre-checkin.sh) that allows us to change only the spec-file for the main package and then this script would transfer the changes to the other spec-files.
My opinion would be to leave them as they are now. But in the end it would be Will to decide how to continue. Maybe an agenda topic for out biweekly team meeting ?
Is it possible to include this explanation in concerned spec file? Someone checking the spec file and wondering why things are done the way they are done, is probably helped with the above explanation (in the spec file). -- RIchard -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kde+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-kde+help@opensuse.org
On Saturday 17 of September 2011, Raymond Wooninck wrote:
On Saturday 17 September 2011 11:30:03 Ismail Doenmez wrote:
Hi;
Am Sat 17 Sep 2011 11:11:51 AM CEST schrieb todd rme
<toddrme2178@gmail.com>:
I notice in several cases there are several OBS packages with the same source files but with multiple spec files. Examples include kdegames4/kdegames4-carddecks and kdebase4-workspace/python-kdebase4.
From the look of of both it seems to be the case that they can be merged indeed. Any expert opinions?
Another one is to save BuildPower. Most of the noarch packages are build only for the i586 part and NOT on the x86_64 part.
The original reason for building noarch subpackages separately was that older rpm could not build a noarch subpackage from a normal package. At least some of these could be possibly merged back, with the time needed to set up the additional build outweighting the duplicated build of that part and the disk space. -- Lubos Lunak l.lunak@suse.cz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kde+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-kde+help@opensuse.org
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Lubos Lunak <l.lunak@suse.cz> wrote:
On Saturday 17 of September 2011, Raymond Wooninck wrote:
On Saturday 17 September 2011 11:30:03 Ismail Doenmez wrote:
Hi;
Am Sat 17 Sep 2011 11:11:51 AM CEST schrieb todd rme
<toddrme2178@gmail.com>:
I notice in several cases there are several OBS packages with the same source files but with multiple spec files. Examples include kdegames4/kdegames4-carddecks and kdebase4-workspace/python-kdebase4.
From the look of of both it seems to be the case that they can be merged indeed. Any expert opinions?
Another one is to save BuildPower. Most of the noarch packages are build only for the i586 part and NOT on the x86_64 part.
The original reason for building noarch subpackages separately was that older rpm could not build a noarch subpackage from a normal package. At least some of these could be possibly merged back, with the time needed to set up the additional build outweighting the duplicated build of that part and the disk space.
Two immediately come to mind that I am working on right now: kdegames4/kdegames4-carddecks and kdeartwork4/kdeartwork4-noarch. Should I go ahead and merge these? I am doing substantial changes to both anyway so a merge would not be too difficult compared to everything else. -Todd -Todd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kde+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-kde+help@opensuse.org
On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 11:28, todd rme <toddrme2178@...> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Lubos Lunak <l.lunak@suse.cz> wrote:
On Saturday 17 of September 2011, Raymond Wooninck wrote:
On Saturday 17 September 2011 11:30:03 Ismail Doenmez wrote:
Hi;
Am Sat 17 Sep 2011 11:11:51 AM CEST schrieb todd rme
<toddrme2178@gmail.com>:
I notice in several cases there are several OBS packages with the same source files but with multiple spec files. Examples include kdegames4/kdegames4-carddecks and kdebase4-workspace/python-kdebase4.
From the look of of both it seems to be the case that they can be merged indeed. Any expert opinions?
Another one is to save BuildPower. Most of the noarch packages are build only for the i586 part and NOT on the x86_64 part.
The original reason for building noarch subpackages separately was that older rpm could not build a noarch subpackage from a normal package. At least some of these could be possibly merged back, with the time needed to set up the additional build outweighting the duplicated build of that part and the disk space.
Two immediately come to mind that I am working on right now:
kdegames4/kdegames4-carddecks and kdeartwork4/kdeartwork4-noarch. Should I go ahead and merge these? I am doing substantial changes to both anyway so a merge would not be too difficult compared to everything else.
-Todd
If kdegames4 and kdeartwork4 are just empty shell packages, please do so. Your cleanup is appreciated. In terms of backward-compatibility, I'd say ignore it. Evergreen and SLE prior 12 aren't likely to get KDE 4.7.x ever. So: works on 11.3 + 11.4 should be the most interesting "backward" and both rpm-versions support integrated noarch subpackages AFAIK. Thanks for your work. - Yamaban
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:28 AM, todd rme <toddrme2178@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Lubos Lunak <l.lunak@suse.cz> wrote:
On Saturday 17 of September 2011, Raymond Wooninck wrote:
On Saturday 17 September 2011 11:30:03 Ismail Doenmez wrote:
Hi;
Am Sat 17 Sep 2011 11:11:51 AM CEST schrieb todd rme
<toddrme2178@gmail.com>:
I notice in several cases there are several OBS packages with the same source files but with multiple spec files. Examples include kdegames4/kdegames4-carddecks and kdebase4-workspace/python-kdebase4.
From the look of of both it seems to be the case that they can be merged indeed. Any expert opinions?
Another one is to save BuildPower. Most of the noarch packages are build only for the i586 part and NOT on the x86_64 part.
The original reason for building noarch subpackages separately was that older rpm could not build a noarch subpackage from a normal package. At least some of these could be possibly merged back, with the time needed to set up the additional build outweighting the duplicated build of that part and the disk space.
Two immediately come to mind that I am working on right now:
kdegames4/kdegames4-carddecks and kdeartwork4/kdeartwork4-noarch. Should I go ahead and merge these? I am doing substantial changes to both anyway so a merge would not be too difficult compared to everything else.
-Todd
-Todd
I've merged kdegames4 and kdeartwork4. kdeartwork4 has been accepted and the noarch package removed. kdegames4 is still waiting. Besides these, here are the ones that are currently present: kdelibs4 + kdelibs4-apidocs digikam + kipi-plugins + libmediawiki + libkgeomap + libkface koffice2 + koffice2-doc kdebase4-workspace + python-kdebase4 soprano + soprano-backend-virtuoso + soprano-backend-sesame I think that koffice2 and koffice2-doc merging makes sense (in the same way the kdegameds4 and kdeartwork4 merges made sense). digikam's various packages, unlike the other cases, are not all lumped together in a single set of sources. Even if it isn't merged it might be easier if they are all linked. I think that the consensus was to keep kdebase4-workspace and python-kdebase4 seperate, although I would be happy it merge if it makes sense. The last two, kdelibs4 and soprano, I am not sure about. Once again I would be happy to merge these but there might be a good reason not to. -Todd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kde+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-kde+help@opensuse.org
On Tuesday 27 of September 2011, todd rme wrote:
I've merged kdegames4 and kdeartwork4. kdeartwork4 has been accepted and the noarch package removed. kdegames4 is still waiting.
kdelibs4 + kdelibs4-apidocs soprano + soprano-backend-virtuoso + soprano-backend-sesame
The last two, kdelibs4 and soprano, I am not sure about. Once again I would be happy to merge these but there might be a good reason not to.
These two are base packages, so there is a good possibility that the split was done to either avoid waiting on a dependency that is now only a dependency of the split-off subpackage or that whatever is built in the subpackage takes relatively long and is not necessary for building further packages. Before merging, this should be checked. -- Lubos Lunak l.lunak@suse.cz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kde+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-kde+help@opensuse.org
On Thursday 29 September 2011 12:05:07 Lubos Lunak wrote:
kdelibs4 + kdelibs4-apidocs soprano + soprano-backend-virtuoso + soprano-backend-sesame
The last two, kdelibs4 and soprano, I am not sure about. Once again I would be happy to merge these but there might be a good reason not to.
I would not merge soprano and it's backend's. kdelibs4 can be build without the two indicated backends, so this would save some total buildtime. The soprano-backend-sesame is questionable if this one is still required as that currently only virtuoso seems to be supported. Regards Raymond -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kde+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-kde+help@opensuse.org
On 09/29/2011 12:12 PM, Raymond Wooninck wrote:
On Thursday 29 September 2011 12:05:07 Lubos Lunak wrote:
kdelibs4 + kdelibs4-apidocs soprano + soprano-backend-virtuoso + soprano-backend-sesame
The last two, kdelibs4 and soprano, I am not sure about. Once again I would be happy to merge these but there might be a good reason not to.
I would not merge soprano and it's backend's. kdelibs4 can be build without the two indicated backends, so this would save some total buildtime. The soprano-backend-sesame is questionable if this one is still required as that currently only virtuoso seems to be supported.
I think we can nuke soprano-backend-sesame safely. Regards. -- İsmail Dönmez - openSUSE Booster SUSE LINUX Products GmbH Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kde+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-kde+help@opensuse.org
participants (7)
-
Ismail Doenmez -
Ismail Donmez
-
Lubos Lunak -
Raymond Wooninck -
Richard -
todd rme -
Yamaban