November 2005 - openSUSE Packaging - openSUSE Mailing Lists

Re: [opensuse] amsn_cvs RPM
by Pascal Bleser 24 Nov '05

24 Nov '05

Guillermo Ballester Valor wrote: > Hello, Hola Guillermo > I've build new RPM packages for amsn, cvs version. They are called 'amsn_cvs' > and have some nice and new features with respect the relased 'amsn 0.94'. > Note that it is a development version. > To install 'amsn_cvs' RPMs you need uninstall 'amsn' because of some > conflicts. If both packages conflict anyway, why do you call it "amsn_cvs" and not just "amsn" ? IMHO the best name/version scheme would be amsn-0.94_20051123-1... That way it would supersede amsn-0.94 and yet, when a new release comes out (either 0.94.1 or 0.95), the release version will supersede the CVS snapshot again. amsn-0.94 amsn-0.94_20051123 => upgrade amsn-0.94_20051205 => upgrade amsn-0.94.1 => upgrade or amsn-0.95 => upgrade as well It's a similar trick than how to handle "rc" (release candidate), "alpha" or "beta" versions, where you'd use a _0.1 (beta1), _0.2 (beta2) suffix: amsn-0.95_0.1 => 0.95 beta1 amsn-0.95_0.2 => 0.95 beta2 amsn-0.95_1.0 => 0.95 release Because if you use "rc1" or "beta1" in the version tag, it won't upgrade properly: amsn-0.95beta1 amsn-0.95beta2 => will upgrade, ok amsn-0.95 ======> won't upgrade (!) On a sidenote, could you also build and include amsn's systray plugin ? I've seen 2 or 3 people asking for amsn packages that include that. Would be nice, especially as an addon RPM (e.g. amsn-systray) ;) (and some work as well, the amsn source code is an awful mess) (and maybe we should take this thread to the opensuse-packaging list, that's why I'm cross-posting ;)) cheers -- -o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/ /\\ <pascal.bleser(a)skynet.be> <guru(a)unixtech.be> _\_v FOSDEM 2006 -- 25+26 February 2006 in Brussels

5 10

update-desktop-files and gcc on Factory
by Damian Mihai Liviu 24 Nov '05

24 Nov '05

Hello, I'm trying to build some RPMS for Factory and I have some problems. First of all, y2pmbuild doesn't find update-desktop-files. I didn't find it either on the factory tree... Is OK or I will have problems if this RPM is missing? Second, I took the CD-s from Alpha 3, created a local repository, downloaded gcc-ada, libada, libunwind and added to them to the repository. After that, I did an "create_package_descr -x setup/descr/EXTRA_PROV -l english -l spanish -l french -l german -l czech -l hungarian -l italian" and refreshed the repository in YaST. When I'm trying to build the RPMS I want to I get the following error: // begin unresolvable dependencies: *** Conflicts *** Name: gcc(*) Edition: EDITION-UNSPEC From-Input-List: yes Referers: gcc-ada-4.1.0_20051116-3 requires gcc = 4.1.0_20051116-3 Not-Available: [4.1.0_20051116-3,4.1.0_20051116-3] Name: gcc-ada Edition: 4.1.0_20051116-3 From-Input-List: yes Unresolvable: gcc-ada-4.1.0_20051116-3 requires gcc = 4.1.0_20051116-3 // end What should I do? Cheers, -- Damian Mihai Liviu Mobile: +40 741 226993; Fax: +1 347-632-4117 Phone : +1 360-526-6441; +1 347-632-4117; +44 0870-3403339 URL: http://liviudm.blogspot.com

2 1

xmlsec and libgeier
by Rauch Christian 24 Nov '05

24 Nov '05

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hash: SHA1 Added Package 'xmlsec' (http://www.aleksey.com/xmlsec/download.html) in version 1.2.9 Updated package 'libgeier' (http://www.taxbird.de) to 0.4. Should be available in latest 24 hours on [1] [1] ftp://ftp.gwdg.de/pub/linux/misc/suser-crauch/ Christian Rauch -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDhbjKayhvFxrDZlkRAlh3AJ0RmZeBBu2hAVIQWK8rK3mfNVZjhwCfVu5Q MB53Lepi1mEdGSi648GV25U= =EyOY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

TaxBird 0.5
by Rauch Christian 22 Nov '05

22 Nov '05

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Updated package 'taxbird' (http://www.taxbird.de) to 0.5. Dependency libgeier available in actual version 0.3 on my repo. [1] ftp://ftp.gwdg.de/pub/linux/misc/suser-crauch/ Christian Rauch -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDguWaayhvFxrDZlkRAjdbAJ9Fjxl8vxfnNQA0C9v5zgz3vudItACfXWma m1QgLUvixOkl3lo1fOn8RDc= =MSV5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

A doubt about java rpms
by Guillermo Ballester Valor 21 Nov '05

21 Nov '05

Hello all, I've been playing with suse java-1_5_0-sun.spec and update it with latest 1_5_0-05 build from sun site archives. The rpms have been built with success in my SuSE 9.3 system. The question is ¿Can we release this rpms?. There are java rpms on SuSE site and mirrors but I'm not sure about release conditions. I'm afraid I can't, only SuSE can relase them :( . I'm wrong? Guillermo -- Guillermo Ballester Valor gbv(a)oxixares.com Ogijares, Granada SPAIN Public GPG KEY http://www.oxixares.com/~gbv/pubgpg.html #################################################### See World Weather Navigator at http://www.ogimet.com ####################################################

7 12

RPM building toolchain (was: Policy for SUSE supplementary repository ?)
by Pascal Bleser 21 Nov '05

21 Nov '05

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Henne Vogelsang wrote: > Hi, > > On Sunday, November 20, 2005 at 01:15:58, Pascal Bleser wrote: > >> Does anyone happen to know (and I hope a few packagers @SUSE are >> reading this list ;)) if there's some kind of policy for SUSE's >> supplementary repositories ? > > Nothing other than: "it should build" ... >> The question is: do you (SUSE devs) always keep up with the latest >> versions of applications that are in supplementary ? Or is it "when we >> have the time" ? I can imagine it has low priority.. > > True. It all depends on how the maintainer finds time.... Ok. Thanks for clarifying. As already discussed very briefly on IRC with Stephan Binner, this leads us again to what Robert (AFAICR) pointed out in one of his mails: the SUSE staff using different tools than the community packagers. Mostly because the spec files made by SUSE developers only work on one single SUSE Linux release, where as almost all community packagers maintain their RPMs for several SUSE versions. I guess most of use work "single source" (i.e. one spec file / src.rpm for all SUSE releases). Because of "neededforbuild" including packages that are absolutely not related to building the package or not (e.g. selinux), one cannot use a src.rpm of SUSE Linux 10.0 and build it on, say, 9.2 or 9.3. I don't see the point of "neededforbuild" anyway. Stephan told me it was because symbolic names like "kde-devel-environment" (or something like that), but those should be virtual provides in the first place (or an empty package that just "Requires:" (kdelibs3-devel, qt3-devel, etc...) and "Provides: kde-devel-environment"). I mean, other distributions are able to handle it without relying on special tools (besides chroot management). I have to say that personally, I don't like the idea of having to use specific tools (except rpmbuild) to be able to build spec files, instead of just using rpmbuild. Wrapper scripts are nice because they can help with managing the chroots, automagically installing required dependencies in those chroots (like y2pmbuild is doing), but one mustn't rely on - - a specific toolchain that does some black magic with spec files - - specific rpmmacros settings that are not standard (some distributions are doing that, but it should be avoided if possible) While such tools or environments can provide extra value (e.g. the chroot management of y2pmbuild), they should do a plain rpmbuild in the end, because you get a different behaviour if you just use rpmbuild or, say, y2pmbuild. But maybe that's just my opinion ;) And, yes, I know this is supposed to be solved by the build servers in some 4 months from now, at least the fact that SUSE devs and community packagers use different toolsets. cheers - -- -o) Pascal Bleser <loki(a)fosdem.org> http://www.fosdem.org /\\ FOSDEM 2006 :: 25+26 February 2006 in Brussels _\_v Free and Opensource Software Developers European Meeting -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDga8hr3NMWliFcXcRAlTrAJ4gUdRWEKBi3zzE7QtlnIv78ZR//gCfUNnZ wCGNo2jsG3ak7XqIVpMyGoA= =9IXf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Policy for SUSE supplementary repository ?
by Pascal Bleser 21 Nov '05

21 Nov '05

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi folks Does anyone happen to know (and I hope a few packagers @SUSE are reading this list ;)) if there's some kind of policy for SUSE's supplementary repositories ? I mean, I might be wrong but I have the feeling that sometimes, new stuff gets packaged and included there but... - - not everything (which isn't a problem, work for us community packagers) - - sometimes with a delay of several days or even weeks after the released The 2nd point is quite annoying for us community packagers (well at least it is for me), as sometimes we do package newest versions (as SUSE only provides backported security fixes) and then a few days (or sometimes 1-2 weeks) later, it shows up in KDE or GNOME supplementary. It's nice and all, but if someone working @SUSE tells me he's maintaining things like amarok or k3b and always keeps up with the latest releases, I don't see the point in me having a few hours of work to package them as well (except maybe providing them for SUSE versions that are not in supplementary) ;) The question is: do you (SUSE devs) always keep up with the latest versions of applications that are in supplementary ? Or is it "when we have the time" ? I can imagine it has low priority.. cheers - -- -o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/ /\\ <pascal.bleser(a)skynet.be> <guru(a)unixtech.be> _\_v The more things change, the more they stay insane. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDf8A+r3NMWliFcXcRAtGKAKCyZddQatLdS6Q92gZGwtUkqTgfkgCgg0t0 DGwL64TGYNhrUN4XMPBSLDw= =+cpf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: [A-A-P-develop] I uploaded an RPM to Mandriva/Mandrake
by Aschwin Marsman 20 Nov '05

20 Nov '05

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Ian S. Nelson wrote: > Aschwin Marsman wrote: > >On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Ian S. Nelson wrote: Hi Ian, > >>I've built an RPM for a-a-p and started the process to try and get in > >>included in to Mandriva. > >> > >I would like to do the same for openSUSE. I think I would need: > >- a source rpm > >- an idea on how much a-a-p is used so I convince the maintainers to > > include the package > > > >I can't download from mandriva incoming. I would like to have the > >source rpm so I can try if it works on SUSE 10.0 out of the box. > > Here is the source RPM. Thanks. I'm also sending this reply to the opensuse-packaging mailing list. Therefor I also attached your original spec file and do I need some advertising: A-A-P makes it easy to locate, download, build and install software. It also supports browsing source code, developing programs, managing different versions and distribution of software and documentation. This means that A-A-P is useful both for users and for developers. http://www.a-a-p.org/ A-A-P is created by vim creator Bram Moolenaar. I installed it on SUSE 10.0: --------------8<--------------8<--------------8<-------------- rpm -Uvh a-a-p-1.079-1mdk.src.rpm 1:a-a-p warning: user ian does not exist - using root warning: group ian does not exist - using root warning: user ian does not exist - using root warning: group ian does not exist - using root ########################################### [100%] --------------8<--------------8<--------------8<-------------- So the spec file needs to be adjusted so it will be installed as user root without warnings. Installing the src.rpm gives a dependancy problem: --------------8<--------------8<--------------8<-------------- rpmbuild --rebuild /home/marsman/projects/aap/a-a-p-1.07 Installing /home/marsman/projects/aap/a-a-p-1.079-1mdk.src.rpm warning: user ian does not exist - using root warning: group ian does not exist - using root warning: user ian does not exist - using root warning: group ian does not exist - using root error: Failed build dependencies: libpython-devel is needed by a-a-p-1.079-1mdk --------------8<--------------8<--------------8<-------------- This looks like an inconsistency in the naming of a package, on SUSE 10.0 I have: --------------8<--------------8<--------------8<-------------- rpm -qi python-devel Name : python-devel Relocations: (not relocatable) Version : 2.4.1 Vendor: SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Nuern berg, Germany Release : 3 Build Date: Tue Sep 13 02:48:40 2005 Install date: Sun Oct 23 20:34:02 2005 Build Host: bizet.suse.de Group : Development/Languages/Python Source RPM: python-2.4.1-3.src.rpm Size : 13912546 License: Artistic License, Other License (s), see package Signature : DSA/SHA1, Tue Sep 13 04:01:07 2005, Key ID a84edae89c800aca Packager : http://www.suse.de/feedback URL : http://www.python.org/ Summary : Include Files and Libraries Mandatory for Building Python Modules. Description : The Python programming language's interpreter can be extended with dynamically loaded extensions and can be embedded in other programs. This package contains header files, a static library, and development tools for building Python modules, extending the Python interpreter or embedding Python in applications. This also includes the Python distutils, which were in the Python package up to version 2.2.2. Authors: -------- Guido van Rossum <guido(a)python.org> Distribution: SUSE LINUX 10.0 (i586) --------------8<--------------8<--------------8<-------------- So it looks like we'll need a: BuildRequires: libpython-devel for Mandriva and BuildRequires: python-devel for SUSE. How can this be done so that it will work on as many rpm using distros as possible? Some info on building packages for openSUSE: http://www.opensuse.org/SUSE_Build_Tutorial Have a nice weekend, Aschwin Marsman -- aschwin(a)marsman.org http://www.marsman.org

1 0

Problems with liblo
by Oliver Bengs 18 Nov '05

18 Nov '05

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello all, I want build dssi-0.9.1, it is no Problem with liblo-0.16-5 und liblo-devel-0.16-5 from base, it all compiles and lets install. With liblo-0.22-0.oc2pus.1 and devel it compiles, but when i want install the rpm comes this message: error: Failed dependencies: liblo.so.0 is needed by dssi-0.9.1-0.jacklab.1 rpm -ql liblo give me this: /usr/lib/liblo.so.0 /usr/lib/liblo.so.0.5.0 /usr/share/doc/packages/liblo /usr/share/doc/packages/liblo/AUTHORS /usr/share/doc/packages/liblo/COPYING /usr/share/doc/packages/liblo/ChangeLog /usr/share/doc/packages/liblo/INSTALL /usr/share/doc/packages/liblo/NEWS /usr/share/doc/packages/liblo/README /usr/share/doc/packages/liblo/TODO liblo.so.0 is a symlink to /usr/lib/liblo.so.0.5.0 in the rpm from base was the symlink to liblo.so.0.4.0 and it fails not. What can i do? Olli -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDe5ZLj/glEAdJRAMRAkeGAJ4nvJ91XdfVz4cxyF8r7L8OW0X1VgCgiDMn ZJYAaqvqImk7Mt8RwH10I00= =FyPR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 3

Handbrake
by Marcel Hilzinger 18 Nov '05

18 Nov '05

I had a look at this DVDRip tool (initially from BeOS). But I couldn't even compile it. Perhaps one of you can have a look at it and figure out, how to make an rpm without including a52dec, ffmpeg, etc: http://handbrake.m0k.org/ Thanks -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Marcel Hilzinger Linux New Media AG Süskindstr. 4 D-81929 München Tel: +49 (89) 99 34 11 0 Fax: +49 (89) 99 34 11 99

1 0