openSUSE Packaging November 2006

packaging@lists.opensuse.org

24 participants
17 discussions

[opensuse-packaging] submitting packages for Open SuSE

by Nadia Derbey

Hi, I have a set of packages I'd like to submit for inclusion into Open SuSE. Can somebody tell me what is the process? Is there a packagew review phase (as it is done for Fedora Extras)? Or may be there's a wiki page I missed somewhere? Regards, Nadia --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help(a)opensuse.org

15 years, 5 months

[opensuse-packaging] Hint needed

by Nadia Derbey

Hi, After building my packages using rpmbuild, solving all the rpmlint complaints, I have tried to build my packages using build. Everything worked fine, but I'd like to know if it is 'legal' to copy the $HOME/.rpmmacros into the BUILD_ROOT directory. Actually, I'd like rpmbuild (the one called by build) to take into account all the macros I've set to enable signing the package (%_signature, %_gpg_path, %_gpg_name, %_gpgbin), as well as the %packager macro. When I used to call rpmbuild alone, all these macros were set in $HOME/.rpmmacros, and then I called rpmbuild -ba --sign <my_spec_file> Now I'd like to call build with BUILD_RPM_BUILD_STAGE="-ba --sign" Or may be is this a wrong method? Anybody can help? Regards, Nadia --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help(a)opensuse.org

15 years, 5 months

Re: [opensuse-packaging] Hint needed

by Dominique Leuenberger

>>> Reply on 27-11-2006 11:58:48 <<< > Marcus Rueckert schrieb: > > On 2006-11-27 10:26:41 +0100, Nadia Derbey wrote: > >> I use .rpmmacros to set the %packager and what is needed for the gpg > > >> signature (otherwise rpmlint complains about it :-( ). > >> So, may be my question should have been the following: > >> How to sign packages when they are built using build (or lbuild). > > > > after you have build the packages for all architectures/distros you > call > > > > rpm --addsign */*.rpm > > > > this saves you from typing your passphrase multiple times and you can > > sign all of them in one go. > > > > rpm --resign might be nice too. it removes all other signatures > before > > adding your own. > > There is no difference between --addsign and --resign. RPMs cannot have > more than one signature, so --addsign removes all the other signature, > too. That's not exactly what Maximum RPM tells you: http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-pgp-signing-packages.html They even have a specific scenario when more than one sig is wished/wanted/required. Dominique --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help(a)opensuse.org

15 years, 5 months

Re: [opensuse-packaging] BuildScript questions

by Dominique Leuenberger

>>> Reply on 27-11-2006 10:59:49 <<< > Dominique Leuenberger wrote: > > I'm using the build-script from Novell, which works quiet well. (the > > one from the BuildService) > > I'm running it on a x86-64 SUSE Linux 10.1 box for the moment. > > > > I have a directory setup of > > > > /var > > | /buildrpms > > | | /SL-10.2 > > | | | x86_64 > > | | | i586 > > | | /SL-10.1 > > | | | x86_64 > > | | | i586 > > | | /SL-10.0 > > | | | x86_64 > > | | | i586 > > > > and I switch base distro using the --rpms parameter. > > > > So basically, I would like to decide to build a package for 10.1 > > x86-64, I do: > > > > build --rpms=/var/buildrpms/SL-10.1 --arch=x86_64 specfile.spec > > and if I decide for 10.1 i586, I do > > build --rpms=/var/buildrpms/SL-10.1 --arch=i586 specfile.spec > > > > Doing so seems to correctly define the architecture of the installed > > rpms in the build root, but the resulting ELF binaries, in either of > > these calls, result in being 64bit applications. > > > > Is my idea of the mainusage of the build script wrong or is it just > my > > usage of it? > > Thanks for some help on this, > > I guess it's solved if you start build with "linux32 build ..." > If that's considered to be a hack or an official supported feature I > don't know. > It's also the way it's done within osc IMHO. > > Wolfgang Wolfgang, Thanks for that trick/official hack or whatever.. as long as it helps... I'll try to integrate this this evening in my build script wrapped around and hopefully it works.. I'll let you know. Dominique --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help(a)opensuse.org

15 years, 5 months

[opensuse-packaging] BuildScript questions

by Dominique Leuenberger

Hi, I'm using the build-script from Novell, which works quiet well. (the one from the BuildService) I'm running it on a x86-64 SUSE Linux 10.1 box for the moment. I have a directory setup of /var | /buildrpms | | /SL-10.2 | | | x86_64 | | | i586 | | /SL-10.1 | | | x86_64 | | | i586 | | /SL-10.0 | | | x86_64 | | | i586 and I switch base distro using the --rpms parameter. So basically, I would like to decide to build a package for 10.1 x86-64, I do: build --rpms=/var/buildrpms/SL-10.1 --arch=x86_64 specfile.spec and if I decide for 10.1 i586, I do build --rpms=/var/buildrpms/SL-10.1 --arch=i586 specfile.spec Doing so seems to correctly define the architecture of the installed rpms in the build root, but the resulting ELF binaries, in either of these calls, result in being 64bit applications. Is my idea of the mainusage of the build script wrong or is it just my usage of it? Thanks for some help on this, Dominique --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help(a)opensuse.org

15 years, 5 months

[opensuse-packaging] y2pmbuild and "# neededforbuild"

by Nadia Derbey

Hi, I was reading the script /usr/bin/y2pmbuild (I wanted to figure out what's the difference between calling y2pmbuild and just an rpmbuild), and I found the following: in getneededforbuild(), I couldn't find the place where the line starting with "# needeforbuild" is analyzed (http://forgeftp.novell.com//library/SUSE%20Package%20Conventions/spc.html#s…). The line "# usedforbuild" is analyzed instead, while it is supposed to be obsolete (http://forgeftp.novell.com//library/SUSE%20Package%20Conventions/spc.html#s…)! I'm using y2pmsh-2.13.3-6 (on SuSE Linux 10.1). May be it is not the good one to use to be in phase with the SuSE package conventions? Regards, Nadia --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help(a)opensuse.org

15 years, 5 months

[opensuse-packaging] [SLE] Automatic updates from own repo

by Anders Norrbring

I just don't get it.. I've set up my own repositary, signed it, and imported the key to YaST. Still, every package installed from it is marked as "locked" and doesn't update automatically. How do I get around that? I don't want to auto-update "interactive" patches since it'll update kernels which in turn would render some apps dead in the water util I take care of it manually. -- Anders Norrbring Norrbring Consulting

15 years, 5 months

[opensuse-packaging] No libstdc++.la on 10.2

by Pascal Bleser

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Seems someone decided to remove /usr/%{_lib}/libstdc++.la on 10.2... ? At least it's not in any of the following packages: # rpm -qa | grep libstdc++ libstdc++41-4.1.2_20061018-4 libstdc++41-32bit-4.1.2_20061018-4 compat-libstdc++-5.0.7-33 libstdc++-devel-4.1.3-18 libstdc++41-devel-4.1.2_20061018-4 # rpm -ql libstdc++41-4.1.2_20061018-4 | grep "\.la" # rpm -ql libstdc++41-32bit-4.1.2_20061018-4 | grep "\.la" # rpm -ql compat-libstdc++-5.0.7-33 | grep "\.la" # rpm -ql libstdc++-devel-4.1.3-18 | grep "\.la" # rpm -ql libstdc++41-devel-4.1.2_20061018-4 | grep "\.la" # rpm -ql libstdc++41-devel-4.1.2_20061018-4 | grep "\.la" Any particular reason ? Is it somewhere else ? I sure hope it wasn't "optimized" away because it breaks other packages that need that .la :\ If it's not somewhere else, I'll file a (major) bug. 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 v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFQS8tr3NMWliFcXcRAtcrAJwKVyZQcRJaLysU4/0XF1Ym4rJesgCfQpYs P2jv7/TDFQDKCuJc9H7AiBk= =JrYQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help(a)opensuse.org

15 years, 6 months

[opensuse-packaging] Usage of the Build-Script

by Dominique Leuenberger

Hi, I'm preparing my machine to install different packages, for different SuSE Versions / different Archs. What I did so far: I created directories: /var/build/build_rpms/10.0 /var/build/build_rpms/10.1 /var/build/build_rpms/Factory all of them contain i586, noarch an x86-64 (of the respective versions) using build, I do build --rpms=/var/build/build_rpms/10.0 if I compile for 10.0 .../10.1 for 10.1 and so forth But I'm not yet sure about the ARCH to select / build. Is this done via --arch? (I guess so, but the help text more describes it as it's selecting from RPMs than for building this arch). so could I for example give build --rpms=/var/build/build_rpms/10.0 --arch=x86-64 specfile.spec to build an x86-64 for SuSE 10 and build --rpms=/var/build/build_rpms/10.0 --arch=i586 specfile.spec to build an i586 rpm for Suse 10? Or is there something else to do? Dominique

15 years, 6 months

[opensuse-packaging] Clean up RPM Groups

by Lars Rupp

Hi all During installation of Beta2, I found packages in RPM Groups, I never expected them to be. For example: perl-Apache-AuthCookie => Development/Languages/Perl perl-SVN-Simple => Development/Languages/Perl vs. perl-SOAP-Lite => Development/Libraries/Perl perl-Apache-AuthNetLDAP => Development/Libraries/Perl Referring to the SUSE Package Conventions: http://developer.novell.com/wiki/index.php/SUSE_Package_Conventions "The group Development/Languages is intended for tools that are useful or even necessary for developing in a particular programming language. This is the right place for compilers, interpreters, and programming language–dependent tools." [...] "The group Development/Libraries is intended for packages that allow developing with a library. [...] Here, developers should ﬁnd all available libraries that can be used in more projects." So in summary for me: We should use ONE Group for Perl-Modules and ONE Group for packages that extend the compiler of a language. But this doesn't only happen to Perl - nearly all other programming languages are affected. It's very easy to check this yourself: start "yast2 sw_single &" and have a look at the package groups... As we can't check the correct group automatically at the moment, I'm asking every packager: please have a look at the RPM Group of your package. And adjust it if necessary. Thank you in advance! With kind regards Lars --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help(a)opensuse.org

15 years, 6 months

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

openSUSE Packaging November 2006