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
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
>>> 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
>>> 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
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
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
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
-----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
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
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
