openSUSE Packaging April 2006

packaging@lists.opensuse.org

11 participants
6 discussions

installation of gnome-vfs2-devel/dbus-1 result in the removal of kde, zen and other packages, why?
by Richard Bos 30 Apr '06

30 Apr '06

Why does the installation of gnome-vfs2-devel result in the removal of kde, zen and other packages? medion101:~ # apt -s install gnome-vfs2-devel Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done The following extra packages will be installed: dbus-1 dbus-1-devel dbus-1-glib faac faad2 gconf2-devel glib2-devel hal-devel indent lame libbonobo-devel libffmpeg0 libidl-devel libmp4v2 libmpcdec mad openssl-devel orbit2-devel x264 xvid The following packages will be upgraded dbus-1 dbus-1-glib The following packages will be REMOVED: NetworkManager NetworkManager-kde amarok amarok-xine dbus-1-mono dbus-1-qt3 dbus-1-x11 k3b kdeaddons3-kate kdeaddons3-konqueror kdebase3 kdebase3-SuSE kdebase3-nsplugin kdebase3-session kdebluetooth kdepim3 kdepim3-kpilot kdepim3-sync kerry kpowersave rug zen-updater zmd The following NEW packages will be installed: dbus-1-devel faac faad2 gconf2-devel glib2-devel gnome-vfs2-devel hal-devel indent lame libbonobo-devel libffmpeg0 libidl-devel libmp4v2 libmpcdec mad openssl-devel orbit2-devel x264 xvid 2 upgraded, 19 newly installed, 23 removed and 107 not upgraded. Remv NetworkManager (0.6.2-21 ftp4.gwdg.de) [NetworkManager-kde ] Remv NetworkManager-kde (0.1r533636-5 ftp4.gwdg.de) Remv amarok (1.3.8-32 ftp4.gwdg.de) [amarok-xine ] Remv amarok-xine (1.3.8-32 ftp4.gwdg.de) Remv rug (7.1.1.0-14 ftp4.gwdg.de, ftp4.gwdg.de) Remv zen-updater (7.1.0-47 ftp4.gwdg.de) Remv zmd (7.1.1.0-29 ftp4.gwdg.de) Remv dbus-1-mono (0.60-28 ftp4.gwdg.de) Remv kdebase3-nsplugin (3.5.1-67 ftp4.gwdg.de) Remv kdebluetooth (0.0.svn20060413-5 ftp4.gwdg.de) Remv kdepim3-kpilot (3.5.1-37 ftp4.gwdg.de) Remv kdepim3 (3.5.1-37 ftp4.gwdg.de) [kdepim3-sync ] Remv kdepim3-sync (3.5.1-37 ftp4.gwdg.de) Remv kdebase3-session (3.5.1-67 ftp4.gwdg.de) Remv kdebase3-SuSE (10.1-56 ftp4.gwdg.de) Remv k3b (0.12.15-3.pm.1 SuSE:10.1/stable) Remv kdeaddons3-konqueror (3.5.1-16 ftp4.gwdg.de) Remv kerry (0.1.1-4 ftp4.gwdg.de) Remv kdeaddons3-kate (3.5.1-16 ftp4.gwdg.de) Remv kdebase3 (3.5.1-67 ftp4.gwdg.de) Remv kpowersave (0.6.1-5 ftp4.gwdg.de) Remv dbus-1-qt3 (0.60-28 ftp4.gwdg.de) Remv dbus-1-x11 (0.60-28 ftp4.gwdg.de) Inst dbus-1 [0.60-25] (0.60-27 ftp4.gwdg.de) [dbus-1-glib ] Inst dbus-1-glib [0.60-25] (0.60-27 ftp4.gwdg.de) Inst glib2-devel (2.8.5-19 ftp4.gwdg.de) It looks like dbus-1 is rootcause: medion101:~ # apt -s install dbus-1 Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done The following extra packages will be installed: dbus-1-glib faac faad2 lame libffmpeg0 libmp4v2 libmpcdec mad x264 xvid The following packages will be upgraded dbus-1 dbus-1-glib The following packages will be REMOVED: NetworkManager NetworkManager-kde amarok amarok-xine dbus-1-mono dbus-1-qt3 dbus-1-x11 k3b kdeaddons3-kate kdeaddons3-konqueror kdebase3 kdebase3-SuSE kdebase3-nsplugin kdebase3-session kdebluetooth kdepim3 kdepim3-kpilot kdepim3-sync kerry kpowersave rug zen-updater zmd The following NEW packages will be installed: faac faad2 lame libffmpeg0 libmp4v2 libmpcdec mad x264 xvid 2 upgraded, 9 newly installed, 23 removed and 107 not upgraded. Weird. Installing gnome-vfs2-devel in 10.0 using apt did not result in these undesired removals... -- Richard Bos Without a home the journey is endless

2 2

Attention: Lots of SUSE packages are built incorrectly
by Alexey Eremenko 20 Apr '06

20 Apr '06

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Alexey Eremenko <al4321(a)gmail.com> Date: Apr 19, 2006 4:48 PM Subject: Attention: Lots of SUSE packages are packaged incorrect To: suse-linux-e(a)suse.com Hi all ! I would like to discuss with the SUSE community one mistake commonly done by SUSE packagers: more specifically - the RPM architecture in SUSE. I have found a LOT of noarch packages built for the i586 architecture in SUSE Linux 10.0. I propose to people to identify those packages, that should be made "noarch" but for some obscure reason are not. Most packages that were built in the incorrect way were documentation, but some others were written in Interpreted languages. (like Python) One example of interpreted language package that is i586 but should be noarch is : "eric" IDE I have not dive too deep, but I'm sure there are other examples. The other incorrectly packaged packages are docs - quick search returns me: linux:/mnt/cdrom/suse/i586 # ls | grep doc | sort | cat -n 1 apache2-doc-2.0.54-10.i586.rpm 2 atk-doc-1.10.3-2.i586.rpm 3 at-spi-doc-1.6.6-2.i586.rpm 4 bind-doc-9.3.1-8.i586.rpm 5 cvs-doc-1.12.12-4.i586.rpm 6 docbook2x-0.8.5-5.i586.rpm 7 gconf2-doc-2.12.0-2.i586.rpm 8 glib2-doc-2.8.1-3.i586.rpm 9 gnome-doc-utils-0.4.0-2.i586.rpm 10 gnome-panel-doc-2.12.0-5.i586.rpm 11 gnome-vfs2-doc-2.12.0-9.i586.rpm 12 gtk2-doc-2.8.3-4.i586.rpm 13 gtksourceview-doc-1.4.1-2.i586.rpm 14 kdelibs3-doc-3.4.2-24.i586.rpm 15 krb5-doc-1.4.1-5.i586.rpm 16 libbonobo-doc-2.10.1-3.i586.rpm 17 libbonoboui-doc-2.10.1-3.i586.rpm 18 libglade2-doc-2.5.1-9.i586.rpm 19 libgnomecanvas-doc-2.12.0-2.i586.rpm 20 libgnome-doc-2.12.0.1-2.i586.rpm 21 libgnomeprint-doc-2.12.0-4.i586.rpm 22 libgnomeprintui-doc-2.12.0-3.i586.rpm 23 libgnomeui-doc-2.12.0-3.i586.rpm 24 libgsf-doc-1.12.1-3.i586.rpm 25 libicu-doc-3.4-3.i586.rpm 26 libreadline-java-javadoc-0.8.0-11.i586.rpm 27 lilypond-documentation-2.6.3-2.i586.rpm 28 python-twisted-doc-2.0.0-2.i586.rpm 29 qt3-devel-doc-3.3.4-28.i586.rpm 30 samba-doc-3.0.20-4.i586.rpm 31 xen-doc-html-3.0_6715-2.i586.rpm 32 xen-doc-pdf-3.0_6715-2.i586.rpm 33 xen-doc-ps-3.0_6715-2.i586.rpm now, 33 doc packages are i386 ? And, of course all of them contain binaries, huh! :) Look, it wastes time & server space to get noarch packges built for different platforms. Why is this ? OS: SUSE Linux 10.0 -Alexey Eremenko. 19.04.2006.

5 9

Re: Attention: Lots of SUSE packages are built incorrectly
by andreas.hanke＠gmx-topmail.de 20 Apr '06

20 Apr '06

> Most packages that were built in the incorrect way > were documentation, but some others were written in > Interpreted languages. (like Python) Double-No: (1) Many documentation packages are probably really architecture independent, but if architecture dependent binaries were built from the same source package, the documentation package is archictecture dependent, too, for purely practical reasons. This is especially the case for all gtk-doc packages. (2) Python modules are not noarch! Marking them as noarch is one of the most frequent mistakes made by third party packagers. To find out if a package is noarch, do *not* ask yourself "is it written in an interpreted language" - ask yourself "will the unmodified RPM work on all architectures". For Python modules, the answer to this question is "no". > One example of interpreted language package that is > i586 but should be > noarch is : > "eric" IDE No! Look at the file list of the eric package: /usr/bin/eric3 /usr/bin/eric3-api /usr/bin/eric3-doc /usr/bin/eric3-helpviewer /usr/bin/eric3-qregexp /usr/bin/eric3-re /usr/bin/eric3-trpreviewer /usr/bin/eric3-uipreviewer /usr/bin/eric3-unittest /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/eric3 /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/eric3/APIs /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/eric3/APIs/python.api /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/eric3/APIs/qt.api /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/eric3/APIs/qtaxcontainer.api /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/eric3/APIs/qtcanvas.api /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/eric3/APIs/qtext.api /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/eric3/APIs/qtgl.api /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/eric3/APIs/qtnetwork.api /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/eric3/APIs/qtsql.api /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/eric3/APIs/qttable.api /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/eric3/APIs/qtui.api /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/eric3/APIs/qtxml.api /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/eric3/Checks /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/eric3/Checks/SyntaxCheckerDialog.py /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/eric3/Checks/SyntaxCheckerDialog.pyc /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/eric3/Checks/SyntaxCheckerForm.py /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/eric3/Checks/SyntaxCheckerForm.pyc /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/eric3/Checks/Tabnanny.py /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/eric3/Checks/Tabnanny.pyc /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/eric3/Checks/TabnannyDialog.py [...] As you can see, all the Python modules are installed in "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages". And now, where is the site-packages directory on x86_64? It's in "/usr/lib64/python2.4/site-packages". Therefore the unmodified RPM will *not* work on x86_64, and that's why the package has to be architecture dependent even though Python is an interpreted language. By the way, even pure shell scripts can be architecture specific if they hardcode "/usr/lib" or "/usr/lib64" somewhere. I think it's quite a good opportunity to point that out here once and forever, to improve the quality of third party packages for SUSE Linux. Right now there are many, many pseudo-noarch Python packages from third party repositories out there that simply don't work on x86_64. As far as it concerns your examples of documentation packages: I had a quick look over the list and am very sure that most of them are built from architecture dependent source packages. To be honest, I don't think that more than maybe a handful of packages in SUSE Linux are really incorrectly marked as architecture specific. -- Analog-/ISDN-Nutzer sparen mit GMX SmartSurfer bis zu 70%! Kostenlos downloaden: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer

1 0

Patch addition to Evolution package
by Vladimir Vuksan 20 Apr '06

20 Apr '06

There is a significant bug in Evolution which prevents Evolution to be used against an Exchange server as described in http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=335561 A patch has been created however it will be made available in Evolution 2.6.2 which will be available on May 31st. Since 10.1 is coming out these days can the patch be included in the Evolution package ? http://bugzilla.gnome.org/attachment.cgi?id=63665&action=view It is a patch against evolution-data-server. I patched it up by hand and things work well. Thanks, Vladimir

2 1

10.1 RC1: bug in %suse_update_desktop_file + about python packages
by Pascal Bleser 18 Apr '06

18 Apr '06

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Started building on 10.1 RC1 and I noticed two things: 1) there's a bug in the %suse_update_desktop_file macro ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (in the /usr/lib/rpm/suse_macros file) I always use that macro like this: %suse_update_desktop_file -r "%{name}" Foo Bar The -r flag overwrites categories that already exist in the .desktop file (without -r, it just appends to the existing). That doesn't work on 10.1, the bug + workaround is described here: https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=166170 Workaround: edit /usr/lib/rpm/suse_macros and change line 48: %suse_update_desktop_file() \ into this: %suse_update_desktop_file(cinrud) \ 2) all your spec files that build using python setuptools are hosed ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The default prefix for builds with Python setuptools (setup.py) is now /usr/local instead of /usr So you need to change the %__python ./setup.py install --root="%{buildroot}" line into this: %__python ./setup.py install --prefix="%{_prefix}" --root="%{buildroot}" Then it works as expected. I wanted to file a bug for this one as well, but I've been told it's explicitely wanted that way. Could someone @SUSE comment on this one ? Adrian ? Is it a bug or is it intended ? 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) iD8DBQFEPwhLr3NMWliFcXcRAnvAAJ4lVwxoce+5rF7waX9KtGINqNz/MgCcC9bN 63i7af2m9M1KlrzagL4yS/U= =1glY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 5

squashfs
by Robert Schiele 01 Apr '06

01 Apr '06

Hello everybody! For everybody working in the embedded systems area: I now have packaged squashfs for 10.1 on i586 and x86_64. Get it at http://pi3.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/~schiele/suse/10.1/ and have fun. Robert -- Robert Schiele Tel.: +49-621-181-2214 Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:rschiele@uni-mannheim.de "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."

1 0

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

openSUSE Packaging April 2006