openSUSE Packaging November 2007

packaging@lists.opensuse.org

47 participants
43 discussions

Re: [opensuse-packaging] How to deal with Python .pyc and .pyo files?

by jan matejek

Michal Marek napsal(a): > Jan Matejek wrote: >> Second worst case would be if you upgraded to a new major version of >> python, i.e. from 1.5 to 2.0. In that case python would report errors >> about bad bytecode, and i'm really not sure if it would recompile >> automatically. But i think it would. > > So... could python stop reporting errors in such cases and just silently > ignore the precompiled files? For mere mortals it's hard to understand > that they can use the same package with ELF binaries for years, but have > to rebuild python packages each time the python bytecode format changes. well sorry if python bytecode format changes more often than ELF standard :P There was no major (read 'incompatible') change since 2.0 release, i just went through the changelogs. So if you see any such errors somewhere, please report a bug and i'll make them go away. And, there *will* be a big breakage when python3k comes. But that is going to be an entirely new level of fun - py3k will not be backwards compatible and most apps will need to be modified. Let's not concern ourselves with that, for now... > "Why scripts and bytecode files have to be in lib64" comes as next ;) Because there is no better place for them, that's why ;e) Either we have to keep them in lib[64], and then they're arch-dependent because of that. Or, we go the Ubuntu way and store all .py in /usr/share/python or something, but that's a lot of trouble in itself (half-binary-half-python packages need to be installed in an interesting way, which can be a problem if you don't use distutils), and to add insult to injury, it violates FHS. Or somebody comes up with a clever way to keep stuff in lib and make python in lib64 recognize it and not break on binary files it finds there. (which i've been trying to do, but with little success so far) regards m. > > Michal > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org > For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help(a)opensuse.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help(a)opensuse.org

14 years, 5 months

[opensuse-packaging] licenses.rpm again

by Lukas Ocilka

Hi, I've found this output in the finished 'build': --- cut --- Your package contains a file that contains the FSF GPLv2 license. If you really have to ship it, consider symlinking it from the licenses package. --- cut --- I remember deciding that we'll not use the licenses.rpm... or am I wrong? What's the current status, please :)? Thanks Lukas -- Lukas Ocilka, YaST Developer (xn--luk-gla45d) ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUSE LINUX, s. r. o., Lihovarska 1060/12, Praha 9, Czech Republic

14 years, 5 months

[opensuse-packaging] rpm versions?

by Dan Stromberg

We have a product with versions like: 3.0.1-dev 3.0.2-rc2 3.0.2.5 (for a customer version) ...etc. As I'm packaging these as RPM's, we've been trying to do: %define major 3 %define minor 0 %define patchlevel 2 %define relnum rc2 ...but is that going to confuse rpm? That is, is relnum going to be compared numerically or as an ASCII string, or as something else? How can we ensure that dev < rc2 < 5 for relnum? Do we need to come up with a numbering scheme like "dev is 0-20, rc is 21-40, customer versions are 41-60" etc? Thanks! --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help(a)opensuse.org

14 years, 5 months

Re: [opensuse-packaging] Problem with 'build' glibc

by Jonathan E. Brickman

>> rpmbuild would not build a stock glibc, same errors. Trying 'build'. I >> set my environment at: >> >> BUILD_ROOT=/home/BUILD >> BUILD_RPMS=/home/BUILD/SUSE_DVD_MOUNT/suse/i586:/home/BUILD/SUSE_DVD_MOUNT/suse/i686:/home/BUILD/SUSE_DVD_MOUNT/suse/noarch >> BUILD_RPM_BUILD_STAGE=-bb >> >> error: File >> /usr/src/packages/SOURCES/glibc-nptl-2.6.1-2007080316.tar.bz2: No >> > > Well, is this file in the directory where you call build? > > Yes. /usr/src/packages has been copied in toto to /home/BUILD/usr/src/packages. J.E.B. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help(a)opensuse.org

14 years, 5 months

[opensuse-packaging] Problem with 'build' glibc

by Jonathan E. Brickman

rpmbuild would not build a stock glibc, same errors. Trying 'build'. I set my environment at: BUILD_ROOT=/home/BUILD BUILD_RPMS=/home/BUILD/SUSE_DVD_MOUNT/suse/i586:/home/BUILD/SUSE_DVD_MOUNT/suse/i686:/home/BUILD/SUSE_DVD_MOUNT/suse/noarch BUILD_RPM_BUILD_STAGE=-bb and indeed the RPMS are at the locations in BUILD_RPMS. 'build' installs everything it needs, quite successfully. But it is setting permissions wrongly in the build root. Below are the messages. What occurs actually, is /home/BUILD and everything below it, is set to 99.99 (user.group), and although the files are all in place, the permissions are so far wrong that it can't run. I am running 'build' from superuser; is there something I need to do to get the chroot to do permissions correctly, or something else? keeping gcc-4.2-24 keeping gcc42-c++-4.2.1_20070724-17 keeping gcc-c++-4.2-24 removing nis flags from /home/BUILD/etc/nsswitch.conf... now finalizing build dir... Checking permissions and ownerships - using the permissions files /tmp/Check.perms.qK2721 setting /etc/shadow to root:shadow 0640. (wrong owner/group root:root permission s 0644) setting /usr/src/packages/SOURCES/ to root:root 1777. (wrong owner/group abuild: abuild permissions 0755) setting /usr/src/packages/BUILD/ to root:root 1777. (wrong owner/group abuild:ab uild permissions 0755) setting /usr/src/packages/RPMS/ to root:root 1777. (wrong owner/group abuild:abu ild permissions 0755) setting /usr/src/packages/RPMS/i386/ to root:root 1777. (wrong owner/group abuil d:abuild permissions 0755) setting /usr/src/packages/RPMS/i686/ to root:root 1777. (wrong owner/group abuil d:abuild permissions 0755) setting /usr/src/packages/RPMS/noarch/ to root:root 1777. (wrong owner/group abu ild:abuild permissions 0755) setting /usr/src/packages/SPECS/ to root:root 1777. (wrong owner/group abuild:ab uild permissions 0755) setting /usr/src/packages/SRPMS/ to root:root 1777. (wrong owner/group abuild:ab uild permissions 0755) Starting SuSEconfig, the SuSE Configuration Tool... Running in full featured mode. Reading /etc/sysconfig and updating the system... Executing /sbin/conf.d/SuSEconfig.groff... Executing /sbin/conf.d/SuSEconfig.perl... Executing /sbin/conf.d/SuSEconfig.permissions... Finished. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----- building glibc.spec (user abuild) ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- error: File /usr/src/packages/SOURCES/glibc-nptl-2.6.1-2007080316.tar.bz2: No su ch file or directory --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help(a)opensuse.org

14 years, 5 months

[opensuse-packaging] Various Packet formats - Linux development

by Benjamin Kramer

Hallo, I ' am using Linux for about 10 years and I am looking to see that Linux is developing to an Operating System which all people can use without any difficulties. So that it can easy be used by firms, small business and private persons. How can we reach this? The main reason why people do not change to Linux is that the Software ist not available on Linux. For example Adobe Photoshop, Fireworks, Flash, Dreamweaver and not to forget the games. I know that I can emulate with wine some of the applications, but it is very difficult in handling. I see the problem in the various packet formates like rpm, deb... It would be better do come with other distributions to a solution for one packet format. That would be useful in developing Software only for one packet system. That can't be so difficult can it? And when we have one packet format, I think bigger Company's like Adobe will produce their software for Linux. We should keep in mind that the spreading of Linux should be in front. Benjamin Kramer --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help(a)opensuse.org

14 years, 5 months

[opensuse-packaging] [Fwd: [yast-devel] sw_single Acccessibility Category]

by Lukas Ocilka

Hi, It seems that this mail rather belongs here. RPM Groups should be assigned in RPM spec file. YaST software management doesn't assign packages to groups (here called "category"). Thx && Bye Lukas -- Lukas Ocilka, YaST Developer (xn--luk-gla45d) ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUSE LINUX, s. r. o., Lihovarska 1060/12, Praha 9, Czech Republic

14 years, 5 months

[opensuse-packaging] rpmbuild glibc for OpenSuse?

by Jonathan E. Brickman

Greetings. I am trying to rebuild glibc under OpenSUSE 10.3, optimizing for CPU, and am running into a peculiar problem. I am running the command: rpmbuild -bb --target athlon glibc.spec from /usr/src/packages/SPECS, with the glibc .src.rpm for 2.6.1 installed; and all goes very well, until rather near the end: + cd .. + export RPM_BUILD_ROOT + mkdir -p /var/tmp/glibc-2.6.1-build/lib/obsolete + cp -av bits/stdio-lock.h /var/tmp/glibc-2.6.1-build/usr/include/bits/stdio-lock.h `bits/stdio-lock.h' -> `/var/tmp/glibc-2.6.1-build/usr/include/bits/stdio-lock.h' + install -m 0700 glibc_post_upgrade /var/tmp/glibc-2.6.1-build/usr/sbin + mkdir -p /var/tmp/glibc-2.6.1-build/usr/include/resolv + install -m 0644 resolv/mapv4v6addr.h /var/tmp/glibc-2.6.1-build/usr/include/resolv/ + install -m 0644 resolv/mapv4v6hostent.h /var/tmp/glibc-2.6.1-build/usr/include/resolv/ + mkdir -p /var/tmp/glibc-2.6.1-build/usr/share/doc/glibc + cp -p 'manual/libc/*.html' /var/tmp/glibc-2.6.1-build/usr/share/doc/glibc cp: cannot stat `manual/libc/*.html': No such file or directory error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.66519 (%install) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.66519 (%install) Should I be using a tool other than rpmbuild? Or is there a package I am missing? I have tried a number of things, but haven't been able to figure it out. J.E.B. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help(a)opensuse.org

14 years, 5 months

[opensuse-packaging] rpmbuild glibc for OpenSuse?

by Jonathan E. Brickman

14 years, 5 months

[opensuse-packaging] rpmbuild glibc for OpenSuse?

by Jonathan E. Brickman

14 years, 5 months

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

openSUSE Packaging November 2007