Hi,
I am not very happy with naming of nrpe and its sub-pkg.
we have nagios-nrpe-client, nagios-nrpe-server
While seeing the client pkg I'll be misled to install this pkg on the
remote box and vice versa. But the "client" pkg has to be installed on
the nagios box.
That's why I am thinking of:
- nagios-nrpe
it is the package to be installed on the remote box.
- nagios-nrpe-plugin or nagios-plugins-nrpe
just the name will let you associate to install this pkg on the nagios box.
What do you think ?
Any recommendations are welcome
Kind Regards
Chris
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help(a)opensuse.org
Hi,
[including some random mailing list, so that the text isn't lost :) ]
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
> > there are some packages that fail to build because they miss phtread
> > symbols. I have always have the doubt about why there is the
> > "-pthread" gcc flag... somewhere I read that's the correct thing to
> > do, that using -lpthread is wrong, but without explanations. What
> > should I use in these cases? I suppose use -lpthread would be the
> > equivalent to what they did without --as-needed... but perhaps the
> > behavior without --as-needed was already wrong.
>
> matz is the right person to answer your question, as far as I know, the
> right way is using -lpthread instead of -pthread , is that correct ?
Nope, -pthread is better than -lpthread (see below). It's completely
possible that something is broken with as-needed vs. pthreads. Those
cases have to be identified and then worked around
(export SUSE_AS_NEEDED=0), or better, analyzed for the root cause.
I didn't get the complete thread, only this forward, so I don't know what
the nature of the breakage is, so I can give only speculations:
I would think that if something with pthread and as-needed breaks it
doesn't get exposed as missing symbols or the like (so that apps don't
even start) but rather mysterious breakages related to non-thread-aware
functions being used even though -pthread was given as compile and link
flag.
[background]
Regarding the explanation of -pthread/-lpthread: Unfortunately the initial
threading support for UNIX was a bit like bolted onto the existing
(non thread-aware) libc. For various reasons it was decided that users
that aren't interested in threading are not supposed to pay the cost of
_potential_ thread safety. This cost is mostly associated with locking
some shared data structures for libc and the process output (e.g. output
of printf() ).
Now, given this criteria, there's not much choice. Basically the user has
to announce to the system if or if not the application is thread aware, so
that it (the system) can chose between thread-aware or non thread-aware
functions. This announcement is done by the -pthread flag. The
difference to the -lpthread flag is that it is not only a link time flag
(saying that the libpthread library has to be put into the dependence
libraries) but also a compile time flag. So for compiling .c to .o files
for a thread aware program it's necessary to include -pthread into the
compile flags. The effect of that option is system dependend. Usually it
will result in the compiler defining some preprocessor symbols
(_REENTRANT) so that system headers can choose between different
implementations of various posix functions (where the API doesn't make a
difference between thread-safe and -unsafe functions) and internal data
structures.
So, for memoizing the difference: -lpthread is a link time only flag,
simply telling the linker to include libpthread into the application.
-pthread (without the "l") is a link time _and compile time flag_.
Because sometimes different code has to be emitted (for the runtime system
including libc) for programs supposed to be thread-safe, this can't be
announced only at the link phase, the compiler has to know about this.
[more magic]
Now, for linux there's a bit magic involved. To make the cost for non
thread-safe programs really low some routines in libc _are not
thread-safe_. That's fine, those programs aren't linked against
libpthread, so they have announced to be not interested in threads.
libpthread.so provides thread-aware variants of some functions that are
also provided by libc itself. For instance open() and friends is such
function. The libpthread variant includes some locking for shared data
structures.
(Apart from these overriding functions it also includes the usual pthread
functions, pthread_*, e.g. pthread_spin_lock).
How this all works is because ELF symbols resolution rules say so. If an
application calls "open" and is linked against libpthread and libc (which
both provide a version of "open", one thread-aware the other not) then the
dynamic linker will chose the first it finds. Other things (gcc .spec
files) make sure that libpthread is linked in _before_ libc when -pthread
is given. This can't be ensured for -lpthread, the latter being simply a
request for a random other library, as far as the system knows. So only
-pthread, not -lpthread, makes really sure that libpthread is linked at
the right place vs. libc, so that it can override the non thread-aware
functions of it.
[less magic]
Having said all this, it usually is just fine to simply link against
libpthread (via -lpthread) with linux, as long as you don't mention -lc
before. This is because most headers don't care about the _REENTRANT
preprocessor define, i.e. they don't change their content depending on the
flag, and because ELF rules will still make the functions from libpthread
be preferred. But for cross-platform compatibility it's important to use
-pthread, _not_ -lpthread. And as it's important for others, and at least
good under linux, you can just as well use it always if you need.
Ciao,
Michael.
Hi all,
as you know I wrote a post about Fedora Packaging Guidelines [1]. I was
working on it during last three weeks (but a little, so it takes a long time
:)) and nowadays I'm ready to import a Fedora's content to en.opensuse.org
wiki. Now it is on pack.suse.cz [2]. I also checked that none of that page
conflicts with an existing content on openSUSE wiki, so it can be imported
easily.
Tom Callaway [3] from RedHat confirms me that a Guidelines are under Open
Publication License [4] and we can use it for SUSE without restrictions. He
was also interested on future collaboration and offers some meeting on
LinuxTag - it would be nice if anyone from SUSE will be ready to start a
discussion.
Before import I'd like to ask:
Which pages should be excluded for openSUSE? Some pages seems that they are
not interesting for SUSE (like Packaging:OldJPackagePolicy [5],
Packaging:SugarActivities [6]). Import it, or don't?
Second one is how to edit the text and adapt it for SUSE? Change the existing
text or leave it and add a SUSE specifics to the beginning or end of page (as
suggests Vladimir)? The second way should help us with synchronizing of
changes.
After that I'll add a warning [7] on the beginning of every page to prevent
that some users will use those guidelines and ask for help with editing ;-)
[1] http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-packaging/2009-02/msg00043.html
[2] http://pack.suse.cz/mvyskocil/fedora-packaging-guidelines/
[3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway
[4] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/OPL
[5] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:OldJPackagePolicy
[6] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SugarActivityGuidelines
[7] http://en.opensuse.org/Template:Warning1
Best regards
Michal Vyskocil
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help(a)opensuse.org
Hi,
I would like to point out something that seems not obvious to everyone:
Everyone can maintain packages in factory now
There is no limitation anymore on who can maintain packages, _BUT_:
- the package has to be submitted and reviewed into an _existant_
devel project
- it has to build successfully against factory
- the devel project has set a bugowner and maintainer for the package
- preferably someone else from the devel project submits it to
factory, but this is not a strict requirement
- the submitrequest contains a note with informations about the package.
Preferably you introduce the package to a mailing list (either topic
or opensuse-factory) and point to that introduction in your submitrequest.
The information we need are things like this:
- who is the bugowner (has to be set in the package)?
- how long has it been around?
- how well has it been tested?
- what is the upstream project?
- does it have a track record of security issues?
- what is the purpose of having it in the distribution?
- what are its users?
- what is the license (has to be set in the package)?
The main purpose of requiring this informations in the submitrequest
is that you think about such things before you write a script that dumps
all of freshmeat into factory. I don't want to stop anyone from maintaining
a package in our distribution, but I want every package to be maintained,
not to be packaged - I hope you understand the difference.
Greetings, Stephan
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help(a)opensuse.org
Hi,
Sending this to opensuse-packaging because I'm not sure about the
policy...
Le vendredi 31 juillet 2009, à 20:06 +0200, lrupp(a)suse.de a écrit :
> Script 'mail_helper' called by lrupp
>
> Hi vuntz(a)novell.com,
> /mounts/work_src_done/STABLE/libwebkit was not checked in by lrupp for the following reasons:
>
> Packaging documentation in library packages is not allowed:
> http://en.opensuse.org/Packaging/Shared_Library_Packaging_Policy#Package_Co…
(note that the doc files in question are only license files + NEWS, not
API documentation, or "how to use this library" documentation)
I made the change, but I consider the policy broken here: if libwebkit11
is LGPLv2 and libwebkit12 is LGPLv3, then I can only have one
libwebkit-devel, and therefore one of those two packages won't have the
right license installed.
Can someone clarify if I'm right or wrong, and if we need to adapt a bit
the policy? :-)
Thanks,
Vincent
--
Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help(a)opensuse.org
Hi,
I updated http://www.suse.de/~coolo/factory-status.html with another feature
(note that you have to click "show all" - by default it will only show failing
packages)
This time I mark the devel project red when there is either a cycle in the
definition (should soon no longer happen) or if there is no devel project
defined.
And additionally I try to show the status for bugs: the maintainer column
is red if there is no unique "bugowner" in either the package or the project
defined and orange if there is at least an unique maintainer defined.
The thing is we reach the beta phase and not too far away we will put
11.2 into maintenance and then we need to know who to assign bugs to,
so it has to be unique - even if it's a mailing list (with a novell acount :)
Greetings, Stephan
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help(a)opensuse.org
Project: home:saigkill
Package: assuma
Hello Mates,
atm i'm trying to create assuma. Compiling runs, but make install not.
He says:
+ make DESTDIR=/var/tmp/assuma-3.0-build install
make: Nothing to be done for `install'.
How can i define the place who are must installed the files?
--
Sincerely yours
Sascha Manns
openSUSE Ambassador
openSUSE Marketing Team
openSUSE Build Service
Web: http://saschamanns.gulli.to
Project-Blog: http://lizards.opensuse.org/author/saigkill
Private-Blog: http://saschasbacktrace.blogspot.com
Hi,
Freshmeat Digger aka Marcus was so kind to put his data
into a file I can read, so I integrated the version infos
into http://www.suse.de/~coolo/factory-status.html and
added a comment "needs update" when there is a newer version
available.
Please note that the upstream version does not necessarly
refer to our version or is a beta version or whatever.
So if you see something with a newer upstream version, try
your luck and do a submitreqest (of course unless the
devel project already has it).
Greetings, Stephan
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help(a)opensuse.org
If you experience strange build failures complaining that some debug
information files were installed but not packaged you are likely
using the %exclude mechanism in a way it wasn't designed for.
You should use %exclude if you want to use globs to fill in the
files sections but put selected single files into different
sub-packages.
You should _not_ use %exclude to exclude files from packaging at all!
Instead remove the affected files at the end of the %install section.
Richard.
--
Richard Guenther <rguenther(a)suse.de>
Novell / SUSE Labs
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nuernberg - AG Nuernberg - HRB 16746 - GF: Markus Rex
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help(a)opensuse.org
Hi,
the new module-init-tools, which will appear in Factory soon, deprecated
/etc/modprobe.conf(.local) and only uses /etc/modprobe.d/*.conf
configuration files (files without the .conf suffix are still read, but
cause a warning). I tried to find and fix packages that install modprobe
config files, but in case I missed some, the fix is simple:
change /etc/modprobe.d/$name to /etc/modprobe.d/50-$name.conf.
Also, mkinitrd should be updated to not copy /etc/modprobe.conf* if it's
not there.
Michal
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help(a)opensuse.org