openSUSE Packaging December 2011

packaging@lists.opensuse.org

59 participants
44 discussions

[opensuse-packaging] namespace for system users?

by Ludwig Nussel

Hi, There's a request to add a system user 'tor': https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/96531 There is no name space separation between system users and actual logins. So especially for short names like the above there is a chance that it could collide with an already existing user name on some system. Having a system service running with the uid of an actual user isn't desirable. So what about mandating an extra prefix or suffix to (new) system user names like 'daemon' or 'service'? Ie in the above example the user name would be 'tor-daemon' or 'tor-service' instead of 'tor'. Other thoughts? cu Ludwig -- (o_ Ludwig Nussel //\ V_/_ http://www.suse.de/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

10 years, 3 months

[opensuse-packaging] don't understand the new licenses

by Sascha Manns

Hello mates, i'm trying to build a new packageversion. The old Licenses Field was "GPLv3 or later". If i'm going to: http://license.opensuse.org/ and place GPLv3 there, the Site proposes to use "GPL-3". If i'm placing this into the Licenses Field i become: kvirustotal-lang.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL-3 kvirustotal.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-3 kvirustotal.src: W: invalid-license GPL-3 The specified license string is not recognized. Please refer to http://license.opensuse.org/ for the list of known licences and their exact spelling. But why this false? Does anyone knows more? Wish all a happy X-Mas Sascha -- Sincerly yours Sascha Manns Community &Support Agent open-slx GmbH http://www.open-slx.de (Business) http://saigkill.homelinux.net (Private) This mail is written with Balsam Professional 12.1

10 years, 4 months

[opensuse-packaging] Is there a quick way to test all Requires are in factory?

by Greg Freemyer

All, More than once I have submitted something to factory that didn't have all the requires and buildrequires pieces already there. Is there a simple test I can run on the package to verify that before I submit a new package? In this specific case, I want to submit security -- log2timeline. I've been slowly submitting all the pre-reqs and I think I finally have everything in factory. Thanks Greg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

10 years, 4 months

[opensuse-packaging] Submitting multiple changes against phpunit packages

by Robert Munteanu

Hi, I've branched server:php:applications to https://build.opensuse.org/project/packages?project=home%3Arobert_munteanu%… and updated a couple of packages, fixing https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734936 . These packages are in a dependency tree, and I'm not sure how to submit requests for them. Should I start with the leaves and once they are accepted submit the parents, or should I submit them all at once and mention that they should be reviewed/merged together? Thanks, Robert -- Sent from my (old) computer -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

10 years, 4 months

Re: [opensuse-packaging] %if 0%{?suse_version} >= 1210 not working?

by Lutz Thuns

Am 07.12.2011 05:50, schrieb Cristian Rodríguez: > Use > 1140 instead ;-) Guess what? ;) Doesn't work either. I've changed to the following: %if 0%{?suse_version} <= 1140 %patch0 -p1 %endif %patch1 -p1 %patch2 -p1 %patch4 -p1 %patch5 -p1 %if 0%{?suse_version} > 1140 %patch6 -p1 %endif So patch0 should affect all releases from including 11.4 and downwards. patch6 should affect all releases above 11.4. Again, patch6 is only applied in Factory, not 12.1. Maybe the build target has a wrong suse_version? https://build.opensuse.org/package/show?package=lxdm&project=home%3AlOtz100… --- Lutz Thuns openSUSE member (lOtz1009) LXDE team -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

10 years, 4 months

[opensuse-packaging] Global SRPM Centos compatibility: _docdir issues

by H. David Ross

I'm attempting to build an RPM for a more recent version of the global tag suite than currently available for Centos 6.x, using SRPMs from https://build.opensuse.org/package/show?package=global&project=openSUSE%3AF… OBS Global Project . Several minor issues related to the _docdir macro generate build/rpmlint errors. It wouldn't be difficult to hack the spec/config info allowing the build to complete. This my first venture in to RPM development/troubleshooting. I'd rather make a small contribution toward "draining the swamp" than snuff a few alligator hatch-lings. The issues are: * Makefile.am (top directory of source tree) has: gtagsdir = ${datadir}/doc/packages/global * global.spec assumes %{_docdir} = %{_datadir}/doc/packages * CentOS does not appear to define %{_docdir}, dispite a few references to it in other macros * %{_docdir} is listed in OpenSuse Packaging Guidelines, but not in guidelines any other Distro Builds fail in %install, because the %{_docdir} is empty or substituting %{_datadir} file source/destination paths are not symmetric relative to the build/buildroot. Comments/suggestions about reporting/correcting cross-distro discrepancies would be appreciated. If difference can be mapped through macros it might be useful to collect and distribute them. david -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Global-SRPM-Centos-compatibility%3A-_docdir-issues-tp… Sent from the opensuse-packaging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

10 years, 4 months

[opensuse-packaging] Re: [opensuse-buildservice] %clean section in rpm packages in OBS

by Joop Boonen

Hi Nelson, This sounds great. Does anyone know if a wiki page will be created / updated about how spec files should look like? As I look at your reply, I'm thinking about SLE(S|D)10 and maybe even SLE(S|D)11 they won't be handling a missing %clean correctly as their rpm is 4.4.2. So I wonder if it's a good idea to remove %clean now? Regards, Joop. On Fri, December 23, 2011 11:25 pm, Nelson Marques wrote: > With RPM 4.9+ you no longer require the %clean section, it's done > automatically. There's the new %check section amongst other things... > Newer versions of RPM shouldn't require either the > %defattr(-,root,root,-) as they should be doing it by default... and > if things are like in Fedora, the BuildRoot should be handled > automatically also (not sure if implemented on OBS). > > NM > > 2011/12/23 Joop Boonen <joop.boonen(a)boonen.org>: >> All, >> >> I have a question lately I see spec files that have been changed with >> the >> remark (cf. specfile guidelines). >> >> The %clean section has been removed for example, this doesn't feel right >> to me. >> >> Does anyone know something about the cf. specfile guidelines? >> Did I miss something? >> >> Regards, >> >> Joop. >> >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org >> To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner(a)opensuse.org >> > > > > -- > Nelson Marques > > /* http://www.marques.so > Â nmo.marques(a)gmail.com */ > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

10 years, 4 months

[opensuse-packaging] remove libtool from prjconfig

by Stephan Kulow

Hi, You may have noticed: I added libtool as buildrequire to many packages. Now that I'm through with my list, I would like to remove libtool from the projconfig. After that you need to buildrequire libtool if you need it otherwise the package will fail, but unless something slipped this should not be the case for any package in factory. Next stop: automake Greetings, Stephan -- Sent from openSUSE -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

10 years, 4 months

[opensuse-packaging] Check in review delay: Vacation Christmas and New Year`s Eve 2011/2012

by Lars Vogdt

Dear Packagers, during the time from the 24th Dec 2011 until 08th Jan 2012 (Christmas/New Year´s Eve) many teams and departments inside the SUSE Linux Products GmbH will be on vacation or can only offer limited services. This affects also the "autobuild-team" you might know as reviewers for your packages submitted to Factory (and other released distributions). While some of us are still in the office to get the most annoying and security bugs fixed and out to you as our customers, most of us are using this period to spend some time aside of computers and with their friends and families. As result, packages in openSUSE:Factory might stay a bit longer in the "review" state as you can expect in normal times. Please be not so angry with us in this case - just do the same and use this time for regeneration and preparation for the upcoming openSUSE year. We wish you and your families a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Ah: and remember to have a lot of fun! ;-) Lars -- Lars Vogdt <Lars.Vogdt(a)suse.com> - OPS Engineering Services Teamlead - SUSE Linux Products GmbH - GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nuernberg, Germany - HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

10 years, 4 months

[opensuse-packaging] Obsoleted %suse_update_desktop_file

by Stephan Kulow

Hi, Over the last couple of days I reworked update-desktop-files not to rely on an explicit %suse_update_desktop_file call. Instead Factory will have an additional brp script that trims the translations from .desktop files. So: if you can live with an rpmlint warning on older distributions (I submited a rpmlint with the warning gone for factory), you can skip the macro now if you call it without options. The most useful option of the macro should be the -n option now, as this one will mark the .desktop file with translate=false, which then also skips the trimming. There is one problem with removing the buildrequires on update-desktop-files though: this package includes rpm provide triggers for mimehandler(), so don't remove the buildrequire if you have MimeType= in your .desktop file. Or we move that triggers to a package always installed in factory. Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

10 years, 4 months

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

openSUSE Packaging December 2011