September 2011 - openSUSE Packaging - openSUSE Mailing Lists

[opensuse-packaging] [reminder] openSUSE 12.1 Milestone 6 is next week
by openSUSE Roadmap Reminder 15 Sep '11

15 Sep '11

Hello all, openSUSE 12.1 Milestone 6 will be released next week, on Thursday 22 September 2011. Please submit your packages before Friday afternoon (UTC time) to make sure they will get included in this release. Leaf packages submitted during the week-end might also get accepted on Monday. For a quick overview of the openSUSE Roadmap, please see: http://en.opensuse.org/Roadmap Thanks, -- openSUSE Roadmap Reminder -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help(a)opensuse.org

2 1

[opensuse-packaging] rpmlint no-changelogname-tag warning
by Javier Conti 15 Sep '11

15 Sep '11

Hi list, I'm trying to package a software named "pacparser" on OBS. After a few suggestions by experienced maintainers, I now get just a few warnings. Unfortunately, I can't understand what the "no-changelogname-tag" means. I tried putting a global "%changelog" tag and putting a "%changelog" tag for each subpackage, but still get this error for the main package and all subpackages, as shown here: RPMLINT report: =============== python-pacparser.x86_64: W: no-changelogname-tag pacparser.x86_64: W: no-changelogname-tag pacparser-devel.x86_64: W: no-changelogname-tag pacparser.src: W: no-changelogname-tag There is no %changelog tag in your spec file. To insert it, just insert a '%changelog' in your spec file and rebuild it. pacparser-devel.x86_64: W: no-version-dependency-on pacparser*/pacparser-libs/libpacparser 1.2.9 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. If I look at the changelog file, I have: $ osc vc pacparser.spec ------------------------------------------------------------------- Wed Sep 14 19:39:35 UTC 2011 - javier.conti(a)gmail.com - ------------------------------------------------------------------- Tue Sep 6 19:34:53 UTC 2011 - javier.conti(a)gmail.com - Cleaned up SPEC file, created devel subpackage ------------------------------------------------------------------- Mon Aug 29 19:10:30 UTC 2011 - javier.conti(a)gmail.com - First release I also can't find the specific warning in the rpmlint docs here: http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_checks Any hints or pointers to documentation would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Javier -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help(a)opensuse.org

6 8

[opensuse-packaging] server:php:applications ezcomponents-* are in bad shape and should be dropped
by Ralf Lang 14 Sep '11

14 Sep '11

Factory team just rejected the ezcomponents-* packages which I submitted to factory because I needed them as a dependency for phpunit. I looked at them and I am about to drop them from server:php:applications too. These packages are in a bad shape- each of them seems to consist of the complete ezcomponents framework. I will set up a bare minimum of ezcomponents pear packages which is sufficient to run phpunit. I will not maintain any other ezcomponents packages - but I am willing to help anybody who steps up and maintains or at least resubmits a clean version of the individual ezcomponents. -- Ralf Lang Linux Consultant / Developer Tel.: +49-170-6381563 Mail: lang(a)b1-systems.de B1 Systems GmbH Osterfeldstraße 7 / 85088 Vohburg / http://www.b1-systems.de GF: Ralph Dehner / Unternehmenssitz: Vohburg / AG: Ingolstadt,HRB 3537 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help(a)opensuse.org

1 1

[opensuse-packaging] please ignore --test--
by Robert Schweikert 14 Sep '11

14 Sep '11

-- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center LINUX Tech Lead rjschwei(a)suse.com rschweik(a)ca.ibm.com 781-464-8147 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help(a)opensuse.org

1 0

[opensuse-packaging] liballegro5_0.x86_64: E: shlib-fixed-dependency (Badness: 440) config(liballegro5_0) = 5.0.4-7.1
by Adam Mizerski 13 Sep '11

13 Sep '11

Hi! I'm improving allegro5 package (https://build.opensuse.org/package/show?package=allegro5&project=home% 3AetamPL%3Abranches%3Agames) and one of things I did was adding a allegro5rc config file. To liballegro5_0 file list I added line: %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/allegro5rc Now in Factory build I get the following error: liballegro5_0.x86_64: E: shlib-fixed-dependency (Badness: 440) config(liballegro5_0) = 5.0.4-7.1 Your shared library package requires a fixed version of another package. The intention of the Shared Library Policy is to allow parallel installation of multiple versions of the same shared library, hard dependencies likely make that impossible. Please remove this dependency and instead move it to the runtime uses of your library. And it's not true because this shared library package requires a fixed version of itself. Do you have any idea why this appeared and what to do with this? -- Adam Mizerski

1 0

[opensuse-packaging] %doc directive.
by Paul Elliott 11 Sep '11

11 Sep '11

I found out that you can have a built source in a %doc directive, but the filename must be relative to where make built it not where make install put it. Also under suse if you put any file in the same directory that %doc puts files, perhaps by make install, then you will get a cpio error complaining about magic numbers. if you create one file via the %doc directive then all files in that directory must be via the %doc directive to avoid this cpio magic number error. Fedroa rpm seems to be more forgiving. The section on The %doc Directive in http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-inside-files-list-directives.html says that the %doc directive puts your files into a data base. Could someone tell me more about this database? I am building pdfs and putting them in %doc directives. debian has a database of pdf and other documentation that one must take care of. Does suse have something similar? -- Paul Elliott 1(512)837-1096 pelliott(a)BlackPatchPanel.com PMB 181, 11900 Metric Blvd Suite J http://www.free.blackpatchpanel.com/pme/ Austin TX 78758-3117

1 0

[opensuse-packaging] Enabled source services
by Stephan Kulow 07 Sep '11

07 Sep '11

Hi, To avoid suprises on factory checkin, we want to get rid of the "Autobuild autoformatter" script. Actually we want so for ages, but never came around it. So what we now enabled for openSUSE:Factory is a project wide service that will format the spec file at the moment you commit. Newer osc (> 1.131 afaik) will read this service files and use local tools to format the spec files before commit. This osc has been released as update for all openSUSE release for quite some time, so this shouldn't be a problem, but older oscs will simply ignore the fact. Note that this service file applies to all packages linking against openSUSE:Factory. So if you branch from factory, edit something and commit you will get the formating valid for factory. This also means that it's valid to have a different formating in the future, but there will be a check to verify the format follows some guidelines. E.g. it's important to have a copyright/license header. Additionally we enabled the source validator for both osc and the server. So with new osc versions, you will get a local error - if your osc ignores the source service (or you use --skip-local-service-run), the server will put your package in "broken". This source validator has been alive for a while in the form of a osc plugin, so it shouldn't be news. What we did not yet enable is download_files. Adrian would really like to have the source of tars verified, but I think that downloading tar balls locally all the time is bad. So we're looking for the perfect match there yet. AND PLEASE: we enabled these source services to finally go forward with removing these extra steps at checkin, but osc can act at times a little strange with services. So please report bugs and misbehaviours as you see them, I hope we can sort it out for a better world :) Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help(a)opensuse.org

3 5

[opensuse-packaging] Another review step introduced
by Stephan Kulow 07 Sep '11

07 Sep '11

Hi, The "factory-auto" script is in use for quite some time now, and so far the requests ended directly in new from where they were checked in from the autobuild team. Now we made this more explicit. factory-auto will add "autobuild-team" group as reviewer once it's done and the autobuild-team will review the sources as it did before. The big advantage of having this seperate step is that we can checkin all requests in new in a fast loop. So once we have a new FTP tree or a new DVD we can checkin all changed packages reviewed at that time and then wait for another DVD to finish. And while this happens, autobuild team can continue reviewing. If you notice any problems with this or have a question, please tell. Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help(a)opensuse.org

1 0

[opensuse-packaging] How often should I update factory?
by Manu Gupta 06 Sep '11

06 Sep '11

Hi How often should I update my factory repo? Also, what difference does it make to have a license as GPL v3 vs GPLv3+ -- Regards Manu Gupta -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help(a)opensuse.org

2 1

[opensuse-packaging] in a lib package, where does the copyright info go?
by Paul Elliott 06 Sep '11

06 Sep '11

As I look at already installed lib* packages I find different answers to this question. some have 3 packages 1) libFOO 2) libFOOX where X comes from the SONAME and contains the .so.x.x.x 3) libFOO-devel And I have seen case like this where the the copyright and other docs is in 1)libFOO I have also seen cases that look like this 1)libFOOX where X comes from the SONAME and contains the .so.x.x.x 2)libFOO-devel and the copyright was in libFOO-devel I have even seen cases where there was a copyright file in the libFOOX package! In the case of a library, which packages get the copyright file and which don't? When is there supposed to be the libFOO package (without the SONAME number)? I can not find where policy on this is documented for open suse. -- Paul Elliott 1(512)837-1096 pelliott(a)BlackPatchPanel.com PMB 181, 11900 Metric Blvd Suite J http://www.free.blackpatchpanel.com/pme/ Austin TX 78758-3117

6 9