February 2012 - openSUSE Packaging - openSUSE Mailing Lists

[opensuse-packaging] How to specify a 'same build' RPM dependency?
by Johannes Meixner 16 Feb '12

16 Feb '12

Hello, I have a package made from a single source tar ball where I split stuff which requires X11 into a sub-package so that the main-package can be installed on a system without X11. Because the stuff in the sub-package could have any kind of subtle dependency on the stuff in the main-package, I like to make sure that the sub-package requires the 100% exact matching main-package. Furthermore, when the sub-package is installed, I like to make sure that the main-package cannot be changed without changing the sub-package accordingly. In the end I like that the sub-package and the main-package must come from the same build where both the main-package and its sub-package have been made. An approximation could be: foo.spec ---------------------------------------------------------- Name: foo Conflicts: foo-x11 < %{version}-%{release} Conflicts: foo-x11 > %{version}-%{release} ... %package x11 Requires: foo = %{version}-%{release} ---------------------------------------------------------- But then it is still possible that main-package and sub-package with exact matching version-release are installed but both come from totally different OBS projects/repositories (e.g. with different patches or whatever kind of differences). Is there a way to specify a 'same build' RPM dependency? By the way: The RPM documentation http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-depend-manual-dependencies.html and /usr/share/doc/packages/rpm/manual/dependencies (in rpm-4.8.0 in openSUSE 11.4) does not show a comparison operator for "not equal" so that two Conflicts with '<' and '>' are used. Kind Regards Johannes Meixner -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH -- Maxfeldstrasse 5 -- 90409 Nuernberg -- Germany HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendoerffer -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

7 7

[opensuse-packaging] /usr/bin/php5 versus /usr/bin/php
by Ralf Lang 16 Feb '12

16 Feb '12

OpenSUSE 11.4 and SLES11 seem to ship /usr/bin/php5 while OpenSUSE 12.1 ships /usr/bin/php This affects packages which have php5 files with shebangs (cli scripts) I know I am late to the party but is this switch by purpose? Can we expect it to be consistently either way in future releases? Ralf -- 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 To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

2 2

[opensuse-packaging] PHP application packaging
by Wolfgang Rosenauer 16 Feb '12

16 Feb '12

Hi, (btw, I'm always confused if opensuse-packaging or opensuse-factory is the right list for that kind of questions. Do we really need both?) I'm not deep into PHP app packaging but I'm working on an update for an existing app in server:php:applications right now. But I have quite some open questions and even searching on en.opensuse.org or looking at other similar packages didn't shed some light on them. Is there any kind of packaging guide for PHP apps and Apache configuration policies I haven't found yet? The app I'm working on is installing itself into /srv/www/NAME. Others are using /srv/www/htdocs/NAME. In addition it is patched to have its php config files in /etc instead of the application directory. Do we really want that? Do we want to fiddle with the Apache config in %post or similar to add required modules (a2enmod)? Should apps be enabled with their installation or via server flags? Anyone got a pointer to openSUSE specific packaging guidelines here? Thanks, Wolfgang -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

8 26

[opensuse-packaging] Dual Licence in one spec file
by Joop Boonen 15 Feb '12

15 Feb '12

Hi all, I'm packaging a package that has both a GPL 2 and a MIT license i.e. one part of the code is GPL 2 the other is MIT. How can I put this in the License line in the spec file, so it'll be accepted for openSUSE:Factory? Regards, Joop. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

3 2

[opensuse-packaging] Can we merge infinality patch set from fedora into freetype2 in M17N and Factory?
by Marguerite Su 13 Feb '12

13 Feb '12

Hiya, all, I sent this email mainly to M17N developers(all kinds of, including myself), because comment area in request is not a good place to gather ideas and suggestions. anyway, it's still an open discussion. infinality (http://www.infinality.net) is a patch set against Freetype2, especially against its sub-pixel rendering. it's been developed by infinality team and used on Fedora for a long time. so stability is not a problem. It can significantly improve the display of almost any fonts in openSUSE, especially CJK fonts( they are almost the most complicated font sets in the world) . I've built a package and placed it in home:opensuse_zh, test results gathered from Chinese Community shows welcome. you can test it there. And really, to be honest, the sub-pixel patch existed in Freetype2 now is a draft work, sometimes a mess. it just enables sub-pixel, but takes no care of how sub-pixel rendering is applied to fonts. But it has disadvantage too, the most famous LD_PRELOAD warning in /etc/profiles.d/freetype-infinality.sh. It preloads 64bit library by default. so when you run some 32bit programs, there will be a warning in terminal( if you run programs using it), but the display is still good. that LD_PRELOAD warning, according to official, still can't be fixed by replacing functions. they haven't figured out a way to switch between architectures. and it has no *.csh provided. so any patches and fork are welcome, coz I know little about writing shell scripts. In my personal view, I think it should be replaced. but as it's a serious thing replacing a package source existing in Factory. so I need your wise advises. Marguerite -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

5 16

Re: [opensuse-packaging] Can we merge infinality patch set from fedora into freetype2 in M17N and Factory?
by Ilya Chernykh 13 Feb '12

13 Feb '12

On Monday 13 February 2012 18:53:05 Marguerite Su wrote: > It's a optional package in fedora called freetype2-infinality (some kinds of). > > you have to install it manually. so of course they renders worse than us. > > you can try that package in home:opensuse_zh and feedback. my personal > experience is awesome... > > since it's an awesome patch set. I think we should absorb it into our > default settings in default package. and the code shows it renders > better than our existing default. Currently the rendering fully satisfies me when subpixel smoothing is enabled and hinting set to full. The font family I use is the Liberation fonts but all other fonts also look well. I am afraid that those excellent fonts appearance I have currently may be damaged by the changes. I doubt it is possible to make it better with existing fonts and this screen resolution. So please if you add a new rendering engine, place it into a separate optional package just as Fedora does. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

2 1

Re: [opensuse-packaging] Can we merge infinality patch set from fedora into freetype2 in M17N and Factory?
by Marguerite Su 13 Feb '12

13 Feb '12

As you said, it only satisfies you, using western fonts only. it never satisfies me actually, that's why I do the packaging work. I completely understand your feeling, it's just the same as mine everytime I run dst upgrade. I'm "afraid" to lose my adjustments. another question raises why someone can enjoy and others must have to suffer? so please help me try it in home:opensuse_zh before "doubt", to see if it fulfills your needs. I did NOT push it to either M17N or Factory yet. Actually I don't know if it's a new rendering engine. I'm not a coder and I can understand only a little of its source code. that's why I post here, I need someone to assess it. and that's why I leave it in a home repository for testing for so long to see the feedback. It seems that patch set just enables sub-pixel rendering like old one does, and makes adjustments to some specific fonts( most of them are CJK, old-times, propietary and everyone-knows-it-renders-bad ones.) So if your font is not among them, it renders maybe just as what it looked like. If I place it into a separate optional package, it won't help fresh users. like Ubuntu looks good among all locales for fresh users. while some foreign users of us SuSE have to install a package to look good. it sounds really really bad. On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Ilya Chernykh <anixxsus(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Currently the rendering fully satisfies me when subpixel smoothing is enabled and hinting set to full. > I am afraid that those excellent fonts appearance I have currently may be damaged by the changes. > I doubt it is possible to make it better with existing fonts and this screen resolution. > > So please if you add a new rendering engine, place it into a separate optional package just as Fedora does. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

1 0

[opensuse-packaging] %create_subdir_filelist Documentation
by Sascha Manns 13 Feb '12

13 Feb '12

Hello mates, AFAIK we had in the past an documentation about %create_subdir_filelist and other macros, but i don't find it now. Does anyone knows more? -- Sincerly yours Sascha Manns Community & Support Agent, Documentation Specialist open-slx GmbH http://www.open-slx.de (Business) http://saigkill.homelinux.net (Private) This mail is written with Balsam Professional 12.1 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

1 0

[opensuse-packaging] namespace for system users?
by Ludwig Nussel 11 Feb '12

11 Feb '12

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

8 11

[opensuse-packaging] autoconf's PKG_CHECK_MODULES and static libraries
by Cristian Morales Vega 10 Feb '12

10 Feb '12

I have this build fail: https://build.opensuse.org/package/live_build_log?arch=x86_64&package=aegis… The first funny part is that libwx_baseu-2.8.so actually has the DT_NEEDED entry to libz.so.1. Playing a bit with it it seems it's a gcc bug? The actual problem is that -lffms2 is only available as a static library and that's the library really missing libz. And here my problem... The ffms2 library has a nice .pc file that correctly specifies -lz in Libs.private. But aegisub detects ffms2 through the PKG_CHECK_MODULES macro... which doesn't use the --static flag. I understand the .private thing was added later in the pkg-config development... it was forgotten to add that capability to the autoconf macro or I am missing something important? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

2 2