August 2012 - openSUSE Packaging - openSUSE Mailing Lists

[opensuse-packaging] Ownership of runtime data
by Michal Vyskocil 20 Aug '12

20 Aug '12

Hallo, I've found that we are not consistent in a fact if package should own files with a runtime data or not. Simple check on my factory system says # rpm -qf /run/* file /run/acpid.pid is not owned by any package file /run/acpid.socket is not owned by any package file /run/auditd.pid is not owned by any package avahi-0.6.31-4.1.x86_64 samba-client-3.6.5-50.1.x86_64 ConsoleKit-0.4.5-13.1.x86_64 file /run/cron.pid is not owned by any package file /run/cron.reboot is not owned by any package file /run/cups is not owned by any package dbus-1-1.5.12-5.1.x86_64 file /run/dhclient-eth0.pid is not owned by any package file /run/displaymanager.pid is not owned by any package gdm-3.4.1-5.1.x86_64 file /run/gdm.pid is not owned by any package file /run/initramfs is not owned by any package file /run/lock is not owned by any package file /run/mount is not owned by any package file /run/netconfig is not owned by any package file /run/nfs is not owned by any package file /run/nm-dhclient-eth0.conf is not owned by any package nscd-2.15-24.1.x86_64 file /run/numlock-on is not owned by any package file /run/pcscd is not owned by any package plymouth-0.8.4-14.2.x86_64 file /run/pm-utils is not owned by any package PolicyKit-0.9-37.3.x86_64 file /run/rpcbind.lock is not owned by any package file /run/rpcbind.sock is not owned by any package syslog-service-1.4.1-760.1.noarch file /run/rsyslogd.pid is not owned by any package screen-4.0.4-3.1.x86_64 file /run/sm-notify.pid is not owned by any package file /run/sshd.pid is not owned by any package file /run/systemd is not owned by any package file /run/udev is not owned by any package screen-4.0.4-3.1.x86_64 file /run/user is not owned by any package aaa_base-12.2-4.2.x86_64 vim-base-7.3.566-1.1.x86_64 file /run/xinetd.init.pid is not owned by any package and I did not find anything related in our packaging guidelines. But I would say that packages should own their (/var)/run/ content, especially the directories added to (/var)/run. Regards Michal Vyskocil -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

3 3

Re: [opensuse-packaging] parseExpressionBoolean returns -1
by Sascha Manns 19 Aug '12

19 Aug '12

Hello Nelson, You wrote at Freitag, 17. August 2012, 00:03:52: > Sasha one more thing, for Fedora use %{fedora} and %{rhel} for RHEL. This > is how Fedora advices people. Dont use %{fedora_version}. Trust me on this; > I sure I am right. OK, it's now updated in the package. Thanks for your help :-) -- Sincerly yours Sascha Manns Community & Support Agent / Balsam Plasma Active Developer open-slx GmbH Web (business): http://www.open-slx.com Web (private): http://saigkill.homelinux.net open-slx GmbH, GF: Dr. Ing. Stefan Werden , HR: 25786, Ust-ID: DE267619018 Einsteinring 7, 90 453 Nuremberg / Germany -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

2 1

[opensuse-packaging] Build different package versions for different openSUSE release
by Xin Wang 18 Aug '12

18 Aug '12

Hi all, Now I'm trying to update Sugar [1] packages. Because latest version of Sugar depends on GTK 3.0, I would like to remain old versions there for SLE_11, 11.4 and 12.1, and only update packages for 12.2 and Factory. I have thought out several options to achieve this: 1. check suse_version in spec files 2. create a separate project specifically for 12.2 3. create another package, with different package name but will build same rpm, and then only enable it for 12.2 I'm not sure which one is the best practice, could someone figure me out? Thanks, [1] https://build.opensuse.org/project/show?project=X11%3ASugar -- Xin Wang (http://dram.me/) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

3 4

[opensuse-packaging] Linking to an older revision of a package (_link)
by Nanuk Krinner 14 Aug '12

14 Aug '12

Hi, I heard it is possible to link to the older revision of a package using _link [1] but I can't figure out how to. Can somebody point me to an example or explain to me how this is done? Also, I guess it is not recommended to do this, right? Thanks in advance, Nanuk [1] http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Build_Service_Tips_and_Tricks#link_and_aggr… -- 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] Files could not be expanded: conflict in file {xxxx}.spec
by doiggl＠velocitynet.com.au 13 Aug '12

13 Aug '12

Hello, I have this error in a .spec file [1]. "Files could not be expanded: conflict in file kernel-vanilla.spec" How is it fixed. Thanks Glenn [1] Spec file link https://api.opensuse.org/public/source/home:doiggl/kernel-vanilla/kernel-va… Project: https://build.opensuse.org/package/show?package=kernel-vanilla&project=home… -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

2 1

[opensuse-packaging] How does the decision making progress is called
by Togan Muftuoglu 13 Aug '12

13 Aug '12

Hi, In a recent mail to opensuse-factory [1] , regarding the implementation of Secure Boot for openSUSE - a proposal for the coming openSUSE release here is what Andreas wrote "Based on the feedback on this mailing list as well on opensuse-project, this is a clear "go" for the proposal." Now let me begin by stating the proposal is fine, and I am in favor of it. Nevertheless, the way "clear go " is defined makes me wonder, if the community is a follower or the leader. I thought the poll system was to include the community in situations like this, giving the opportunity to be involved in the decision process. If what has been preached is not practiced then what does opensuse member system stands for other than giving the email, irc cloaking and similar things. Togan http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2012-08/msg00294.html -- 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] Can LibreOffice:Stable be updated to version 3.6 as its been released.
by doiggl＠velocitynet.com.au 13 Aug '12

13 Aug '12

Hello, Can LibreOffice:Stable[1] be updated to version 3.6 as its been released [2] If this is not the correct list to ask, where is the correct list to ask ? Thanks Glenn [1] https://build.opensuse.org/project/show?project=LibreOffice%3AStable [2] LibreOffice 3.6.0 Final (2012-08-08) http://www.libreoffice.org/download/ http://www.libreoffice.org/download/release-notes/ http://download.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/stable/3.6.0/rpm/x86_64/… -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

4 5

[opensuse-packaging] parseExpressionBoolean returns -1
by Sascha Manns 13 Aug '12

13 Aug '12

Hello listmates, actually i'm working on a package who provides the epub and pdf from the monthly german "FreiesMagazin". It's located in my home:saigkill. To handle the desktop-files i've added in the spec: %if 0%{?suse_version} >= 12.1 BuildRequires: update-desktop-files %endif %if 0%{?fedora_version} BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils %endif But the first line: %if 0%{?suse_version} >= 12.1 gives me back an error like: error: /home/abuild/rpmbuild/SOURCES/freiesmagazin.spec:32: parseExpressionBoolean returns -1 Maybe anyone knows why this happens? Have a nice day Sascha -- Sincerly yours Sascha Manns Community & Support Agent / Balsam Plasma Active Developer open-slx GmbH Web (business): http://www.open-slx.com Web (private): http://saigkill.homelinux.net open-slx GmbH, GF: Dr. Ing. Stefan Werden , HR: 25786, Ust-ID: DE267619018 Einsteinring 7, 90 453 Nuremberg / Germany -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

3 3

[opensuse-packaging] sub-package naming?
by Greg Freemyer 07 Aug '12

07 Aug '12

All, I'm trying to get the sub-packages for ssdeep right: https://build.opensuse.org/package/show?package=ssdeep&project=home%3Agregf… It has a executable of ssdeep, but the shared lib is libfuzzy.so. I currently have a main package of ssdeep and sub-packages of libfuzzy2 and libfuzzy2-devel. That allows the package to build, but I have no idea if I'm handling the sub-package names correctly. It seems wrong to me and I don't know why the 2 is needed. Is that because the library is libfuzzy v2.7? This is my %files section of the specfile: === %files %defattr(-,root,root) %doc README COPYING %{_bindir}/* %{_mandir}/man1/* %files -n libfuzzy2 %defattr(-,root,root) %doc README COPYING %{_libdir}/libfuzzy.so.* %files -n libfuzzy2-devel %defattr(-,root,root) %{_includedir}/fuzzy.h %{_libdir}/libfuzzy.so %exclude %{_libdir}/libfuzzy.a %exclude %{_libdir}/libfuzzy.la === Thanks Greg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

3 3

[opensuse-packaging] opensuse-packaging@opensuse.org
by Francic Yue-Cheong Wong 06 Aug '12

06 Aug '12

I need to discuss with you about Ashraf Taysir Shaker Alqawasmi. Please contact me.Francic Yue-Cheong Wong -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

1 0