January 2013 - openSUSE Packaging - openSUSE Mailing Lists

[opensuse-packaging] Special Font package provides
by Sascha Peilicke 09 Jan '13

09 Jan '13

Hi, sr#147459 removes several provides from the font package ipa-bolditalic-fonts. I can see that such provides are mentioned as "recommended" but not explained in the Fonts packaging policy [1]. Are these actually used somewhere, rpm tells me I don't have packages requiring such provides. Either way, please update the Fonts packaging policy accordingly. Footnotes: [1] http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_Fonts -- With kind regards, Sascha Peilicke SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, D-90409 Nuernberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)

2 1

[opensuse-packaging] [reminder] openSUSE 12.3 Beta is next week
by openSUSE Roadmap Reminder 09 Jan '13

09 Jan '13

Hello all, openSUSE 12.3 Beta will be released next week, on Thursday 17 January 2013. 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 To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

1 0

[opensuse-packaging] When to use the Reopen Request feature and when to close the issue and open a new SR.
by Ralf Lang 07 Jan '13

07 Jan '13

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi openSUSE packagers of the year 2013, when I initially "learned" packaging, I used to supersede old/bad requests by just issuing new requests that fixed what was wrong. For some time there has been a button "reopen request" on revoked requests in the obs and I am unsure when to use it. When I view a declined request after adding, for example, missing changelog details, I still see the old diff. What will "reopen" do then? Re-submit the old declined SR as-is or submit an SR for the current state of the project repository? What is a good example for using reopen and when should I just close and submit a new sr? - -- 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 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlDqj6EACgkQCs1dsHJ/X7A0eACgj0yFrOKHnjGQG62MhEP/WTdw JUYAn1OQ7/6WN5YmDp5tstv7o7LmQRHl =n1q8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

5 4

[opensuse-packaging] Problem detecting library on one arch of one openSUSE version
by todd rme 07 Jan '13

07 Jan '13

I am trying to fix a build bug with a package called petsc on devel:languages:python. https://build.opensuse.org/package/show?package=petsc&project=devel%3Alangu… The weird thing is that this error occurs only on i586 and only with openSUSE 12.1. This error does not occur for any other version of openSUSE or SLES or on openSUSE 12.1 x86 The build error is this: Fortran error! mpi_init() could not be located!. I've tried building against the current version of openmpi (in devel:libraries:c_c++) and the error still occurs. Does anyone have any idea what might be causing the problem? -- 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] need help to fix " libtrash no-return-in-nonvoid-function open-funs.c:751"
by doiggl＠velocitynet.com.au 05 Jan '13

05 Jan '13

Hello, How can this build problem be fixed[1] Thanks Glenn Spec ->https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file?expand=1&file=libtrash.spec&pa… Project -> https://build.opensuse.org/package/show?package=libtrash&project=home%3Adoi… [1] [ 56s] Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 [ 56s] Processing files: libtrash-debuginfo-3.2-19.1.x86_64 [ 56s] Provides: debuginfo(build-id) = e075e289f98dabe15e78e4d907a56355e6e6e1c1 [ 56s] Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 [ 56s] Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files /home/abuild/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/libtrash-3.2-19.1.x86_64 [ 56s] Wrote: /home/abuild/rpmbuild/SRPMS/libtrash-3.2-19.1.src.rpm [ 56s] Wrote: /home/abuild/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/libtrash-3.2-19.1.x86_64.rpm [ 56s] Wrote: /home/abuild/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/libtrash-debugsource-3.2-19.1.x86_64.rpm [ 56s] Wrote: /home/abuild/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/libtrash-devel-3.2-19.1.x86_64.rpm [ 56s] Wrote: /home/abuild/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/libtrash-debuginfo-3.2-19.1.x86_64.rpm [ 56s] Executing(%clean): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.SOiFiO [ 56s] + umask 022 [ 56s] + cd /home/abuild/rpmbuild/BUILD [ 56s] + cd libtrash-3.2 [ 56s] + rm -rf /home/abuild/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/libtrash-3.2-19.1.x86_64 [ 56s] + exit 0 [ 56s] ... checking for files with abuild user/group [ 56s] ... running 00-check-install-rpms [ 57s] ... installing all built rpms [ 57s] Preparing packages for installation... [ 57s] libtrash-3.2-19.1 [ 57s] libtrash-devel-3.2-19.1 [ 57s] libtrash-debuginfo-3.2-19.1 [ 57s] libtrash-debugsource-3.2-19.1 [ 57s] ... running 01-check-debuginfo [ 57s] ... testing for empty debuginfo packages [ 57s] ... running 02-check-gcc-output [ 57s] ... testing for serious compiler warnings [ 57s] (using /usr/lib/build/checks-data/check_gcc_output) [ 57s] (using //.build.log) [ 57s] [ 57s] I: Program returns random data in a function [ 57s] E: libtrash no-return-in-nonvoid-function open-funs.c:751 [ 57s] [ 57s] I: Program returns random data in a function [ 57s] E: libtrash no-return-in-nonvoid-function open-funs.c:751 [ 58s] /.build/build: line 313: 204 Killed background_monitor_process / &>/dev/null [ 60s] [ 46.482439] SysRq : Power Off [ 60s] [ 46.883161] Power down. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

7 8

[opensuse-packaging] openSUSE Packaging guidelines update January/2013
by Michal Vyskocil 03 Jan '13

03 Jan '13

Hi all, this is the new announcement of changes in our packaging guidelines have happened last month. The Christmas period is usually calm and people tend to focus on other things, so we have only minor updates. Content =============== 1.) The categorization discussion 2.) Various small changes 3.) Boring diffstat The categorization discussion ============================= The thread [1] started clarify categories in a wiki is still wip. But hopefully we found [2] a good set of categories, which enhances the readability. Various small changes ===================== Several pages got minor editations, which does not fall into own category, but should be mentioned * new abbreviation bxc has been added to patches guidelines [3] * the s/discriminatory/non-discriminatory/ typo has been fixed in guidelines page [4] * little typo fixes in systemd packaging page [5] Boring diffstat =============== openSUSE:Packaging Patches guidelines | 4 ++++ openSUSE:Packaging guidelines | 3 ++- openSUSE:Systemd packaging guidelines | 4 ++-- 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) [1] http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-packaging/2012-12/msg00107.html [2] http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-packaging/2013-01/msg00004.html [3] http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_Patches_guidelines [4] http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_guidelines [5] http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Systemd_packaging_guidelines Regards Michal Vyskocil

1 0

[opensuse-packaging] RFC: Guidelines change - change of guidelines change process
by Michal Vyskocil 03 Jan '13

03 Jan '13

Hi all, during compilation of the changes in packaging wiki, I have found one unclear thing, which resulted in the removal of Category:Packaging_documentation from two pages. But the fault belongs to us, because we did not make clear the following Category:Packaging_documentation is the **official** one and should be added only as a result of the review here on a list. The current phrasing """ Each page should have a [[Category:Packaging documentation]] """ is confusing. I dislike the naming of the category as well. At the moment we have two mostly overlapped packaging categories. Category:Packaging documentation with 34 pages http://en.opensuse.org/Category:Packaging_documentation Category:Packaging with 38 http://en.opensuse.org/Category:Packaging The Category documentation is intended to be the official and reviewed one, but I consider the naming extremly confusing. For that reason, I propose following 1. Create Category:Packaging_guidelines - this makes the purpose of the category clear 2. Document this category is the **official** one - on Category description page, either on guidelines change page 3. Put things, are reviewed to the category I'm afraid only Lua guidelines can be moved, atm 4. Request the addition of things from _documentation to _guidelines this will be long-term process, because for a sanity of us, only few pages should be reviewed on this ML 5. Once finished, drop the _documentation category BTW: I'm volunteer for the category moving process, but it will be better if it can be requested by interested people. Waiting on your feedback Michal Vyskocil

4 11

[opensuse-packaging] rpmlint warning "suse-branding-unversioned-requires"
by Togan Muftuoglu 02 Jan '13

02 Jan '13

Hi, I am in the process of creating branding package for awesome, and started with creating awesome-branding-upstream subpackage. When the package for awesome is build there is this warning but I have no idea what it means or how to correct it. The main package does have the requirement Requires: %{name}-branding = %{version} and the whole spec can be found at home:toganm:branches:X11:windowmanagers awesome <https://build.opensuse.org/package/show?package=awesome&project=home%3Atoga…> Here is the rpmlint warning awesome.x86_64: W: suse-branding-unversioned-requires awesome-branding awesome-branding-upstream.noarch: W: suse-branding-unversioned-requires config(awesome-branding-upstream) Please make sure that your requires entry reads like 'Requires: %name-branding = <versionnumber>'. Thanks Togan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

3 2