openSUSE Packaging April 2013

packaging@lists.opensuse.org

57 participants
30 discussions

[opensuse-packaging] openSUSE:Factory:Staging:boost
by Stephan Kulow 10 Apr '13

10 Apr '13

Hi, The latest boost update (1.53) is breaking at least libzypp and libyui. If someone could have a look and fix those cases, we can have a new boost in factory again, so far it is kept in quarantine. Greetings, Stephan -- Work consists of whatever a body is obliged to do. Play consists of whatever a body is not obliged to do. -- Mark Twain -- 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]
by Igor Zinovik 10 Apr '13

10 Apr '13

unsubscribe -- 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] Bash completion scripts without .sh suffix
by Andrey Borzenkov 09 Apr '13

09 Apr '13

Apparently on openSUSE /etc/bash.bashrc sources only completion scripts with .sh suffix. It is fine but some packages install them without suffix (I wondered why completions were missing). Does it warrant rpmlint check? On a related note, some completions use "have" function to check for command existence. Seems it was introduced in Debian. Would it make sense to add this to /etc/bash.bashrc to avoid need to patch every program? This comes unnoticed currently because two completions on my system that use "have" also do not have .sh suffix :) -- 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] Packaging process issue: Package is out, broken
by Rajko 07 Apr '13

07 Apr '13

Lars Vogdt mentioned some of his review criteria in a: http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-packaging/2013-04/msg00091.html This reminded me that review process has too weak, or even missing, actual feedback from users of packaged software. The reason to think like that are titles that came out without being able to perform basic task they are designed for [1]. In effect we can't prevent situation where package that works for distros with different library version, but not with openSUSE, is shipped as part of the release. One can argue that such things happen and blame lack of testing, but it is actually only lack of in-house testing, as in example [1] it was easy to find problem reports and fixes on the web, but I doubt that many of our packagers will have time to look for them. Solution would be to add component to review process that will collect external feedback and make it available to reviewers and packagers. Collecting feedback does not require as much sophistication as packaging, so it will be accessible to many more people willing to contribute. Once when online instructions are created it is possible to list it on the wiki under "How to contribute", and point interested people to that. [1] Example that I have in mind was video editing software kdenlive few releases ago, which was the only one that will not crash right on the start, or in the middle of the work. I gave up on attempts to use it, so I don't know current status, nor I remember details. The issue was that at the time it had a bug that was valid only for specific library version that was included in openSUSE. It will pass compilation and packaging, and it will actually ran, but one could not render final video after editing. Newer library was fixed and kdenlive worked fine. -- Regards, Rajko. -- 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] clisp package missing on 12.3 ppc
by Ruediger Meier 04 Apr '13

04 Apr '13

Hi, the clisp package is not built for 12.3 on ppc arch. Does anybody know why it's missing? It exists for 12.2 and Factory ppc. cu, Rudi -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

4 9

[opensuse-packaging] Issues trying to create a -doc sub-package
by Greg Freemyer 03 Apr '13

03 Apr '13

All, I don't know why, but I've struggled getting a doc file created that actually contains the files in it I have listed. My project is home:gregfreemyer:Tools-for-forensic-boot-cd > libpff Right now my specfile is dieing when I'm just trying to copy the doc files to the %_docdir folder tree. Here's my snippet: install -d -m 644 "%{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name}-doc" install -m 644 -t "%{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name}-doc" %{SOURCE1} %{SOURCE2} %{SOURCE3} %{SOURCE4} I've tried multiple variations of the above with no luck. (see below error). I've added ls calls to verify everything looks good and I don't see what the issue is: ls -l %{SOURCE1} %{SOURCE2} %{SOURCE3} %{SOURCE4} install -d -m 644 "%{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name}-doc" ls -ld "%{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name}-doc" install -m 644 -t "%{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name}-doc" %{SOURCE1} %{SOURCE2} %{SOURCE3} %{SOURCE4} The output from the above is: =============== [ 274s] + ls -l /home/abuild/rpmbuild/SOURCES/MAPI_definitions.pdf /home/abuild/rpmbuild/SOURCES/PFF_Forensics_-_analyzing_the_horrible_reference_file_format.pdf /home/abuild/rpmbuild/SOURCES/PFF_forensics_-_e-mail_and_appoinment_falsification_analysis.pdf '/home/abuild/rpmbuild/SOURCES/Personal_Folder_File_(PFF)_format.pdf' [ 274s] -rw-r--r-- 1 abuild abuild 862433 Apr 1 17:03 /home/abuild/rpmbuild/SOURCES/MAPI_definitions.pdf [ 274s] -rw-r--r-- 1 abuild abuild 220508 Apr 1 17:03 /home/abuild/rpmbuild/SOURCES/PFF_Forensics_-_analyzing_the_horrible_reference_file_format.pdf [ 274s] -rw-r--r-- 1 abuild abuild 159667 Apr 1 17:03 /home/abuild/rpmbuild/SOURCES/PFF_forensics_-_e-mail_and_appoinment_falsification_analysis.pdf [ 274s] -rw-r--r-- 1 abuild abuild 386190 Apr 1 17:03 /home/abuild/rpmbuild/SOURCES/Personal_Folder_File_(PFF)_format.pdf [ 274s] + install -d -m 644 /home/abuild/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/libpff-0.0.0~20120802-9.1.x86_64/usr/share/doc/packages/libpff-doc [ 274s] + ls -ld /home/abuild/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/libpff-0.0.0~20120802-9.1.x86_64/usr/share/doc/packages/libpff-doc [ 274s] drw-r--r-- 2 abuild abuild 4096 Apr 1 19:12 /home/abuild/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/libpff-0.0.0~20120802-9.1.x86_64/usr/share/doc/packages/libpff-doc [ 274s] + install -m 644 -t /home/abuild/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/libpff-0.0.0~20120802-9.1.x86_64/usr/share/doc/packages/libpff-doc /home/abuild/rpmbuild/SOURCES/MAPI_definitions.pdf /home/abuild/rpmbuild/SOURCES/PFF_Forensics_-_analyzing_the_horrible_reference_file_format.pdf /home/abuild/rpmbuild/SOURCES/PFF_forensics_-_e-mail_and_appoinment_falsification_analysis.pdf '/home/abuild/rpmbuild/SOURCES/Personal_Folder_File_(PFF)_format.pdf' [ 274s] install: cannot stat '/home/abuild/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/libpff-0.0.0~20120802-9.1.x86_64/usr/share/doc/packages/libpff-doc/MAPI_definitions.pdf': Permission denied [ 274s] install: cannot stat '/home/abuild/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/libpff-0.0.0~20120802-9.1.x86_64/usr/share/doc/packages/libpff-doc/PFF_Forensics_-_analyzing_the_horrible_reference_file_format.pdf': Permission denied [ 274s] install: cannot stat '/home/abuild/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/libpff-0.0.0~20120802-9.1.x86_64/usr/share/doc/packages/libpff-doc/PFF_forensics_-_e-mail_and_appoinment_falsification_analysis.pdf': Permission denied [ 274s] install: cannot stat '/home/abuild/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/libpff-0.0.0~20120802-9.1.x86_64/usr/share/doc/packages/libpff-doc/Personal_Folder_File_(PFF)_format.pdf': Permission denied [ 274s] error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.sYmziu (%install) [ 274s] ================= Greg Freemyer Chief Technology Officer Intelligent Avatar Corporation (678) 653-4860 Greg.Freemyer(a)gmail.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/gregfreemyer CNN/TruTV Aired Forensic Imaging Demo - http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/23/how-computer-evidence-gets-retrie… -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

4 7

[opensuse-packaging] Proper dev project for a small collection of C utility libs with python bindings
by Greg Freemyer 03 Apr '13

03 Apr '13

All, I'm about to submit 6 new small packages: libevt, libevtx, libregf, libmsiecf, liblnk, libvshadow. My basic question is what devel project I should send these to and if I should leave them as 6 discrete projects, or maybe try to combine them somehow. I've thought about just pushing all 6 to devel:libraries If that is a good choice let me know. == details All of them are from the same upstream author and have the same structure, all hosted at the same place etc. The specfiles are all very similar. For each one there is a c library created, a python bindings sub-package and a end-user tools sub-package (eg. evttools, etc.) with a couple simple tools each. My use case is a security tool that uses the python bindings of all 6, so in theory I could put them there, but it seems like the wrong place to me, but the "tools" sub-projects would all actually qualify as security tools for a forensic examiner. (I already have 15 or 20 forensic tools in the security project, so maybe it is time for me to create a security:dfir sub-project and just put everything in there?) 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 4

[opensuse-packaging] Drop crosscrash package
by Petr Tesarik 03 Apr '13

03 Apr '13

Hi all, let me request dropping the crosscrash package. This package was originally written by Bernhard Walle, most likely as a SLES project. Bernhard was later laid off during the "big SUSE layoff", and I took over the maintainership of the whole kernel dump infrastructure. However, the crosscrash package has never reached maturity (the original goal was only partly met), it wasn't even publicly announced in the crash development list, let alone building its own community. Unsurprisingly, the code has been bitrotting over years, so it can't even open dumps of recent kernels. Since this package has no upstream, and I can't continue working on the project, I suggest the package be dropped. As a replacement, I might package a 32-bit version of crash on 64-bit platforms. FYI this was the only combination that ever worked with crosscrash (64-bit dump on 32-bit host never worked, and neither did different endianity between the dump and host). Comments? Petr Tesarik -- 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] texlive packaging
by Joseph Comfort 02 Apr '13

02 Apr '13

I sent this message to the opensuse list, but the packaging list may be better. I am updating (fresh install) to v12.3. It looks very good so far. However, I am very unhappy with the new texlive packaging. Several reasons. * Very complex and confusing. It is very, very difficult to find out what collections/schemes are needed to get a particular latex package. * Each package has a rpm overhead; it must be downloaded separately; it must be installed separately (whether in a collection or not). Most inefficient and takes far too much time. * The previous packaging provided what I needed out of the box. Now, none of the collections do -- even the collection claimed to be closest to the original one. I have to go find and install some individual ones separately (elsarticle, revtex4; lineno is picked up if I include the 'latexextra' collection). * It is a very long process to remove texlive entirely. I tried with YaST2. Removing collections is not difficult, but there are many font and bin rpms left over with no supervising parent that I can see. Each one requires 2 clicks to delete, with long waits between items. I keep an ascii list of rpms. With about 4000 entries, nearly half are texlive stuff, and it could be worse. There may be some good reasons to try the packaging change. Currently, however, it is not implemented well at all. I hope the next release either restores the previous packaging, or makes huge improvements. Thank you, Joe Comfort -- Joseph Comfort Phone: (480)-965-6377 Physics Department Dept.: (480)-965-3561 Arizona State University Fax: (480)-965-7954 Tempe, AZ 85287-1504 Email: Joseph.Comfort(a)asu.edu -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

5 5

[opensuse-packaging] aclocal
by doiggl＠velocitynet.com.au 01 Apr '13

01 Apr '13

Hello, How is this error fixed[1] spec file[2] Thanks Glenn [1] [ 49s] + cd /home/abuild/rpmbuild/BUILD [ 49s] + /usr/bin/rm -rf /home/abuild/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/reiser4progs-1.0.7-3.1.x86_64 [ 49s] ++ dirname /home/abuild/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/reiser4progs-1.0.7-3.1.x86_64 [ 49s] + /usr/bin/mkdir -p /home/abuild/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT [ 49s] + /usr/bin/mkdir /home/abuild/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/reiser4progs-1.0.7-3.1.x86_64 [ 49s] + cd reiser4progs-1.0.7 [ 49s] + aclocal --force [ 49s] /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.DZct0Z: line 31: aclocal: command not found [ 49s] error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.DZct0Z (%build) [2] https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file?expand=1&file=reiser4progs.spe… -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

2 1

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

openSUSE Packaging April 2013