openSUSE Packaging February 2015

packaging@lists.opensuse.org

47 participants
29 discussions

[opensuse-packaging] Python 2 and 3 in single specfile
by Jan Matějek 22 Jul '15

22 Jul '15

Fellow packagers, after some discussions in our team, we figured that it would be neat if we could build python modules for Python 2 and 3 from a single spec file. Now that a great deal of python modules work with both pythons, this makes a lot of sense. A good deal of work can be done by RPM macros. Then we could even seamlessly start building modules for PyPy, Jython and other pythons. A sample specfile, and the corresponding set of RPM macros, is attached. As you can see, the appropriate subpackage is generated automatically by %python_subpackages, build and install steps are handled through %python_build and %python_install respectively. There is some more magic involved, as well as possibilities for customization. There is a minor problem with BuildRequires. As long as you only need python-devel, it's not too bad to just list $flavor-devel requirements by hand. It's worse when you require more subpackages, because then you need all of them in both python2 and python3 versions. It would be nice to be able to specify %{python_require Mako} and expand that to all the necessary BuildRequires, but OBS blocks us here, because the limited environment will not expand such macros. mls, ro, or anyone from the OBS team, would it be possible to solve this? Still, it basically doesn't matter if you list all the BuildRequires twice in one spec or in two specs, so there. Another thing I'm still unclear on are the filelists. It's certainly possible to make a generic filelist, something along the lines of: %package -n %flavor-%modname # python3-Mako %defattr(-, root, root) %{%flavor_sitelib}/* %{%flavor_sitearch}/* but this doesn't solve docs and possible other files. Again, obviously, we can write the filelists by hand. But if you have good suggestions for some smart macros here, I'd love to see them. What do you folks think? Comments, questions? m.

3 5

[opensuse-packaging] Upcoming transition to GCC 5
by Richard Biener 09 Apr '15

09 Apr '15

Hi, we are currently trying to get openSUSE:Factory:Rings:0-Bootstrap and openSUSE:Factory:Rings:1-MinimalX clean to build with GCC 5 in the openSUSE:Factory:Staging:Gcc49 project. Once that works reasonably I will push GCC 5 to Factory without enabling it as a default - that will be done when it works fully (help appreciated at that point). There is a porting-to document that explains some issues you may run into (also consider the 4.9 variant as we didn't transition to that): https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-5/porting_to.html https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.9/porting_to.html You may also find the analysis of Fedora interesting which explains why some packages now fail to build: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2015-February/207549.html GCC 5 packages can be installed from devel:gcc where they are regularly updated. Those sources also feed openSUSE:Factory:Staging:Gcc49. Richard. -- Richard Biener <rguenther(a)suse.de> SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Jennifer Guild, Dilip Upmanyu, Graham Norton HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

8 16

[opensuse-packaging] heads-up: dropping SLE11 compatibility in d:l:python and python3
by Jan Matějek 27 Feb '15

27 Feb '15

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Folks, I'll be disabling builds for SLE11 in the following repositories: devel:languages:python devel:languages:python3 The SLE11 repository will not be removed; if you *want* to build for SLE11, you can explicitly enable it for your package. I have also already started declining requests to these repos that contain SLE11 compatibility conditionals (%if %suse_version < 1230 or lower). This only applies to newly-added conditionals, and new package submits: If you're only updating a package that already has this in the spec file, the request will be accepted. I'll still accept requests with conditionals, IF you ask for it in the request message; our goal is simply to make this an exception and not the default. (Fellow d:l:py reviewers, please consider adopting this policy too.) The py2pack tool currently generates some compatibility conditionals like this, i'll try to get it updated so that a newly generated spec will be acceptable. In other words, feel free to submit packages that don't build on SLE11. m. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJU6y3jAAoJEIskb84DCy7LiK0QAIYODvyw5yHeKIxyKEPHRdCm BkqxLp8eALZCfngURzodCytj7qODTWo8IRr/W6LWUGqrPDwwwLmw1X2Yd5dl2fQw Ozw9Kcz+pt0MBKuR6Xp9ypRRUqcdGCjqDehO5TG5rGgJguWRNu2YcV3qPsGLEfGW u2M74Qw3b/ILpmUTXJlV7gHAayUAJ1d0QhvtWNp0XDaDkGsl5+rKSaoY/3CJ7rwZ 889w82SiPvdh4nMAegu7uZYXtZFkd+xePl9OwKeG8I2o2IqVg/mb2Wr1/asIoTNq nikOdyZbjpSXWDVH2uPKTG7SkHrSAE+CfadOWv8mEuO4cdhD0Uj9GubcJ6e9eSU/ HPfeGe/DFi0EXq57uG70gW/8SKkM33yet6l3ulqaiHgqYIfz8k6YovceHQGT8pHb V5G+nGWld2Sn79g6WibPZOfMuS9dMU07nQFiUAioddekJyEwTSVlT7BVS+AhiM/g ZhP8lZXnHBB7EA0PgsgRJfm9OqcNZETyyk6VWcSm0PyKQFzBPcGiQcKKWU4Vfq3/ J2HdBT518zCJurVKfNU4c/rBye2Q/gSQAUoa+ITUSZRyqeVIIyt00DX/MTPkYzPN Yy0eUIW9pPBuAcbZnofqwL9ljasYOcYCM6GvmJ6uBTAIe4kHAcaPC7UArA9A7M90 IIMPKmcfr6CpZ/jYcBT8 =mJBy -----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

10 19

[opensuse-packaging] Trying to apply a patch but it fails - reportit_v075a.patch .
by doiggl＠velocitynet.com.au 26 Feb '15

26 Feb '15

Hello, Trying to apply a patch but it fails with [1]: Package link: https://github.com/Super-Visions/cacti-plugin-autom8thold/releases Is spec file missing something ? How can be fixed ? Thanks Glenn using spec file-> https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/home:doiggl/cacti-plugin-autom… which has in it: . Patch0: reportit_v075a.patch . %patch0 -p1 . [1] Buildlog shows: [ 45s] + cd autom8 [ 45s] + /usr/bin/chmod -Rf a+rX,u+w,g-w,o-w . [ 45s] + echo 'Patch #0 (reportit_v075a.patch):' [ 45s] Patch #0 (reportit_v075a.patch): [ 45s] + /usr/bin/cat /home/abuild/rpmbuild/SOURCES/reportit_v075a.patch [ 45s] + /usr/bin/patch -p1 --fuzz=0 [ 45s] can't find file to patch at input line 4 [ 45s] Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? [ 45s] The text leading up to this was: [ 45s] -------------------------- [ 45s] |diff -ru v075a/runtime.php custom/runtime.php [ 45s] |--- v075a/runtime.php 2011-12-23 07:33:02.000000000 +0100 [ 45s] |+++ custom/runtime.php 2013-07-12 10:55:54.000000000 +0200 [ 45s] -------------------------- [ 45s] File to patch: [ 45s] Skip this patch? [y] [ 45s] Skipping patch. [ 45s] 4 out of 4 hunks ignored [ 45s] error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.OYi7Dp (%prep) # First few lines of patch: [reportit_v075a.patch] diff -ru v075a/runtime.php custom/runtime.php --- v075a/runtime.php 2011-12-23 07:33:02.000000000 +0100 +++ custom/runtime.php 2013-07-12 10:55:54.000000000 +0200 @@ -320,6 +320,7 @@ //----- auto clean-up RRDlist ----- autocleanup($report_id); + api_plugin_hook_function('reportit_autocleanup', $report_settings); patchfile -> https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/home:doiggl/cacti-plugin-autom… full build log -> https://build.opensuse.org/package/live_build_log/home:doiggl/cacti-plugin-… -- 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] openSUSE Factory_ARM, perl, amavis, spamd
by Michael Ströder 24 Feb '15

24 Feb '15

HI! After a recent zypper update to perl-5.20.1-2.1.armv6hl amavis and SpamAssasin do not work anymore. They complain about missing Perl modules which seem to be installed though. Any clue? Is there a Perl library path missing? Ciao, Michael.

1 1

[opensuse-packaging] How to create a .patch file?
by Olaf Martens 24 Feb '15

24 Feb '15

Good day! Sorry for asking again (unfortunately this is my very first attempt in patching something), but right now I'm stuck with creating the actual patch file. Somehow just running a diff over the old and new versions of the script doesn't yield anything that seems to be useful for patching, though... I already have done a checkout of Postgrey and also have disassembled the package, but now I'm stuck at generating the actual patch... Thanks for your help in advance. Yours Olaf Martens -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

4 4

[opensuse-packaging] possibly undefined macro AM_ENABLE_SHARED AM_PROG_LIBTOOL
by doiggl＠velocitynet.com.au 19 Feb '15

19 Feb '15

Hello, What does error mean ? How can it be fixed ? --Glenn From https://build.opensuse.org/build/home:doiggl/openSUSE_13.1/x86_64/reiser4pr… [ 83s] + autoreconf [ 85s] aclocal: warning: autoconf input should be named 'configure.ac', not 'configure.in' [ 85s] configure.in:196: warning: macro 'AM_ENABLE_SHARED' not found in library [ 85s] configure.in:313: warning: macro 'AM_PROG_LIBTOOL' not found in library [ 86s] configure.in:362: warning: AC_CACHE_VAL(falign_loop_flag, ...): suspicious cache-id, must contain _cv_ to be cached [ 86s] ../../lib/autoconf/general.m4:2031: AC_CACHE_VAL is expanded from... [ 86s] ../../lib/autoconf/general.m4:2052: AC_CACHE_CHECK is expanded from... [ 86s] configure.in:362: the top level [ 86s] configure.in:370: warning: AC_CACHE_VAL(uninitialized, ...): suspicious cache-id, must contain _cv_ to be cached [ 86s] ../../lib/autoconf/general.m4:2031: AC_CACHE_VAL is expanded from... [ 86s] ../../lib/autoconf/general.m4:2052: AC_CACHE_CHECK is expanded from... [ 86s] configure.in:370: the top level [ 86s] configure.in:377: warning: AC_CACHE_VAL(no_unused_parameter, ...): suspicious cache-id, must contain _cv_ to be cached [ 86s] ../../lib/autoconf/general.m4:2031: AC_CACHE_VAL is expanded from... [ 86s] ../../lib/autoconf/general.m4:2052: AC_CACHE_CHECK is expanded from... [ 86s] configure.in:377: the top level [ 86s] configure.in:384: warning: AC_CACHE_VAL(redundant_decls, ...): suspicious cache-id, must contain _cv_ to be cached [ 86s] ../../lib/autoconf/general.m4:2031: AC_CACHE_VAL is expanded from... [ 86s] ../../lib/autoconf/general.m4:2052: AC_CACHE_CHECK is expanded from... [ 86s] configure.in:384: the top level [ 86s] configure.in:362: warning: AC_CACHE_VAL(falign_loop_flag, ...): suspicious cache-id, must contain _cv_ to be cached [ 86s] ../../lib/autoconf/general.m4:2031: AC_CACHE_VAL is expanded from... [ 86s] ../../lib/autoconf/general.m4:2052: AC_CACHE_CHECK is expanded from... [ 86s] configure.in:362: the top level [ 86s] configure.in:370: warning: AC_CACHE_VAL(uninitialized, ...): suspicious cache-id, must contain _cv_ to be cached [ 86s] ../../lib/autoconf/general.m4:2031: AC_CACHE_VAL is expanded from... [ 86s] ../../lib/autoconf/general.m4:2052: AC_CACHE_CHECK is expanded from... [ 86s] configure.in:370: the top level [ 86s] configure.in:377: warning: AC_CACHE_VAL(no_unused_parameter, ...): suspicious cache-id, must contain _cv_ to be cached [ 86s] ../../lib/autoconf/general.m4:2031: AC_CACHE_VAL is expanded from... [ 86s] ../../lib/autoconf/general.m4:2052: AC_CACHE_CHECK is expanded from... [ 86s] configure.in:377: the top level [ 86s] configure.in:384: warning: AC_CACHE_VAL(redundant_decls, ...): suspicious cache-id, must contain _cv_ to be cached [ 86s] ../../lib/autoconf/general.m4:2031: AC_CACHE_VAL is expanded from... [ 86s] ../../lib/autoconf/general.m4:2052: AC_CACHE_CHECK is expanded from... [ 86s] configure.in:384: the top level [ 86s] configure.in:362: warning: AC_CACHE_VAL(falign_loop_flag, ...): suspicious cache-id, must contain _cv_ to be cached [ 86s] ../../lib/autoconf/general.m4:2031: AC_CACHE_VAL is expanded from... [ 86s] ../../lib/autoconf/general.m4:2052: AC_CACHE_CHECK is expanded from... [ 86s] configure.in:362: the top level [ 86s] configure.in:370: warning: AC_CACHE_VAL(uninitialized, ...): suspicious cache-id, must contain _cv_ to be cached [ 86s] ../../lib/autoconf/general.m4:2031: AC_CACHE_VAL is expanded from... [ 86s] ../../lib/autoconf/general.m4:2052: AC_CACHE_CHECK is expanded from... [ 86s] configure.in:370: the top level [ 86s] configure.in:377: warning: AC_CACHE_VAL(no_unused_parameter, ...): suspicious cache-id, must contain _cv_ to be cached [ 86s] ../../lib/autoconf/general.m4:2031: AC_CACHE_VAL is expanded from... [ 86s] ../../lib/autoconf/general.m4:2052: AC_CACHE_CHECK is expanded from... [ 86s] configure.in:377: the top level [ 86s] configure.in:384: warning: AC_CACHE_VAL(redundant_decls, ...): suspicious cache-id, must contain _cv_ to be cached [ 86s] ../../lib/autoconf/general.m4:2031: AC_CACHE_VAL is expanded from... [ 86s] ../../lib/autoconf/general.m4:2052: AC_CACHE_CHECK is expanded from... [ 86s] configure.in:384: the top level [ 87s] configure.in:196: error: possibly undefined macro: AM_ENABLE_SHARED [ 87s] If this token and others are legitimate, please use m4_pattern_allow. [ 87s] See the Autoconf documentation. [ 87s] configure.in:313: error: possibly undefined macro: AM_PROG_LIBTOOL [ 87s] autoreconf: /usr/bin/autoconf failed with exit status: 1 [ 87s] error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.EzKrYj (%build) [ 87s] [ 87s] [ 87s] RPM build errors: [ 87s] Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.EzKrYj (%build) [ 87s] ### WATCHDOG MARKER START ### [ 90s] [ 69.646384] SysRq : Power Off [ 90s] [ 69.651179] reboot: Power down [ 95s] ### WATCHDOG MARKER END ### -- 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] What allows BuildRequires: <packagename> to allows the command 'autoreconf' to run from specfile
by doiggl＠velocitynet.com.au 19 Feb '15

19 Feb '15

Hello, What allows BuildRequires: <packagename> to allows the command 'autoreconf' to run from specfile --Glenn -- 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] Policy for scriptlets commands (absolute paths)
by Marcos Felipe Rasia de Mello 19 Feb '15

19 Feb '15

Does openSUSE define a policy for binaries in default PATH? Did not find anything here: https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_scriptlet_snippets I prefer commands without absolute paths. Much more readable. -- 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] Attention csis
by nycserv＠csis.dk 19 Feb '15

19 Feb '15

hello My name is Peter Kruse. I represent a company csis.dk, we are struggling with hackers for many years already. We found out that you sent a virus disguised as an ordinary letter and now they want to steal your money. File in the attachment of the letter to remove viruses from your computer. Please treat it carefully this grupa stole more than a USD 10000000. Write the result on my tweeter https://twitter.com/peterkruse

1 0

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

openSUSE Packaging February 2015