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.
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.htmlhttps://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
-----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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=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
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.
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
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
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
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
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