openSUSE Packaging January 2016

packaging@lists.opensuse.org

42 participants
31 discussions

[opensuse-packaging] release-notes-openSUSE requires google-opensans-fonts

by Felix Miata

TW $SUBJECT can't be right, but trying to zypper rm opensans wants to remove releasenotes. :-( -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

3 years, 10 months

[opensuse-packaging] reproducible builds

by Adam Spiers

Is anyone working on (or thinking of working on) making our build process reproducible? https://reproducible-builds.org/ It seems Debian and Fedora are already part of the project, and the advantages are quite compelling, not just from a security perspective, but also due to the potential savings in storage and network consumption: https://hackweek.suse.com/13/projects/131 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

4 years, 11 months

[opensuse-packaging] Creating Maintenance Request for non included software [Leap]

by Bruno Friedmann

[short summary] During the creation of Leap, I've tried to sr postgresql94-plr to Leap. It was refused, at that time postgresql94 wasn't yet properly submitted to factory, casue 94 version was directly coming from SLE. postgresql93-plr was submitted to Leap and accepted. Now dust has settle. Actually here the situation : On Leap you can choose between postgresql 9.3 and 9.4 version. Unfortunately for user of 9.4 they can benefit the postgresql94-plr due to the refused sr. I would like to create a Maintenance ticket to push postgresql94-plr to Leap. It's a non sense to tell users to broke their system by using the -devel projet. I know how to do that for existing package, but for a non existing one. Someone has an example of how to do this ? Thanks. -- Bruno Friedmann Ioda-Net Sàrl www.ioda-net.ch openSUSE Member & Board, fsfe fellowship GPG KEY : D5C9B751C4653227 irc: tigerfoot -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

5 years

[opensuse-packaging]

by Zbigniew Reszela

Hello, In my institute we are selecting the operating system and Leap 42.1 is a strong candidate. In the selection process we are deeply analyzing the packaging and package management aspects. Currently we use openSUSE 11.1 and some custom GUI packaging and installation tools based on RPM. With the new OS we would like to follow the packaging good practices of the distribution. We have already tried building packages for the python projects, using the python setup.py bdist_rpm (based on distutils), but we also wanted to give a try to the "openSUSE:Packaging guidelines [1]. We mostly use Python and C++ projects, hosted on sourceforge/github or our local repositories. We do want to implement Continuous Delivery, so automatic packaging and deployment to the testing environment is crucial for us. Initially we do not foresee to publish our packages to the distribution, but maybe in the future we would like to do that for some of our projects. In your portal we have found several recommendation to use the OBS [2]. But our understanding is that OBS is just for the packages aimed to be public. We have not found information on how to build locally packages apart of a link to the Fedora How to create RPM packages [3]. There is also a possibility to setup our private OBS system, but maybe it is too complicated solution for what we need right now. Could you provide us a guide on how to do packaging in the most compatible with the openSUSE standards way. Thanks a lot for your help! Zibi [1] https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_guidelines [2] https://en.opensuse.org/Portal:Build_Service/Documentation [3] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

5 years

[opensuse-packaging] Any limits on dependency resolver script?

by Marguerite Su

Hi, I wrote two external Provides/Requires resolver scripts for nodejs packaging. Usually such scripts should take what RPM pass through it, that is, filelist of buildroot. But: 1. I ran the script locally by passing exactly the same filelist through, it ran fine. 2. I let the script run on OBS, it gave different result, indicating that a nested "each" loop is not completely looped (correct: loop 14000 times; wrong: loop 19 times) 3. I modified the code, to find the filelist myself. the result is correct. So the problem is due to what RPM pass through. But, eg, the self found list: /home/abuild/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/...../gulp/package.json the passed through list: /home/abuild....package.json\n the result was wrong even after I stripped '\n'. so I wonder if there're any limits on resources in RPM dependency resolving? like CPU usage... Marguerite -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

5 years, 1 month

[opensuse-packaging] Extensions for specification of application binary/programming interfaces?

by SF Markus Elfring

Hello, I have tried the following queries out on package information which is available on my openSUSE Tumbleweed system at the moment. elfring@Sonne:~> show_names() { > XY=$(zypper --terse search --match-words --provides "$1") && echo "$XY" | tail --lines +$(($(echo "$XY" | grep --line-number --regexp=--+ | cut --delimiter : --fields 1) + 1)) | cut --delimiter \| --fields 2 > } elfring@Sonne:~> show_names abi abi-compliance-checker gimp llvm-clang nodejs php5 python-base python3-base ruby2.1 ruby2.2 vdr elfring@Sonne:~> show_names api | wc -l 87 Does such a display indicate further possibilities for the specification of details around the usage of application binary interfaces and application programming interfaces? How do you think to improve any product descriptions which are provided (by RPM files for example) in different degree? Would it make sense to clarify a kind of certification mark duty for more software components? Regards, Markus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

5 years, 1 month

[opensuse-packaging] How do I combine %__appdata_provides_ and %__desktop-file_provides in %define __find_provides

by Dave Plater

Hi, in hugin the internal dependency generator is off so it doesn't provide any appdata.xml or .desktop files. How do I define __find_provides to include both desktop-file.prov and appdata.prov? Thanks Dave Plater -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

5 years, 1 month

Re: [opensuse-packaging] Improving Maven support on openSUSE

by Benjamin Denisart

On 01/23/2016 03:54 PM, Matthias Mailänder wrote: > Hi, > > I suggest we make tickets in the bug tracker for this. This will depend on a > lot of sub-tasks. See also > https://build.opensuse.org/project/show/home:Mailaender:branches:Java:packa… > with maven-bootstrap in particular. > > best regards > > Matthias Mailänder https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=963323 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

5 years, 1 month

Re: [opensuse-packaging] Improving Maven support on openSUSE

by Benjamin Denisart

On 01/23/2016 03:54 PM, Matthias Mailänder wrote: > Hi, > > I suggest we make tickets in the bug tracker for this. This will depend on a > lot of sub-tasks. See also > https://build.opensuse.org/project/show/home:Mailaender:branches:Java:packa… > with maven-bootstrap in particular. > > best regards > > Matthias Mailänder Looks like a good idea. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

5 years, 1 month

[opensuse-packaging] Directory versioning policy for library packages

by Stefan Bruens

Hi, I have stumbled over a small problem regarding versioned directories. Currently, it is expected a versioned library uses a pattern like /usr/lib/ libfoo-1_2_3/bar.so. Although this allows multiple packages, it is contrary to what some upstreams use for versioning, e.g. /usr/lib/libfoo/1.2.3/bar.so. From an RPM perspective, both are ok, as directories can be owned by multiple packages. rpmlint throws an "W: shlib-policy-nonversioned-dir" warning, which is IMHO wrong. Kind regards, Stefan -- Stefan Brüns / Bergstraße 21 / 52062 Aachen home: +49 241 53809034 mobile: +49 151 50412019 work: +49 2405 49936-424 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

5 years, 1 month

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

openSUSE Packaging January 2016