openSUSE Packaging March 2016

packaging@lists.opensuse.org

33 participants
17 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] RFC: packaging guidelines change: Web Applications

by Ludwig Nussel

Hi, https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_guidelines#Web_Applications suggest to package "web applications" to /srv/www/%name. I see two major problems with that 1. /srv is considered admin space so packages should not mess with it. Citing FHS¹: "... no program should rely on a specific subdirectory structure of /srv existing or data necessarily being stored in /srv ... Distributions must take care not to remove locally placed files in these directories without administrator permission" 2. For the reason that admins are expected to put files in /srv that are not tracked by package management, /srv is a default btrfs subvolume. That means anything installed in /srv is excluded from the default system snapshots. Ie rollbacks of packages that install code in /srv won't have any effect and the rpm database would not reflect what's actually running anymore. Therefore I'd like to propose to change the section to the following: Web applications packaged in openSUSE should place their their files in /etc, /usr, /var etc depending on type just like any other application would do. A package must not install, remove or otherwise modify /srv content as it's use is reserved to the admin according to FHS¹. It's ok to allow the admin to configure the software to use /srv of course. cu Ludwig [1] http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#SRVDATAFORSERVICESPROVIDEDBYSY… -- (o_ Ludwig Nussel //\ V_/_ http://www.suse.com/ SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) -- 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] Naming convention for a "dangerous" sub-package

by Greg Freemyer

All, The ntfs-3g_ntfsprogs program does not currently include some of the more dangerous utilities that it could include. WIth "./configure --enable-quarantined" several "dangerous" utilities get built and installed. Given they are dangerous and possibly can destroy data I don't want to put them in the main ntfs-3g_ntfsprogs package. For now I've created a sub-package to hold them: ntfs-3g_ntfsprogs-quarantined https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/home:gregfreemyer:branches:filesyst… Is there a more appropriate name for the sub-package in the openSUSE naming conventions? Greg -- Greg Freemyer www.IntelligentAvatar.net -- 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] #opensuse-packaging at Freenode (IRC)

by Kyrill Detinov

Hello. I've asked a question in #opensuse-packaging at Freenode. Unfortunately, nobody alive. 2016-03-23 01:12<Lazy_Kent> ping DimStar ... 2016-03-24 01:00<Lazy_Kent> ping DimStar ... Does it (#opensuse-packaging) work? -- WBR Kyrill

4 years, 11 months

[opensuse-packaging] post-build-checks, uname -r is broken

by Ruediger Meier

Hi, even I've realized that "uname -r" is broken on any openSUSE build repo. It's because the post-build-checks package symlinks an uname.sh script which does not report the running kernel version anymore but a version string from arbitrary text files or installed kernel sources. What is the reason why we have this dirty hack? If any package would need to know a kernel source version then it should certainly not use uname to get it. Thus we should rather fix that package instead of breaking uname. Is there any chance to remove that uname.sh? I'm fighting since months with some kind of kernel related odd behavior, now I see that all my debugging scripts, etc. were totally useless. That's annoying. 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 years, 11 months

[opensuse-packaging] Preventing a package from being installed from all but one repo

by Johannes Kastl

4 years, 11 months

[opensuse-packaging] Change baselibs.conf based on distro

by Todd Rme

Is there a way to make baselibs.conf different depending on the distro? I could find anything in the wiki about this. -- 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] OBS moans on one build....

by Axel Braun

Hi Group, I have a package that builds fine for all selected repos, except for openSUSE 13.1 64bit: [ 65s] ... checking filelist [ 65s] tryton-sao-3.8.4-1.1.noarch.rpm: directories not owned by a package: [ 65s] - /usr/lib/node_modules [ 65s] Thats definitely the case as well for other 64bit repos, but there it works fine. Why does it fail for 13.1? Thanks Axel -- 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] Problem packaging kernel module for leap and factory (E: suse-policy-kmp-missing-supplements)

by Johannes Weberhofer

Good Morning! I have recognized, that a kernel package in hardware:snx does not finishing building because of the following error: [ 91s] snx-kmp-xen.x86_64: E: suse-policy-kmp-missing-supplements (Badness: 10000) [ 91s] snx-kmp-pv.x86_64: E: suse-policy-kmp-missing-supplements (Badness: 10000) [ 91s] snx-kmp-default.x86_64: E: suse-policy-kmp-missing-supplements (Badness: 10000) [ 91s] Make sure your 'BuildRequires:' include 'kernel-syms' and 'modutils' for [ 91s] proper dependencies to be built. I don't know what the real problem is. Both "BuildRequires" inclusions are correct, the package is correctly built for older versions. Any hint? Best regards, Johannes -- Johannes Weberhofer Weberhofer GmbH, Austria, Vienna -- 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] 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

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

openSUSE Packaging March 2016