January 2018 - openSUSE Packaging - openSUSE Mailing Lists

Re: [opensuse-packaging] source_validator still blocking submissions with %if "%{name}" == "..." conditions
by Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar 11 Jan '18

11 Jan '18

On Thu, 2018-01-11 at 10:43 +0100, Frank Schreiner wrote: > > > > yes, please ... CC-ing fschreiner and scarabeusiv (who committed the pull > > request). > > I deployed the new container a few minutes ago - should work now. We were talking about the package at https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/openSUSE:Tools/obs-service-source_v… which needs to be updated in line with what we have in git. Can you please take care of those too? Cheers Dominique

1 0

[opensuse-packaging] source_validator still blocking submissions with %if "%{name}" == "..." conditions
by Bernhard Voelker 09 Jan '18

09 Jan '18

Hi *, would please someone update the source_validator package? The current version still blocks the submission of packages with %if "%{name}" == "..." conditions in their spec [1]. The pull request of the issue [2] is already merged, but the change didn't make it into OBS so far. Thanks & have a nice day, Berny [1] https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/560437 [2] https://github.com/openSUSE/obs-service-source_validator/issues/61 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

2 2

Re: [opensuse-packaging] Proper way to set shebangs in singlespecs
by jan matejek 05 Jan '18

05 Jan '18

hello, On 23.12.2017 00:45, Luciano Santos wrote: > I read the python singlespec on the wiki but some parts felt kind of obscure to me. If it had either > all the macros for singlespec purposes, or at least all the most useful ones with their use cases > description I could've made the pain go away with my own meds. there's a full list on the github page, which is linked from the wiki: https://github.com/openSUSE/python-rpm-macros i'll make the link more prominent as soon as the wiki unlocks >> The problem is that there isn't actually a macro for "true if package is built for python2/3". This >> needs to be fixed. Now you can use "%if 0%{?have_python2}". It's not exactly the right thing but it >> works. >> >> %python_expand sed -i '$python for you' %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/doc/packages/$python-gobject ..... > > Now, that's such an interesting piece of information. The have_python macro and this use of > %python_expand with some other information on the wiki were the missing puzzle pieces that I needed. > Thank you Jan and Sebastian for your time. >

4 4

[opensuse-packaging] Help: build fail on open build server due to dependencies of rpmlint-mini
by Nick Wang 04 Jan '18

04 Jan '18

Hi Experts, Recently, the build status of Base:System/libstoragemgmt in build.opensuse.org become unresolvable for days, due to the error message [1]. This issue blocked the submit request [2] to openSUSE:Factory. I guess it is caused by build server's internal error. Please give me some hint if i am wrong. And i am not exactly sure which mailing list to report, sorry for the noise if i made it wrong. Any help will be appreciate. [1] nothing provides librpm.so.7()(64bit) needed by rpmlint-mini, nothing provides librpmio.so.7()(64bit) needed by rpmlint-mini [2] https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/558315 Best regards, Nick -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

6 9

[opensuse-packaging] Re: RFC Generic Packaging for Languages that have vendor/ Trees
by Ludwig Nussel 02 Jan '18

02 Jan '18

Aleksa Sarai wrote: > This is a proposal for having a generic packaging system of RPMs for > languages that use "vendor/" trees. Please respond with any feedback you > have on the details of this proposal. Thanks Aleksa for driving this topic! It's be neglected for too long already. > [...] > And here we come to my proposal. The idea is to take what is already > being done in these projects, and create better tooling around it to > make the work of development, maintainence, security, and legal much > easier. > > First, we need to provide more metadata about these vendor blobs in the > RPM layer, so that security could at least *track* what versions of > things are used by a project. And in the worst case, it should be > possible to patch a vendor blob. This would likely best be done through > RPM macros, by creating a virtual Provides for each of the vendored > libraries. This matches what Fedora does for bundled libraries[1]. The > Provides could be just as simple as > > Provides: bundled(rust:nix) = 0.8.1 To the very least and as first step that method should be specified in the packaging guidelines IMO. Mind writing a concrete proposal just for that to the packaging list¹²? Once approved actual implementations for various languages and tooling can follow. cu Ludwig [1] https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_guidelines_change_process [2] https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_guidelines -- (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

1 0

[opensuse-packaging] Python modules and libraries
by Luigi Baldoni 02 Jan '18

02 Jan '18

Hello, first of all, happy new year. Now, to the matter at hand, I have a couple of python bindings for multimedia libraries and I feel like they should live in the same devel project as said libraries. Project maintainers aren't always in agreement with me, so I'll ask here: if a python module is completely useless by itself, is it proper submitting it to d:l:py ? Regards -- Sent from: http://opensuse.14.x6.nabble.com/opensuse-packaging-f3359936.html -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

4 11

[opensuse-packaging] Help: Build fails on Leap Builds
by Klaas Freitag 02 Jan '18

02 Jan '18

Hi, can anybody help me to understand what is going wrong in https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/home:ocfreitag:branches:KDE:Extra/o… ? The Leap builds are failing because of a post build check complaining about duplicates: [ 174s] found conflict of owncloud-client-2.4.0-27.1.x86_64 with owncloud-client-doc-2.4.0-27.1.x86_64: [ 174s] - /usr/share/doc/packages/owncloud-client/html/advancedusage.html It complains about all files in the doc subfolder called 'html' which should be in the -doc subpackage, and only there. The main package owncloud-client should only contain a few doc files like README and such. In the Tumbleweed builds, this all works like expected, and the packages contain the right doc files. What is going on with the Leap builds? Thx, Klaas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

5 5