openSUSE Packaging April 2018

packaging@lists.opensuse.org

27 participants
18 discussions

New macro to limit resources allocation per thread

by Tomas Chvatal

Hello all, For use in libreoffice, chromium and others I've created macro that should allow you to limit jobs based on some constraints you can set later on in the spec to avoid OOM crashes. The usage is pretty straight forward (Once it is accepted in Tumbleweed): === BuildRequires: memory-constraints %build # require 2GB mem per thread %limit_build -m 2000 make %{?_smp_mflags} ==== Here the _smp_mflags vaule for 8GB machine would be 4 while default is number of cores (lets say 16)... Both macros %jobs and %_smp_mflags are overriden as such the integration should be really painless if you need to do something like this. Tom

1 year, 3 months

%license and build failures on SLE12

by Takashi Iwai

Hi, recently there have been a few updates of package to use %license for the license files. And this seems triggering the build failures for SLE12. How would we cure this? Fiddling with some prjconf stuff? thanks, Takashi -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

2 years, 4 months

submitting 2 packages with the same source

by Jordi Massaguer Pla

Hi packagers :) , I have these two packages which have the same source. I've seen sometimes we have a package foo with 2 spec files, foo.spec and bar.spec, and then we have another package, bar, which is a link to foo. This way, both share the same source. I tried to do that, but when I submitted (osc sr) foo and bar to another project, the link was lost, and instead I had two independent packages with a copy of the same source. Is there a way to keep the link? I tried the "--update-link" option but didn't make a difference. Thanks in advance jordi -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

2 years, 6 months

[lsyncd] Who can check and accept SR, if package's maintainer is off?

by Mikhail Kasimov

Hello! Here is package lsyncd, with very old bug-report: https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=975118 of annoying bug. While maintainer is off (no replies in bz, no replies on emails), here is the question: who can check and accept SR to bring fix for package to openSUSE's users? Thanks for your help! -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

2 years, 7 months

Packages submitted to obs://Documentation pending review for 26 days and counting

by Atri B

Hello folks, I submitted a couple of packages: * stdman: agglomeration of the online C++ reference en.cppreference.com in the form of man files, and * cppreference-doc: An offline mirror of the C/C++ reference en.cppreference.com in plain html, devhelp, and qhelp formats, to what seemed like the most suitable devel project at the time: Documentation [0]. However, these packages have now been rotting away without review for about a month. If somebody on this list is on the list of reviewers for that project, could you please review sr's 592066 [1] and 592291 [2] for me? Thank you very much. For anyone else, do you have a suggestion for some other -- hopefully more active -- devel project where these packages could go to? I had planned for these two packages to end up in Leap:15.0; thanks to the lack of response, that goal is pretty much dead and buried now :( Thanks for any help, and best wishes. [1] https://build.opensuse.org/project/show/Documentation [1] https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/592066 [2] https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/592291 -- Atri Bhattacharya Tue 24 Apr 22:44:56 CEST 2018 Sent from openSUSE Tumbleweed 20180420 on my laptop. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

2 years, 7 months

The still unresolved binary naming conflict between Chicken and mono-core

by Daniel Ziltener

Hi! I'm the maintainer of the package for Chicken Scheme, which currently resides in devel:languages:misc. Since a while, it is now impossible to install both chicken and mono-core, because they both provide binaries called csc and csi. What is OpenSUSE's policy regarding conflicts like this? Some distributions have renamed the mono-core binaries, since mono-core is the younger package, thus prioritizing the older package. I could also imagine OpenSUSE prioritizing the packages in the main repository, thus have mono-core take over the names. In this case, what would be the renaming suggestion? Best regards, Daniel

2 years, 7 months

Problematic issues on building devel-package

by Mikhail Kasimov

Hello, All! I'm trying to build 'package+package-devel' pair via OBS and there are two problematic issues I have faced with. [0] https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/home:k_mikhail/GOST34.11-2012 1) If to cut all fragments about package-devel off from spec-file ([1] http://paste.opensuse.org/60953485), initial package gets built successfully for all distros (CentOS, Fedora, Scientific, Mageia, variable versions of SLE and openSUSE). Brilliant! 2) If to add fragments about package-devel back to spec-file ([2] http://paste.opensuse.org/30292476), all RedHat-based distros handle this new spec OK, instead of entire (open-)SUSE line, which diagnose: ===== [ 69s] GOST34.11-2012-devel-0.12-32.1.x86_64.rpm: directories not owned by a package: [ 69s] - /usr/include/gost3411-2012 ===== although, e.g.: mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1 and install is OK, but mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_includedir}/gost3411-2012 and install do not give the result. specs_diff: [3] http://paste.opensuse.org/88758762 I'm aware of %dir, but there is no need of it for [1] for some reason and, for unknown reason, it is needed for [2]. That is also the interesting question... The second issue is for openSUSE_Leap_15.0 x86_64: blocked. Why? Thanks for your hints and help! -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

2 years, 7 months

Requesting Virtualization:vagrant as devel project for vagrant

by Johannes Kastl

Hi everyone, due to the fact that vagrant changes its dependencies with each minor release and normally requires older stuff than what is in Factory, we set up a new packaging workflow for vagrant in Virtualization:vagrant. vagrant's new version 2.0.2 is ready for submission, except that the project is not a devel project for Factory. And I cannot find any hints on how to get it set up as one. Which documentation am I missing? I received no answers to the mails sent so far, I guess because people are flooded by mails already. Any hints? Kind Regards, Johannes P.S.: 2.0.3 is also prepared, needs to be tested, though, before submission. I also got multi-ruby-builds up my sleeve, that allow building vagrant packages for SLES12 or Leap 42.3. Needs some tests and thoughts, so not quite there yet. -- Johannes Kastl Linux Consultant & Trainer Tel.: +49 (0) 151 2372 5802 Mail: kastl(a)b1-systems.de B1 Systems GmbH Osterfeldstraße 7 / 85088 Vohburg / http://www.b1-systems.de GF: Ralph Dehner / Unternehmenssitz: Vohburg / AG: Ingolstadt,HRB 3537

2 years, 7 months

Ownership issues with /usr/share/licenses in SLE-12

by John Paul Adrian Glaubitz

Hello! I'm trying to build python-pytest-relaxed for SLE-12 in backports which is required as a dependency for one of the tools we are using for the public cloud stuff. The build fails with RPM complaining about /usr/share/licenses being unowned: [ 4s] ... running 01-check-debuginfo [ 4s] ... testing for empty debuginfo packages [ 4s] ... running 02-check-gcc-output [ 4s] ... testing for serious compiler warnings [ 4s] (using /usr/lib/build/checks-data/check_gcc_output) [ 4s] (using /var/tmp/build-root/openSUSE_Backports_SLE-12-x86_64/.build.log) [ 4s] ... running 03-check-binary-kernel-log [ 4s] ... running 04-check-filelist [ 4s] ... checking filelist [ 4s] python-pytest-relaxed-1.0.0-0.noarch.rpm: directories not owned by a package: [ 4s] - /usr/share/licenses [ 4s] python3-pytest-relaxed-1.0.0-0.noarch.rpm: directories not owned by a package: [ 4s] - /usr/share/licenses [ 4s] [ 4s] suse-laptop failed "build python-pytest-relaxed.spec" at Fri Dec 15 13:35:27 UTC 2017. [ 4s] Normally, this issue is fixed by installing the package which install this directory into the chroot, either through a Preinstall directive in the project configuration or by adding the package in question to Build-Depends in the spec file. The directory /usr/share/licenses is provided by filesystem which I tried preinstalling through the aforementioned mechanisms. However, I still keep running into the ownership issue as shown above. Does anyone have any idea what I am doing wrong? Thanks, Adrian -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

2 years, 7 months

devel:languages:python changes.

by Simon Lees

As from memory there are a number of people using d:l:p that maybe subscribed to this list and not the opensuse-factory mailing list I thought i'd post a link[1] to a thread about some changes happening in d:l:p here as well as a heads up. Note that I deliberately didn't forward / reply the email into this list as any possible discussion should be contained to one thread on the factory list to avoid fragmentation. 1. https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2018-04/msg00698.html Cheers -- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

2 years, 7 months

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

openSUSE Packaging April 2018