Hi,
Some packages split out their man pages or other documentation into a sub
package. More often than not that subpackage then is recommended. IOW
installed by default which is undesirable. We also have a pattern for
documenation though. So IMO it makes sense to link installing such
documenation packages to the pattern. The question is how though.
Assuming we have foo, foo-doc and patterns-base-documentation I see
several ways:
1. pattern is in charge
a. in patterns-base-documentation Recommends: foo-doc
b. in patterns-base-documentation Recommends: foo-doc if foo
2. package is in charge
a. in foo Recommends: foo-doc if patterns-base-documentation
b. in foo-doc Supplements: packageand(foo:patterns-base-documentation)
1) pro: when looking at the pattern eg. in YaST one can actually see an
overview of what documentation is available.
con: pattern needs to be adjusted for every change in packaging.
Extra step and easy to forget.
2) pro: packager can add, split, merge or drop packages any time
con: package installation is a bit more black magic. The pattern
leads to pulling in more packages than expected.
Thoughts?
cu
Ludwig
--
(o_ Ludwig Nussel
//\
V_/_ http://www.suse.com/
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer
HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg)
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org
Hi,
It seems factory_auto declines packages where a patch needing to be
rebased is commented out from the sources entirely, yet this is the
only way to avoid applying the patch when using `%autosetup`. See, for
example, sr#773323 which has Patch12 marked as 'NEEDS-REBASE' and
commented out. It has been duly declined. Is there any way, short of
doing away with `%autosetup`, to get this through factory_auto?
Thanks for any advice.
[1] https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/773323
--
Atri Bhattacharya
Sent from openSUSE Tumbleweed 20200214 on tp-yoga260.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org
Good morning ladies and gentlemen,
is there any documentation on how to exactly require a specific version of go1.X
(use go1.10, not any later version? Use go1.12 or later?)?
I am (once again) new to packaging golang packages, and have some that seem to
require newer versions, e.g. go1.12 or go.14. Others like git-lfs seem to not
build correctly unless I tell them to build with go1.10.
Not sure if this really fixes the build problems, and as I am not a go expert I
cannot tell if this idea is complete bogus. Nevertheless, I'd like to try out... ;-)
This seems to work:
BuildRequire: go < 1.13
BuildRequire: go >= 1.12
This does not:
BuildRequire: go1.12
Nope:
BuildRequire: go = 1.12
(as the available version is 1.12.9 or something like that)
Seems like this would be a useful information to add to
https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_Go (which I will update once I find
out how to do that).
Kind Regards,
Johannes
--
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
Hi guys,
I'm trying to package the latest bleachbit version.
It installs a file in /usr/share/metainfo.
If I put "%dir /usr/share/metainfo" in my specfile, I get a massive number of
"conflicts with" from rpm when I try to install it, when I don't put it in I
get "unpackaged file" from osc build...
What do I do?
Cheers
Mathias
--
Mathias Homann
Mathias.Homann(a)openSUSE.org
telegram: https://telegram.me/lemmy98
irc: [lemmy] on freenode and ircnet
obs: lemmy04
gpg key fingerprint: 8029 2240 F4DD 7776 E7D2 C042 6B8E 029E 13F2 C102
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org
Hi,
It seems factory_auto declines packages where a patch needing to be
rebased is commented out from the sources entirely, yet this is the
only way to avoid applying the patch when using `%autosetup`. See, for
example, sr#773323 which has Patch12 marked as 'NEEDS-REBASE' and
commented out. It has been duly declined. Is there any way, short of
doing away with `%autosetup`, to get this through factory_auto?
Thanks for any advice.
[1] https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/773323
--
Atri Bhattacharya
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org
Hi,
It seems factory_auto declines packages where a patch needing to be
rebased is commented out from the sources entirely, yet this is the
only way to avoid applying the patch when using `%autosetup`. See, for
example, sr#773323 which has Patch12 marked as 'NEEDS-REBASE' and
commented out. It has been duly declined. Is there any way, short of
doing away with `%autosetup`, to get this through factory_auto?
Thanks for any advice.
[1] https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/773323
--
Atri Bhattacharya
Space sciences, Technologies and Astrophysics Research (STAR) Institute,
Université de Liège, Bât. B5a, Sart Tilman, 4000 Liège, Belgium
Phone: +32 4 366 36 38
http://www.theo.phys.ulg.ac.be/wiki/Bhattacharya_Atri
Tue 18 Feb 18:05:48 CET 2020
Sent from openSUSE Tumbleweed 20200214 on tp-yoga260.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org
Hi,
I have this package that has subpackages. What should I do with the
license files? Should they be part of the main package? Should I copy
them into every subpackage? Should I create a "-doc" subpackage and make
it a "supplements" of all the other subpackages?
thanks
jordi
--
Jordi Massaguer Pla
Release Manager for SUSE CaaS Platform
SUSE Linux
https://www.suse.com
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org
Hello,
I am looking for example or guidelines on how to properly package python
bindings which use ctype LoadLibrary interface.
Let me recall, that there is no any glue binary shared object file, in
this case. python just load the original library shared object in
runtime (as you do with dlopen() in C language) and then represents it
symbols as a python object. So, this kind of bindings is a pure python
module (should be noarch?).
Nevertheless, I still need to specify "Requires:" in the corresponding
spec file, since missed original library will lead to some exception
during the python module loading making the module installation
unusable. The question is how to specify required SONAME correctly in
this case taking into account ABI compatibility.
--
With best regards,
Matwey V. Kornilov
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org
