[opensuse-packaging] Some notes from your friendly autobuild team
hi, 1. good ways of doing library policy compatible packages Since quite some time we have some policy for packaging shared libraries. [1] We all had lots of fun and work with it already. There is some way to save some work for all of us. I will use libetpan as an example here. in the current factory package we have libetpan11 and libetpan-devel. and in the queue there is an update that would bump the soname to libetpan.so.13. now it would be renaming a package in autobuild, rename the spec, rename the changes file and check in the new package. To save us all a bit work we slightly change the packaging: we rename the package back to libetpan and let the spec generate an empty main package. Additionally we have 2 subpackages (libetpan13 and libetpan-devel). Of course you should add a provides to the libetpan13 package: Provides: %{name} = %{version} 2. Renaming a package Just a short not how the proper provides/obsoletes should look like in the usual case -> [2] with kind regards darix [1] http://en.opensuse.org/Packaging/Shared_Library_Packaging_Policy [2] http://en.opensuse.org/Upgrade_Dependencies#Renaming_a_package -- openSUSE - SUSE Linux is my linux openSUSE is good for you www.opensuse.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 16:23 +0100, Marcus Rueckert wrote:
we rename the package back to libetpan and let the spec generate an empty main package. Additionally we have 2 subpackages (libetpan13 and libetpan-devel).
Totally empty? I tried creating an empty package and got the following: "An empty RPM is not allowed anymore in SuSE Linux" (I don't think that empty packages are a bad thing, but at the present, what you suggest isn't quite possible.) Michael. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 15:02:20 -0600, Michael Wolf wrote:
darix wrote: we rename the package back to libetpan and let the spec generate an empty main package. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Totally empty? I tried creating an empty package and got the following: "An empty RPM is not allowed anymore in SuSE Linux"
Not totally empty, only the main package is empty but it has a non-empty sub package, that's the trick. Philipp --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On 2008-03-07 15:02:20 -0600, Michael Wolf wrote:
On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 16:23 +0100, Marcus Rueckert wrote:
we rename the package back to libetpan and let the spec generate an empty main package. Additionally we have 2 subpackages (libetpan13 and libetpan-devel).
Totally empty? I tried creating an empty package and got the following: "An empty RPM is not allowed anymore in SuSE Linux"
(I don't think that empty packages are a bad thing, but at the present, what you suggest isn't quite possible.)
oh it is possible. see the attached spec file darix -- openSUSE - SUSE Linux is my linux openSUSE is good for you www.opensuse.org
On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 16:23:24 +0100, Marcus Rueckert wrote:
we rename the package back to libetpan and let the spec generate an empty main package. Additionally we have 2 subpackages (libetpan13 and libetpan-devel).
Great, thanks for the tip! If only I would have known that *before* I did the changes to my packages ... Philipp --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On Friday 07 March 2008, Marcus Rueckert wrote:
Of course you should add a provides to the libetpan13 package: Provides: %{name} = %{version}
you have to add -%{release} as well, otherwise the debuginfo package is uninstallable (correct me if I'm wrong). anyway, whats wrong with making the -devel package the main package? this way we don't have empty main packages (which need an extra PDB entry to be triggered for build)? Greetings, Dirk -- RPMLINT information under http://en.opensuse.org/Packaging/RpmLint --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On Fri, 7 Mar 2008, Marcus Rueckert wrote:
hi,
1. good ways of doing library policy compatible packages
Since quite some time we have some policy for packaging shared libraries. [1]
We all had lots of fun and work with it already. There is some way to save some work for all of us. I will use libetpan as an example here.
in the current factory package we have libetpan11 and libetpan-devel. and in the queue there is an update that would bump the soname to libetpan.so.13. now it would be renaming a package in autobuild, rename the spec, rename the changes file and check in the new package.
To save us all a bit work we slightly change the packaging:
we rename the package back to libetpan and let the spec generate an empty main package. Additionally we have 2 subpackages (libetpan13 and libetpan-devel).
Of course you should add a provides to the libetpan13 package: Provides: %{name} = %{version}
No, certainly not. shared library packages should not provide anything. What reason for should this provide be? Richard. -- Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de> Novell / SUSE Labs SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nuernberg - AG Nuernberg - HRB 16746 - GF: Markus Rex --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
participants (5)
-
Dirk Mueller -
Marcus Rueckert -
Michael Wolf -
Philipp Thomas -
Richard Guenther