[opensuse-packaging] rpmlint and vendor (under /opt)
Hi All, Quick question, I am getting the rpmlint warning "/opt may not be used by a SUSE. It is reserved for 3rd party packagers". I am obviously not SUSE, but how can I specify the vendor? I've tried "Vendor:" tag in spec file, it did not helped. And disable of rpmlink check seems like a cheating, I'm sure there should be proper solution which I'm not aware of. -- Regards, Stas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
On Tuesday 2015-05-19 16:35, Stanislav Baiduzhyi wrote:
Quick question, I am getting the rpmlint warning "/opt may not be used by a SUSE. It is reserved for 3rd party packagers". I am obviously not SUSE, but how can I specify the vendor?
The warning is to mean: "Since you are building for $distro, adhere to $distro's policies." (And by choosing the openSUSE build tools, you chose to build for $distro rather than a "generic" target.) Most if not all of the contemporary distributions have no provision for anything in /opt, because they are just fine with /usr. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
On Tuesday 19 May 2015 17:16:05 Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Tuesday 2015-05-19 16:35, Stanislav Baiduzhyi wrote:
Quick question, I am getting the rpmlint warning "/opt may not be used by a SUSE. It is reserved for 3rd party packagers". I am obviously not SUSE, but how can I specify the vendor?
The warning is to mean: "Since you are building for $distro, adhere to $distro's policies."
(And by choosing the openSUSE build tools, you chose to build for $distro rather than a "generic" target.)
Most if not all of the contemporary distributions have no provision for anything in /opt, because they are just fine with /usr.
OpenSUSE build tools allow me to build to pretty much any target, so it's not something openSUSE-specific. More than that, the error clearly states that "it is reserved for 3rd party packagers", which is good definition of me in this situation. And of course what I'm trying to build fits under /opt by FHS definition, and does not really fit under /usr by the same definition. -- Regards, Stas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
On Tuesday 2015-05-19 17:40, Stanislav Baiduzhyi wrote:
(And by choosing the openSUSE build tools, you chose to build for $distro rather than a "generic" target.)
Most if not all of the contemporary distributions have no provision for anything in /opt, because they are just fine with /usr.
OpenSUSE build tools allow me to build to pretty much any target, so it's not something openSUSE-specific.
While it can build for any one particular target, it still assumes you are building for the target distribution's sake rather than an unconnected addon product. The scope of /opt is so blurry, and there is precedent that it is also just ignored because of it. If you still feel you need /opt, you will have to live with the warnings. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@inai.de> writes:
If you still feel you need /opt, you will have to live with the warnings.
Of yourse, you can also get rid of it with an rpmlintrc. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, schwab@suse.de GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE 1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7 "And now for something completely different." -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
Hello, On May 19 16:35 Stanislav Baiduzhyi wrote (excerpt):
... disable of rpmlink check seems like a cheating ...
It depends. Because rpmlint (not rpmlink) is only a dumb robot there are cases where rpmlint reports false positives. Real false positives should be filtered out so that the remaining rpmlint output is truly meaningful. A <package_name>-rpmlintrc file in the package sources with explanatory comments why and what false positives are explicitly filtered out makes clear what is going on, cf. https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_checks For an example you may have a look at https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/home:jsmeix/rear116/rear116-rpm... Kind Regards Johannes Meixner -- SUSE LINUX GmbH - GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Dilip Upmanyu, Graham Norton - HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
On Wednesday 2015-05-20 09:24, Johannes Meixner wrote:
On May 19 16:35 Stanislav Baiduzhyi wrote (excerpt):
... disable of rpmlink check seems like a cheating ...
A <package_name>-rpmlintrc file in the package sources with explanatory comments why and what false positives are explicitly filtered out makes clear what is going on, cf. https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_checks
For an example you may have a look at https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/home:jsmeix/rear116/rear116-rpm...
Wonder if anybody is ever going to fix rpmlint, or whether we should keep adding more and more rpmlintrc exceptions like those. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
On Mittwoch, 20. Mai 2015, 10:13:15 wrote Jan Engelhardt:
On Wednesday 2015-05-20 09:24, Johannes Meixner wrote:
On May 19 16:35 Stanislav Baiduzhyi wrote (excerpt):
... disable of rpmlink check seems like a cheating ...
A <package_name>-rpmlintrc file in the package sources with explanatory comments why and what false positives are explicitly filtered out makes clear what is going on, cf. https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_checks
For an example you may have a look at https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/home:jsmeix/rear116/rear116-rpm...
Wonder if anybody is ever going to fix rpmlint, or whether we should keep adding more and more rpmlintrc exceptions like those.
it is not broken, it works as it supposed to work. What you want is to have two different modes. One for packages which may become candidate of the openSUSE distribution and another one where the packager rules out this option. -- Adrian Schroeter email: adrian@suse.de SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Dilip Upmanyu, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstraße 5 90409 Nürnberg Germany -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
On Wednesday 20 of May 2015 10:16:06 Adrian Schröter wrote:
On Mittwoch, 20. Mai 2015, 10:13:15 wrote Jan Engelhardt:
Wonder if anybody is ever going to fix rpmlint, or whether we should keep adding more and more rpmlintrc exceptions like those.
it is not broken, it works as it supposed to work.
What you want is to have two different modes. One for packages which may become candidate of the openSUSE distribution and another one where the packager rules out this option.
This feature would be extremely useful. For packages not intended to get into the distribution (and in particular, packages meant as alternatives to distribution ones), many rpmlint/OBS checks do not make any sense. Michal Kubeček -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
On Wednesday 2015-05-20 10:16, Adrian Schröter wrote:
On Mittwoch, 20. Mai 2015, 10:13:15 wrote Jan Engelhardt:
On Wednesday 2015-05-20 09:24, Johannes Meixner wrote:
On May 19 16:35 Stanislav Baiduzhyi wrote (excerpt):
... disable of rpmlink check seems like a cheating ...
A <package_name>-rpmlintrc file in the package sources with explanatory comments why and what false positives are explicitly filtered out makes clear what is going on, cf. https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_checks
For an example you may have a look at https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/home:jsmeix/rear116/rear116-rpm...
Wonder if anybody is ever going to fix rpmlint, or whether we should keep adding more and more rpmlintrc exceptions like those.
it is not broken, it works as it supposed to work.
I am not sure I find it correct that rpmlint complains about systemd unit files (or files that look like it) which don't live in {/etc,/usr}/lib/systemd/ to begin with. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Wednesday 2015-05-20 09:24, Johannes Meixner wrote:
On May 19 16:35 Stanislav Baiduzhyi wrote (excerpt):
... disable of rpmlink check seems like a cheating ...
A <package_name>-rpmlintrc file in the package sources with explanatory comments why and what false positives are explicitly filtered out makes clear what is going on, cf. https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_checks
For an example you may have a look at https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/home:jsmeix/rear116/rear116-rpm...
Wonder if anybody is ever going to fix rpmlint, or whether we should keep adding more and more rpmlintrc exceptions like those.
Patches welcome. So far vendor handling was not an issue at all. The check in question is here: https://github.com/openSUSE/rpmlint-checks/blob/master/CheckFilelist.py I've fixed the spelling now at least. The way rpmlint is used currently assumes that people build packages for inclusion into openSUSE. In that context it is right to warn that official packages can't pick random locations in /opt. The feature of 3rd party packagers use build.opensuse.org without the intention of adhering to the same rules like packages in openSUSE is not covered by the current openSUSE rpmlint package. But then it's just a warning. FWIW it is possible to override the vendor in obs on project level by adding %vendor to the Macros section of prjconf. By default obs puts a back reference to itself there. The rpm vendor string however is not the same as the provider name in /opt anyways. Rpmlint would somehow need to use a mapping based on http://www.lanana.org/lsbreg/providers/providers.txt cu Ludwig -- (o_ Ludwig Nussel //\ V_/_ http://www.suse.de/ SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Dilip Upmanyu, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
Hello, On May 20 10:13 Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Wednesday 2015-05-20 09:24, Johannes Meixner wrote:
For an example you may have a look at https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/home:jsmeix/rear116/rear116-rpm...
Wonder if anybody is ever going to fix rpmlint, or whether we should keep adding more and more rpmlintrc exceptions like those.
For me this is the only package where I need exceptional rpmlint handling and this package is really exceptional so that from my point of view rpmlint works o.k. Personally I worry more about post-build-checks and brp-check-suse because those do not provide a clean way how one could command those dumb robots if needed in exceptional cases. Kind Regards Johannes Meixner -- SUSE LINUX GmbH - GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Dilip Upmanyu, Graham Norton - HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
participants (7)
-
Adrian Schröter -
Andreas Schwab -
Jan Engelhardt -
Johannes Meixner -
Ludwig Nussel -
Michal Kubecek -
Stanislav Baiduzhyi