[opensuse-packaging] How to create baselibs.conf
On 14 May 2012 11:37, Ismail Dönmez <idoenmez@suse.de> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 05/14/2012 12:33 PM, christian.morales.vega@gmail.com wrote:
State of submit-request #120822 was changed by RedDwarf:
declined -> new
Comment: That's two places to change the _soversion. And experience says people forget to update the baselibs.conf.
https://build.opensuse.org/request/diff/120822
Source project: home:RedDwarf:branches:multimedia:libs package: libconfig revision: 2
Target: project: multimedia:libs package: libconfig
But thats still, its the proper way. Please use it.
I first saw the creation of the baselibs.conf file insidhas a e the spec file in the wine package and I really liked it. You are in a point where you have access to more information and lets you make better decisions. I saw people forgetting to update the baselibs.conf file when the soname of the library changed so many times that I think it should be used even in the simple case where you just put the name of the package. Opinions? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
On 14.05.2012 12:59, Cristian Morales Vega wrote:
I first saw the creation of the baselibs.conf file insidhas a e the spec file in the wine package and I really liked it. You are in a point where you have access to more information and lets you make better decisions. I saw people forgetting to update the baselibs.conf file when the soname of the library changed so many times that I think it should be used even in the simple case where you just put the name of the package.
Opinions? I think we're at a point where we should default to create baselibs for all shared library packages by default without this outdated stuff IMO.
Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
On 2012-05-14 14:53:23 (+0200), Stephan Kulow <coolo@suse.de> wrote:
On 14.05.2012 12:59, Cristian Morales Vega wrote:
I first saw the creation of the baselibs.conf file insidhas a e the spec file in the wine package and I really liked it. You are in a point where you have access to more information and lets you make better decisions. I saw people forgetting to update the baselibs.conf file when the soname of the library changed so many times that I think it should be used even in the simple case where you just put the name of the package.
Opinions? I think we're at a point where we should default to create baselibs for all shared library packages by default without this outdated stuff IMO.
+1, definitely, no reason to have a manual and error prone process for something a script or tool can do easily. cheers -- -o) Pascal Bleser /\\ http://opensuse.org -- we haz green _\_v http://fosdem.org -- we haz conf
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 05/14/2012 10:45 PM, Pascal Bleser wrote:
On 2012-05-14 14:53:23 (+0200), Stephan Kulow <coolo@suse.de> wrote:
On 14.05.2012 12:59, Cristian Morales Vega wrote:
I first saw the creation of the baselibs.conf file insidhas a e the spec file in the wine package and I really liked it. You are in a point where you have access to more information and lets you make better decisions. I saw people forgetting to update the baselibs.conf file when the soname of the library changed so many times that I think it should be used even in the simple case where you just put the name of the package.
Opinions? I think we're at a point where we should default to create baselibs for all shared library packages by default without this outdated stuff IMO.
+1, definitely, no reason to have a manual and error prone process for something a script or tool can do easily.
So how do we proceed? Regards. - -- Ismail Dönmez - openSUSE Booster SUSE LINUX Products GmbH Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPsliAAAoJEJrs5hT7LFEcoSkH/RTBNtd6yLCOQw7avJ4hfsZ5 IfPue21IoXvXIVD5CwfqLe3YLo6hCbd5P76SROwToxetf/Dft0x2/jyx2TZCmlZO 4PeiB0mNwPGSR5neDJ31CvVe/JTOSypcwL1YX0F4kr3aMik9tIBX0J7OiispS0UZ iiGuZN9QBWcWkPjjjmFGbtFcP1GOu95XjY6zd3pzTnZZWO63YuzwozEyZ7qAJQmg oy/wgdT7jIGk+KzRGeNQ8Bq0kfhROpTwNDNsreamWys5C+IcSOTHgIIuRmdTOsPo /28MxMfF7DoHWD2cmi154djmRZXsPRncG6YiimLX+HHTC3khDoeqP91ginGWP1g= =ZWwi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
On 2012-05-15 15:22:08 (+0200), Ismail Dönmez <idoenmez@suse.de> wrote:
On 05/14/2012 10:45 PM, Pascal Bleser wrote:
On 2012-05-14 14:53:23 (+0200), Stephan Kulow <coolo@suse.de> [...]
I think we're at a point where we should default to create baselibs for all shared library packages by default without this outdated stuff IMO.
+1, definitely, no reason to have a manual and error prone process for something a script or tool can do easily.
So how do we proceed?
I wouldn't even know where to start... in /usr/bin/build ? cheers -- -o) Pascal Bleser /\\ http://opensuse.org -- we haz green _\_v http://fosdem.org -- we haz conf
On 15 May 2012 18:30, Pascal Bleser <pascal.bleser@opensuse.org> wrote:
On 2012-05-15 15:22:08 (+0200), Ismail Dönmez <idoenmez@suse.de> wrote:
On 05/14/2012 10:45 PM, Pascal Bleser wrote:
On 2012-05-14 14:53:23 (+0200), Stephan Kulow <coolo@suse.de> [...]
I think we're at a point where we should default to create baselibs for all shared library packages by default without this outdated stuff IMO.
+1, definitely, no reason to have a manual and error prone process for something a script or tool can do easily.
So how do we proceed?
I wouldn't even know where to start... in /usr/bin/build ?
Something like home:RedDwarf:test_mkbaselibs:modified. I speak perl as I speak English... Don't get offended if in that patch I say "shit" instead of "sheet". I don't think there is a lot of people used to the full syntax of baselibs.conf (and this should be completed http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Build_Service_baselibs.conf#baselib). And it should be decided what to do when there exists a baselibs.conf file but doesn't say anything about a subpackage: a) Don't create a -32bit file for that subpackage. If the packager wanted such a thing he would have added it explicitly. b) We just changed the *default* to "create a -32bit file". So if the baselibs.conf file doesn't say anything about a subpackage, a -32bit package should be created with the default parameters. Also, this creates "debuginfo-32bit" packages. I guess we want this... but I also guess there is a lot of scripts in the build system with something like "debuginfo$". But in general it seems a quite simple change. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
On 14 May 2012 13:53, Stephan Kulow <coolo@suse.de> wrote:
On 14.05.2012 12:59, Cristian Morales Vega wrote:
I first saw the creation of the baselibs.conf file insidhas a e the spec file in the wine package and I really liked it. You are in a point where you have access to more information and lets you make better decisions. I saw people forgetting to update the baselibs.conf file when the soname of the library changed so many times that I think it should be used even in the simple case where you just put the name of the package.
Opinions? I think we're at a point where we should default to create baselibs for all shared library packages by default without this outdated stuff IMO.
Since the OBS isn't building right now I couldn't test it so much. But https://github.com/openSUSE/obs-build/pull/13 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
Am 24.05.2012 01:41, schrieb Cristian Morales Vega:
I think we're at a point where we should default to create baselibs for all shared library packages by default without this outdated stuff IMO.
Since the OBS isn't building right now I couldn't test it so much. But https://github.com/openSUSE/obs-build/pull/13 Hi Cristian,
The patch doesn't look like it's doing what I had in mind. I was talking only about shared library packages, your patch looks like it's doing it for *.rpm - this might become too heavy. Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
On 24 May 2012 05:36, Stephan Kulow <coolo@suse.de> wrote:
Am 24.05.2012 01:41, schrieb Cristian Morales Vega:
I think we're at a point where we should default to create baselibs for all shared library packages by default without this outdated stuff IMO.
Since the OBS isn't building right now I couldn't test it so much. But https://github.com/openSUSE/obs-build/pull/13
Hi Cristian,
The patch doesn't look like it's doing what I had in mind. I was talking only about shared library packages, your patch looks like it's doing it for *.rpm - this might become too heavy.
I could do a check for file contents, but the check is already done inside handle_rpms(): -------- if (!%files) { print "$rname($target): empty filelist, skipping rpm\n"; next; } -------- It actually *tries* to create the "-32bit packages" (no idea how to name them) for every rpm. But it will only create them if it contains files that the global configuration asks for (right now "+.*/lib(64)?/.*\.(so.*|o|a|la)$"). The only packages it creates without need are "<X>-debuginfo-32bit" ones when there is no "<X>-32bit" package, but I delete them at the end. I would say there are only three kind of packages: - libXXXX - libXXXX-devel - XXXX With the patch it creates -32bit packages for the first two types but not for the third (unless it contains a "+.*/lib(64)?/.*\.(so.*|o|a|la)$" file). Is this OK? Should it avoid -devel ones? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
On 24 May 2012 10:10, Cristian Morales Vega <reddwarf@opensuse.org> wrote:
On 24 May 2012 05:36, Stephan Kulow <coolo@suse.de> wrote:
Am 24.05.2012 01:41, schrieb Cristian Morales Vega:
I think we're at a point where we should default to create baselibs for all shared library packages by default without this outdated stuff IMO.
Since the OBS isn't building right now I couldn't test it so much. But https://github.com/openSUSE/obs-build/pull/13
Hi Cristian,
The patch doesn't look like it's doing what I had in mind. I was talking only about shared library packages, your patch looks like it's doing it for *.rpm - this might become too heavy.
I could do a check for file contents, but the check is already done inside handle_rpms():
-------- if (!%files) { print "$rname($target): empty filelist, skipping rpm\n"; next; } --------
It actually *tries* to create the "-32bit packages" (no idea how to name them) for every rpm. But it will only create them if it contains files that the global configuration asks for (right now "+.*/lib(64)?/.*\.(so.*|o|a|la)$"). The only packages it creates without need are "<X>-debuginfo-32bit" ones when there is no "<X>-32bit" package, but I delete them at the end.
I would say there are only three kind of packages: - libXXXX - libXXXX-devel - XXXX
With the patch it creates -32bit packages for the first two types but not for the third (unless it contains a "+.*/lib(64)?/.*\.(so.*|o|a|la)$" file).
Is this OK? Should it avoid -devel ones?
I just fixed the post-deletion of '"<X>-debuginfo-32bit" ones when there is no "<X>-32bit"' in home:RedDwarf:test_mkbaselibs:modified. To do anyhing else, if really needed, I would need a better definition of what a "shared library package" is. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
participants (4)
-
Cristian Morales Vega -
Ismail Dönmez -
Pascal Bleser -
Stephan Kulow