-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
When I look at the "Team" presented on http://rpm5.org I notice several
people involved in QA for several distributions, but no one for
openSUSE/SLE*.
Lack of time, lack of interest, technical reasons ?
Thanks for enlightening me :)
cheers
- --
-o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/
/\\
В Чтв, 25/10/2007 в 01:43 +0200, Pascal Bleser пишет:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
When I look at the "Team" presented on http://rpm5.org I notice several people involved in QA for several distributions, but no one for openSUSE/SLE*.
Lack of time, lack of interest, technical reasons ?
Thanks for enlightening me :)
There was a news at linux.com, it claimed that Novell was going to concentrate its efforts on RPMv4 development. "Novell has joined Red Hat in the rpm.org project, while Mandriva, cAos, and PLD have decided to work with Johnson's rpm5.org effort." [*] Anyway it would be nice to hear the official proof/disproof from developers. [*] http://www.linux.com/articles/114339?theme=print -- Regards, Nikolay Derkach --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On Oct 25, 07 11:51:50 +0400, Nikolay Derkach wrote:
?? ??????, 25/10/2007 ?? 01:43 +0200, Pascal Bleser ??????????:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
When I look at the "Team" presented on http://rpm5.org I notice several people involved in QA for several distributions, but no one for openSUSE/SLE*.
Lack of time, lack of interest, technical reasons ?
Thanks for enlightening me :)
There was a news at linux.com, it claimed that Novell was going to concentrate its efforts on RPMv4 development. "Novell has joined Red Hat in the rpm.org project, while Mandriva, cAos, and PLD have decided to work with Johnson's rpm5.org effort." [*]
Anyway it would be nice to hear the official proof/disproof from developers.
This article sounds strangely affirmative. I am not aware of any decision to ignore Jeff Johnson. Actually, I remember that mls and jeff always have extensive conversations, whenever they meet. :-) Anybody to set up an rpm5 buildservice repo? cheers, Jw. -- o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green! __/ _=======.=======_ <V> | jw@suse.de wide open suse_/ _---|____________\/ \ | 0911 74053-508 (tm)__/ (____/ /\ (/) | __________________________/ _/ \_ vim:set sw=2 wm=8 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) "Novell is committed to creating a work environment that embraces clarity." --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
Juergen Weigert wrote:
On Oct 25, 07 11:51:50 +0400, Nikolay Derkach wrote:
?? ??????, 25/10/2007 ?? 01:43 +0200, Pascal Bleser ??????????:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- When I look at the "Team" presented on http://rpm5.org I notice several people involved in QA for several distributions, but no one for openSUSE/SLE*. Lack of time, lack of interest, technical reasons ? There was a news at linux.com, it claimed that Novell was going to concentrate its efforts on RPMv4 development. "Novell has joined Red Hat in the rpm.org project, while Mandriva, cAos, and PLD have decided to work with Johnson's rpm5.org effort." [*]
Anyway it would be nice to hear the official proof/disproof from developers.
This article sounds strangely affirmative. I am not aware of any decision to ignore Jeff Johnson.
Me neither. But I'm not sitting on the same floor as MLS ;)
Actually, I remember that mls and jeff always have extensive conversations, whenever they meet. :-)
From what I can remember from IRL discussions with Jeff is that the main goals of RPM 5 were actually to put the disparate and parallel efforts of the different distributions back in common. Which is why I'm wondering Novell/SUSE isn't involved.
Anybody to set up an rpm5 buildservice repo?
SUSE does have its specific ways to use RPM that differ from other
distributions, most notably not using arch coloring but -32bit subpackages
instead (for biarch) [1]. I don't know how far it translates into RPM codebase
patches or just conventions. Might be quite tricky to have a properly
functioning RPM 5.x for openSUSE somewhere if it requires the former, especially
if they're not merged and properly integrated by upstream.
[1] not that I'm saying it's bad -- obviously, openSUSE is light years ahead of
almost all other distributions in terms of biarch support so.. it can't be that
bad ;)
cheers
--
-o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/
/\\
Hello, Pascal Bleser wrote:
[1] not that I'm saying it's bad -- obviously, openSUSE is light years ahead of almost all other distributions in terms of biarch support so.. it can't be that bad ;)
Well, in this case I would not need to enter a blocker bug for openSUSE 10.3 ppc32 just a few minutes ago ( https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=336678 ). The problem is, that 64bit packages are installed on a 32bit system, and render it practically useless, especially when it comes to on-line updates... Bye, CzP --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On 2007-10-25 13:06:59 +0200, Peter Czanik wrote:
Well, in this case I would not need to enter a blocker bug for openSUSE 10.3 ppc32 just a few minutes ago ( https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=336678 ). The problem is, that 64bit packages are installed on a 32bit system, and render it practically useless, especially when it comes to on-line updates...
that is a yast bug and not an RPM bug. subtile difference. darix -- 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
Marcus Rueckert napsal(a):
On 2007-10-25 13:06:59 +0200, Peter Czanik wrote:
Well, in this case I would not need to enter a blocker bug for openSUSE 10.3 ppc32 just a few minutes ago ( https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=336678 ). The problem is, that 64bit packages are installed on a 32bit system, and render it practically useless, especially when it comes to on-line updates...
that is a yast bug and not an RPM bug.
subtile difference.
Is that a YaST or libzypp bug? That's also different... Lukas
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 01:13:35PM +0200, Marcus Rueckert wrote:
On 2007-10-25 13:06:59 +0200, Peter Czanik wrote:
Well, in this case I would not need to enter a blocker bug for openSUSE 10.3 ppc32 just a few minutes ago ( https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=336678 ). The problem is, that 64bit packages are installed on a 32bit system, and render it practically useless, especially when it comes to on-line updates...
that is a yast bug and not an RPM bug.
It's probably not even a bug in yast. I think he has installed the "64bit" pattern. Cheers, Michael. -- Michael Schroeder mls@suse.de SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF Markus Rex, HRB 16746 AG Nuernberg main(_){while(_=~getchar())putchar(~_-1/(~(_|32)/13*2-11)*13);} --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
Hello, Michael Schroeder wrote:
It's probably not even a bug in yast. I think he has installed the "64bit" pattern.
No, the 64bit pattern is not installed. But some 32bit base packages install their 64bit counterparts with, like ConsoleKit. Bye, CzP --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Peter Czanik wrote:-
Hello,
Michael Schroeder wrote:
It's probably not even a bug in yast. I think he has installed the "64bit" pattern.
No, the 64bit pattern is not installed. But some 32bit base packages install their 64bit counterparts with, like ConsoleKit.
While I thought it strange that my 32bit PPC system had 64bit packages installed, it didn't occur to me to report this as a bug when I noticed[0]. However, I've added some details to your report, showing a/the probable reason for the YOU problem. Purely for info, these are the 64bit packages that I have installed: audit-libs-64bit-1.5.5-13 ConsoleKit-64bit-0.2.1-57 dbus-1-64bit-1.0.2-59 glibc-64bit-2.6.1-18.2 libxcrypt-64bit-2.4-71 nss-mdns-64bit-0.9-42 pam-64bit-0.99.8.1-15 [0] don't ask why. I've no idea why I didn't report it :| Regards, David Bolt -- Team Acorn: http://www.distributed.net/ OGR-P2 @ ~100Mnodes RC5-72 @ ~15Mkeys | SUSE 10.1 32bit | openSUSE 10.2 32bit | openSUSE 10.3 32bit SUSE 10.0 64bit | SUSE 10.1 64bit | openSUSE 10.2 64bit | RISC OS 3.11 | RISC OS 3.6 | TOS 4.02 | openSUSE 10.3 PPC --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
Hello, David Bolt wrote:
ConsoleKit-64bit-0.2.1-57 nss-mdns-64bit-0.9-42
These two are the problem packages, or rather their 32bit version, as they require the 64bit versions to be installed. I checked the whole openSUSE 10.3 PPC ftp repository with a for cycle, and only these two 32bit packages are broken: # for i in `ls | grep -v 64bit` ; do echo $i ; rpm -qRp $i | grep 64bit ; done | tee /tmp/64bit and found: ConsoleKit-0.2.1-57.ppc.rpm ConsoleKit-64bit and nss-mdns-0.9-42.ppc.rpm nss-mdns-64bit = 0.9 Bye, CzP --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Michael Schroeder wrote:-
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 01:13:35PM +0200, Marcus Rueckert wrote:
On 2007-10-25 13:06:59 +0200, Peter Czanik wrote:
Well, in this case I would not need to enter a blocker bug for openSUSE 10.3 ppc32 just a few minutes ago ( https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=336678 ). The problem is, that 64bit packages are installed on a 32bit system, and render it practically useless, especially when it comes to on-line updates...
that is a yast bug and not an RPM bug.
It's probably not even a bug in yast. I think he has installed the "64bit" pattern.
I don't have the 64bit pattern installed, since I only have a G3. However, I also have several 64bit packages installed. What's more, I can't remove them without causing a lot of broken dependencies. I've added the details here: URL:https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=336678#c1 Regards, David Bolt -- Team Acorn: http://www.distributed.net/ OGR-P2 @ ~100Mnodes RC5-72 @ ~15Mkeys | SUSE 10.1 32bit | openSUSE 10.2 32bit | openSUSE 10.3 32bit SUSE 10.0 64bit | SUSE 10.1 64bit | openSUSE 10.2 64bit | RISC OS 3.11 | RISC OS 3.6 | TOS 4.02 | openSUSE 10.3 PPC --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 03:22:37PM +0100, David Bolt wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Michael Schroeder wrote:-
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 01:13:35PM +0200, Marcus Rueckert wrote:
On 2007-10-25 13:06:59 +0200, Peter Czanik wrote:
Well, in this case I would not need to enter a blocker bug for openSUSE 10.3 ppc32 just a few minutes ago ( https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=336678 ). The problem is, that 64bit packages are installed on a 32bit system, and render it practically useless, especially when it comes to on-line updates...
that is a yast bug and not an RPM bug.
It's probably not even a bug in yast. I think he has installed the "64bit" pattern.
I don't have the 64bit pattern installed, since I only have a G3. However, I also have several 64bit packages installed. What's more, I can't remove them without causing a lot of broken dependencies. I've added the details here:
This is due to some PAM requirements conceptional misunderstandings. We have to have both 32bit and 64bit PAM modules usually and this bled into requirements of some packages. Ciao,M --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
Hello, Marcus Meissner wrote:
This is due to some PAM requirements conceptional misunderstandings.
We have to have both 32bit and 64bit PAM modules usually and this bled into requirements of some packages.
Could you provide an online update for ppc32, which kicks off these 64bit requirements? Right now the situation is, that 100+ 64bit packages are about to be installed on update, but it fails, as pre/post install scripts obviously don not work, as 64bit software does not execute at all on 32bit... Bye, CzP --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 04:44:44PM +0200, Peter Czanik wrote:
Hello,
Marcus Meissner wrote:
This is due to some PAM requirements conceptional misunderstandings.
We have to have both 32bit and 64bit PAM modules usually and this bled into requirements of some packages.
Could you provide an online update for ppc32, which kicks off these 64bit requirements? Right now the situation is, that 100+ 64bit packages are about to be installed on update, but it fails, as pre/post install scripts obviously don not work, as 64bit software does not execute at all on 32bit...
You have already opened a bug and we will handle it there. The problem is btw pam-config which fails if not both modules are there, which caused the interesting additional requirements. Ciao, Marcus --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On Thu, Oct 25, Marcus Meissner wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 04:44:44PM +0200, Peter Czanik wrote:
Hello,
Marcus Meissner wrote:
This is due to some PAM requirements conceptional misunderstandings.
We have to have both 32bit and 64bit PAM modules usually and this bled into requirements of some packages.
Could you provide an online update for ppc32, which kicks off these 64bit requirements? Right now the situation is, that 100+ 64bit packages are about to be installed on update, but it fails, as pre/post install scripts obviously don not work, as 64bit software does not execute at all on 32bit...
You have already opened a bug and we will handle it there.
The problem is btw pam-config which fails if not both modules are there, which caused the interesting additional requirements.
Nope, pam-config has no problem in this case, because pam-config detects that it is a pure 32bit system and that it does not need 64bit and 32bit PAM modules. But RPM does not know about such "weak" dependencies, there you can only depend packages or not. And if you have a 64bit POWER system, you need the hard dependencies to be able to login. Thorsten -- Thorsten Kukuk, Project Manager/Release Manager SLES SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, D-90409 Nuernberg GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 12:54:21PM +0200, Pascal Bleser wrote:
SUSE does have its specific ways to use RPM that differ from other distributions, most notably not using arch coloring but -32bit subpackages instead (for biarch) [1]. I don't know how far it translates into RPM codebase patches or just conventions.
That's just conventions, i.e. we have %_transaction_color 0 in /usr/lib/rpm/macros. Cheers, Michael. -- Michael Schroeder mls@suse.de SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF Markus Rex, HRB 16746 AG Nuernberg main(_){while(_=~getchar())putchar(~_-1/(~(_|32)/13*2-11)*13);} --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 11:51:50AM +0400, Nikolay Derkach wrote:
?? ??????, 25/10/2007 ?? 01:43 +0200, Pascal Bleser ??????????:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
When I look at the "Team" presented on http://rpm5.org I notice several people involved in QA for several distributions, but no one for openSUSE/SLE*.
Lack of time, lack of interest, technical reasons ?
Lack of time, mostly.
Thanks for enlightening me :)
There was a news at linux.com, it claimed that Novell was going to concentrate its efforts on RPMv4 development. "Novell has joined Red Hat in the rpm.org project, while Mandriva, cAos, and PLD have decided to work with Johnson's rpm5.org effort." [*]
That's not really true. It's just that there are two branches of rpm, one stable branch (maintained by Panu) and one development branch (maintained by Jeff). We need a reliable version, so we use the stable branch for now. At some time in the future, Jeff's branch might be copied into the stable branch. If you want to experiment with rpm5, feel free to create packages in the build services. Cheers, Michael. -- Michael Schroeder mls@suse.de SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF Markus Rex, HRB 16746 AG Nuernberg main(_){while(_=~getchar())putchar(~_-1/(~(_|32)/13*2-11)*13);} --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
participants (10)
-
David Bolt -
Juergen Weigert -
Lukas Ocilka -
Marcus Meissner -
Marcus Rueckert -
Michael Schroeder -
Nikolay Derkach -
Pascal Bleser -
Peter Czanik -
Thorsten Kukuk