[opensuse-packaging] [autobuild] Library packaging policy, verify in filelist check
~/bin/filelist-10.3 /work/built/dists/all/x86_64/packs-x86_64/libelf ... checking filelist
~/bin/filelist-10.3 /work/built/dists/all/x86_64/packs-x86_64/libapparmor ... checking filelist
This is a patch against filelist-10.3 to verify that (parts of) the proposed library packaging policy are followed. It's non-fatal right now as nearly every package fails it :P A few examples: libelf: "/usr/lib64/libelf.so" is not allowed in a non-devel package WARNING: Your package would fail here! libelf: "/usr/lib64/libelf.so.0" should be in a lib package with the .so version 0 appended, like libelf0 libelf: "/usr/lib64/libelf.so.0.8.9" should be in a lib package with the .so version 0 appended, like libelf0 libapparmor: "/lib64/libapparmor-2.0-45.so.1" should be in a lib package with the .so version 1 appended, like libapparmor1 libapparmor: "/lib64/libapparmor.so.1" should be in a lib package with the .so version 1 appended, like libapparmor1 libapparmor: "/lib64/libimmunix.so.1" should be in a lib package with the .so version 1 appended, like libapparmor1 libapparmor: "/usr/lib64/libapparmor.so" is not allowed in a non-devel package WARNING: Your package would fail here! But of course we also have conforming packages!
~/bin/filelist-10.3 /work/built/dists/all/x86_64/packs-x86_64/libapr1 ... checking filelist
Can we enable this in BETA now and STABLE soon? Thanks, Richard. -- Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de> Novell / SUSE Labs SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nuernberg - AG Nuernberg - HRB 16746 - GF: Markus Rex
Richard Guenther wrote:
Can we enable this in BETA now and STABLE soon?
Can you add an option to disable this check in the spec file of selected packages? I maintain several packages, which don't work, if .so is packaged in -devel subpackage. -- Best Regards / S pozdravem, Stanislav Brabec software developer --------------------------------------------------------------------- SUSE LINUX, s. r. o. e-mail: sbrabec@suse.cz Lihovarská 1060/12 tel: +420 284 028 966 190 00 Praha 9 fax: +420 284 028 951 Czech Republic http://www.suse.cz/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On Tuesday, 3. April 2007, Richard Guenther wrote:
proposed library packaging policy are followed. It's non-fatal right now as nearly every package fails it :P
It is wrong, too. it shouldn't reject non-symlink .so files, or .so files pointing to modules. Dirk --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Dirk Mueller wrote:
On Tuesday, 3. April 2007, Richard Guenther wrote:
proposed library packaging policy are followed. It's non-fatal right now as nearly every package fails it :P
It is wrong, too. it shouldn't reject non-symlink .so files, or .so files pointing to modules.
It's probably too strict, but I'd have to find a better location than the filelist check for a better structured verification. Maybe a rpmlint check is better for now. 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
On Tuesday, 3. April 2007, Richard Guenther wrote:
the filelist check for a better structured verification. Maybe a rpmlint check is better for now.
Might be a good idea, except that it is already done: $ grep -rl "devel-file-in-non-devel" /mounts/dist/data/i386/lint | wc -l 681 Dirk --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Dirk Mueller wrote:
On Tuesday, 3. April 2007, Richard Guenther wrote:
the filelist check for a better structured verification. Maybe a rpmlint check is better for now.
Might be a good idea, except that it is already done:
$ grep -rl "devel-file-in-non-devel" /mounts/dist/data/i386/lint | wc -l 681
Does that also cover the naming scheme? Does it complain if there are non-versioned files in a lib package? 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
Richard Guenther escribió:
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Dirk Mueller wrote:
On Tuesday, 3. April 2007, Richard Guenther wrote:
the filelist check for a better structured verification. Maybe a rpmlint check is better for now. Might be a good idea, except that it is already done:
$ grep -rl "devel-file-in-non-devel" /mounts/dist/data/i386/lint | wc -l 681
Will this stuff feature in the "build" script at any time soon so the rest of the world can comment and criticize this proposal in a practical "hands-on" way ?? otherwise asking for feeback is pretty pointless as we can't see how it works nor test it. just my 2 chilean pesos. Cristian.
participants (4)
-
Cristian Rodriguez R. -
Dirk Mueller -
Richard Guenther -
Stanislav Brabec