[opensuse] checkinstall and opensuse 11.2
Any progress to make checkinstall work under opensuse 11.2?. I miss it. Thxs -=terry=- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sunday 06 December 2009 06:43:14 am Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
Any progress to make checkinstall work under opensuse 11.2?. I miss it.
No, it is broken by design.
Thxs -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday, 2009-12-06 at 06:46 -0700, Teruel de Campo MD wrote:
On Sunday 06 December 2009 06:43:14 am Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
Any progress to make checkinstall work under opensuse 11.2?. I miss it.
No, it is broken by design.
Thxs
Mmm... he has been saying that for ages, he want us all to use the buildservice for our private builds. For the record, I just managed to create an rpm (for poedit) with checkinstall. It can be made to work. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAksbxYAACgkQtTMYHG2NR9VnMQCggZC29ZiX6LH0pOntiAXCj+Aw nnEAniL8S/eRVWiwO8+fzS/YbfJQnA58 =s4Vi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Sun, Dec 06, 2009 at 03:53:44PM +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On Sunday, 2009-12-06 at 06:46 -0700, Teruel de Campo MD wrote:
On Sunday 06 December 2009 06:43:14 am Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
Any progress to make checkinstall work under opensuse 11.2?. I miss it.
No, it is broken by design.
Thxs
Mmm... he has been saying that for ages, he want us all to use the buildservice for our private builds.
And Cristian is doing this by good reasons. Cause the checkinstall approach does not lead to an as consistent results as a freshly set up chroot environment does. The openSUSE Build Service and the used tool chain ensure such a clean environment.
For the record, I just managed to create an rpm (for poedit) with checkinstall. It can be made to work.
Sure. You made it work for you and maybe for two or three additional systems. But it's our goal to have this is a system which offers versioning and collaboration. In addition I have to stress that your private builds do not require to upload and share them at software.o.o. You're able to build locally without pushing anything to the server. Lars -- Lars Müller [ˈlaː(r)z ˈmʏlɐ] Samba Team SUSE Linux, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Content-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.00.0912061720140.7514@nimrodel.valinor> On Sunday, 2009-12-06 at 16:16 +0100, Lars Müller wrote:
On Sun, Dec 06, 2009 at 03:53:44PM +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On Sunday, 2009-12-06 at 06:46 -0700, Teruel de Campo MD wrote:
On Sunday 06 December 2009 06:43:14 am Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
Any progress to make checkinstall work under opensuse 11.2?. I miss it.
No, it is broken by design.
Thxs
Mmm... he has been saying that for ages, he want us all to use the buildservice for our private builds.
And Cristian is doing this by good reasons. Cause the checkinstall approach does not lead to an as consistent results as a freshly set up chroot environment does.
The openSUSE Build Service and the used tool chain ensure such a clean environment.
Absolutely false. I, we, don't intend to make rpms to be used by others, they are private. We can not use a public buildservice, even if we knew how to use it. If checkinstall is broken, just repair it! Or create an alternate script that just works, for people like us with no idea of how to build an rpm from scratch. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAksb2n8ACgkQtTMYHG2NR9UFtwCcCUZ137hrSVVg/Uz1A+tSBd7Z LPUAnRSRM2/yRjEzRZzzUSCuIk4ODyTg =dQm9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 06/12/09 13:23, Carlos E. R. wrote:
I, we, don't intend to make rpms to be used by others, they are private. We can not use a public buildservice, even if we knew how to use it.
osc build --local-package
If checkinstall is broken, just repair it
As said before, there are working tools to do the job, it does not make much sense to spend resources trying to fix checkinstall's design. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday, 2009-12-06 at 14:44 -0300, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
On 06/12/09 13:23, Carlos E. R. wrote:
I, we, don't intend to make rpms to be used by others, they are private. We can not use a public buildservice, even if we knew how to use it.
osc build --local-package
cer@nimrodel:~> osc bash: osc: command not found Tell me, does it run with no internet? Will that replace "make install", exactly the same as checkinstall does? Do I need to create an spec file? I will not. Checkinstall creates it on the fly. Do you provide a single page documenting the entire process, from scracth, for a non developper, with no knowledge of spec creation, or rpm building? No sir. Buildservice is no replacement for checkinstall.
If checkinstall is broken, just repair it
As said before, there are working tools to do the job, it does not make much sense to spend resources trying to fix checkinstall's design.
No, there are not. Buildservice is fine for you, who are a developper. I'm not a dev. Buildservice is completely useless for me. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAksb9HEACgkQtTMYHG2NR9UTNwCeIRJy8utgOj5mAgsibC4Td2PR XOAAn1UDx1Xaqd6cHUH74hQDiMEZEX2F =eblE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Sunday 06 December 2009 09:44:24 am Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
On 06/12/09 13:23, Carlos E. R. wrote:
I, we, don't intend to make rpms to be used by others, they are private. We can not use a public buildservice, even if we knew how to use it.
osc build --local-package
If checkinstall is broken, just repair it
As said before, there are working tools to do the job, it does not make much sense to spend resources trying to fix checkinstall's design.
The long term viability of the build service (as well as the company that owns it) is seriously in question. Checkinstall has the advantage of working regardless of working regardless of the existence of and Internet connection, Opensuse, or Novell, and requires no resources other than what the user has in hand. Its far from perfect, but its better than nothing which is exactly what we will have when Novell tires of running the build service or drops opensuse. -- A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On 06/12/09 17:11, John Andersen wrote:
which is exactly what we will have when Novell tires of running the build service or drops opensuse.
Neither of those things are part of the reality. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sunday 06 December 2009 01:30:28 pm Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
On 06/12/09 17:11, John Andersen wrote:
which is exactly what we will have when Novell tires of running the build service or drops opensuse.
Neither of those things are part of the reality.
So says you.... http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/novell-reports-financial-results-for... -- A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sun, 2009-12-06 at 14:19 -0800, John Andersen wrote:
On Sunday 06 December 2009 01:30:28 pm Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
On 06/12/09 17:11, John Andersen wrote:
which is exactly what we will have when Novell tires of running the build service or drops opensuse.
Neither of those things are part of the reality.
So says you.... http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/novell-reports-financial-results-for...
<QUOTE> "For the fourth fiscal quarter of 2009, Novell reported $41 million of product revenue from Open Platform Solutions, of which $39 million was from Linux Platform Products, up 14% compared to product revenue from Linux Platform Products in the same period last year." </QUOTE> SuSE is Novell's strongest product now. Dropping openSUSE would be like shooting themselves in the collective foot; they rely on it for development of their SLED/SLES enterpise products. Adding the Studio is another sign of their commitment to OSS. Everybody is struggling, Novell maybe more than others. They can read the writing, though, and I expect an even stronger commitment to Linux in the future. Jon -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sunday 06 December 2009 18:44:24 Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
On 06/12/09 13:23, Carlos E. R. wrote:
I, we, don't intend to make rpms to be used by others, they are private. We can not use a public buildservice, even if we knew how to use it.
osc build --local-package
Just use plain "build" instead of osc in that case. If it's not installed - "zypper in build", Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, Program Manager openSUSE, aj@{novell.com,opensuse.org} Twitter: jaegerandi | Identica: jaegerandi SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Monday, 2009-12-07 at 08:24 +0100, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
On Sunday 06 December 2009 18:44:24 Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
On 06/12/09 13:23, Carlos E. R. wrote:
I, we, don't intend to make rpms to be used by others, they are private. We can not use a public buildservice, even if we knew how to use it.
osc build --local-package
Just use plain "build" instead of osc in that case. If it's not installed - "zypper in build",
Which still requires us to learn how to create spec files, and that is impossible. Can't you see that, that the entire problem is the automatic creation of a spec file? Even if it is a bad one? It is not for publication. And I seem to remember a report about "build" being broken? The answer then was to use the buildservice instead. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAksdCPUACgkQtTMYHG2NR9UViQCfa0oXuvmmgh6xWbOvbcARQL/8 C7EAoJMAVs/R8h9CbEN5PsrtZlX/AXsj =e/5J -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 07/12/09 10:53, Carlos E. R. wrote: I seem to remember a report about "build" being broken? The answer
then was to use the buildservice instead.
"build" is working, osc build uses it internally. Ps: Yes you still need to know how to create spec files.. or well.. you might want to try the buildservice spec file wizard.. ;) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Monday, 2009-12-07 at 10:57 -0300, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
Ps: Yes you still need to know how to create spec files.. or well.. you might want to try the buildservice spec file wizard.. ;)
What is that? Is there a web page documenting it for newbies? - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAksdEaQACgkQtTMYHG2NR9Wr4wCgg63wUKZ4QEvcq2HQ+IrMUUez ptcAn2WW0QHNhw8Laa/5+n9Y9wVq9XF3 =69F9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Monday 07 December 2009 08:58:35 am Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
On 07/12/09 11:30, Carlos E. R. wrote:
What is that?
a point and click (kinda win32 setup wizard) that creates a basic spec file for you.
Sufficient to do the job? Or just a shell requiring developer knowledge to actually make it usable? Why do I get the feeling this is a bone being thrown to that mad dog Carlos to get him to stop barking? ;-) -- A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On 07/12/09 15:04, John Andersen wrote:
Why do I get the feeling this is a bone being thrown to that mad dog Carlos to get him to stop barking? ;-)
Exactly :-D but Im pretty confident that it wont work. ;) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12/07/2009 07:04 PM, John Andersen wrote:
On Monday 07 December 2009 08:58:35 am Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
On 07/12/09 11:30, Carlos E. R. wrote:
What is that?
a point and click (kinda win32 setup wizard) that creates a basic spec file for you.
Sufficient to do the job? Or just a shell requiring developer knowledge to actually make it usable?
Why do I get the feeling this is a bone being thrown to that mad dog Carlos to get him to stop barking? ;-)
I rather think like you... No documentation, no demo... very difficult to evaluate. Let me see what I can find. The wiki has been broken for days... giving pages in Polish. http://en.opensuse.org/Build_Service/Tutorial#Step_Four:_Build_your_package Step Two - Create & Upload packages ... Afterwards click on the [Add File] link to add the files for your package. You need to upload the source code of your package and at least a spec file. ... To write your own .spec file, you should read the corresponding HOWTO. Then you have to upload that. http://en.opensuse.org/SUSE_Build_Tutorial#Specfiles Specfiles RPM specfiles should be written according to the openSUSE Package Conventions. As this is a fairly complex topic by itself there is an extra document about it. Please follow this Document closely while developing your specfile. You can find some example specfiles for different packages in the Build Service SVN. IBM developerWorks also have a summary about this topic: Part 1 and Part 2. No mention of an automatic method anywhere. The entire process is way more complex that simply using configure, make, checkinstall. And much slower, as it runs on an external server, slow internet, instead of my own computer, with full resources allocated. It is of course, perfect for developers and packagers, no point in denying that. But I, and many others, are not such. And of course, there are some applications that are blacklisted (http://en.opensuse.org/Application_Black_List), can't be built on the buildservice, for legal reasons - which is often the reason to build locally. http://en.opensuse.org/Build_Service/FAQ Q: Can everybody build packages with the openSUSE Build Service ? A: ... But bear in mind that the openSUSE Build Service is a community support project. So please, if you plan to build packages, make sure * your package really adds something new to the community Which of course, is not the case. No, the point is not proven, Cristian. - -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 11.2 "Emerald" GM (bombadillo)) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAksdc+wACgkQU92UU+smfQW+fQCbBzymeX193GG3t13G32iMHoJI PQoAn0BW05gvQUK9dYOqIeMwjo48A+Dv =p6ff -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Monday 07 Dec 2009 13:57:33 Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
On 07/12/09 10:53, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Ps: Yes you still need to know how to create spec files.. or well.. you might want to try the buildservice spec file wizard.. ;)
Once again this requires an internet connection can you not get it ? Pete -- Powered by openSUSE 11.2 Milestone 2 (x86_64) Kernel: 2.6.30-rc6-git3-4- default KDE: 4.2.86 (KDE 4.2.86 (KDE 4.3 >= 20090514)) "release 1" 16:49 up 16 days 6:38, 4 users, load average: 1.55, 0.99, 0.50
On Sun, Dec 06, 2009 at 05:23:24PM +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Content-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.00.0912061720140.7514@nimrodel.valinor> On Sunday, 2009-12-06 at 16:16 +0100, Lars Müller wrote:
On Sun, Dec 06, 2009 at 03:53:44PM +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On Sunday, 2009-12-06 at 06:46 -0700, Teruel de Campo MD wrote:
On Sunday 06 December 2009 06:43:14 am Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
Any progress to make checkinstall work under opensuse 11.2?. I miss it.
No, it is broken by design.
Thxs
Mmm... he has been saying that for ages, he want us all to use the buildservice for our private builds.
And Cristian is doing this by good reasons. Cause the checkinstall approach does not lead to an as consistent results as a freshly set up chroot environment does.
The openSUSE Build Service and the used tool chain ensure such a clean environment.
Absolutely false.
Have you ever tried it?
I, we, don't intend to make rpms to be used by others, they are private. We can not use a public buildservice, even if we knew how to use it.
Please read my last mail again. In particular the end. The openSUSE Build Service (OBS) and in particular the osc build feature doesn't force anyone to pusblish anything. There isn't anything which forces you to publish the build results to the public. You build on your local system inside a clean chroot setup. But the OBS and the osc command in particular enabled you to build software in an easy and secure way. Please give it a try! And if you like you're even able to share software packages you created by this means and to contribute to any of the projects using the OBS infrastructure.
If checkinstall is broken, just repair it!
I expect those needing and using it will even repair it. If not we're here at the very same point as with the sax2 discussion. I'm a very happy user of the OBS and therefore don't see a need to spend time on an approach which is known to cause more issues.
Or create an alternate script that just works, for people like us with no idea of how to build an rpm from scratch.
Have you tried to use the OBS? Have you installed the osc package? Have you read any of the available documentation? http://lizards.opensuse.org/2009/09/13/build-service-intro/ might be a good starting point. Before any further replies please read the available articles. ### OBS intro quote start Build Service Intro Sunday, September 13th, 2009 by Andreas Jaeger I stumbled upon a little series of articles at the LinuxFoundation Developer Network explaining the openSUSE Build Service. The articles are: * openSUSE Build System: Building Binary Packages for Many Linux Distributions at Once http://ldn.linuxfoundation.org/article/opensuse-build-system-building-binary... * openSUSE Build System: Building RPM Packages http://ldn.linuxfoundation.org/article/opensuse-build-system-building-rpm-pa... * openSUSE Build System: Building DEB Packages http://ldn.linuxfoundation.org/article/opensuse-build-system-building-deb-pa... Ben Martin gives a short overview of the Build Service and then explains step by step how to build a binary package. If you’re interested in building binary packages, I advise to read his articles. ### OBS intro quote end Lars -- Lars Müller [ˈlaː(r)z ˈmʏlɐ] Samba Team SUSE Linux, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Content-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.00.0912061917360.7514@nimrodel.valinor> On Sunday, 2009-12-06 at 18:52 +0100, Lars Müller wrote:
On Sun, Dec 06, 2009 at 05:23:24PM +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Absolutely false.
Have you ever tried it?
No way.
I, we, don't intend to make rpms to be used by others, they are private. We can not use a public buildservice, even if we knew how to use it.
Please read my last mail again. In particular the end.
The openSUSE Build Service (OBS) and in particular the osc build feature doesn't force anyone to pusblish anything.
There isn't anything which forces you to publish the build results to the public. You build on your local system inside a clean chroot setup.
With no internet connection, and no need to log into your servers?
But the OBS and the osc command in particular enabled you to build software in an easy and secure way. Please give it a try!
Document it. For absolute newbies, no knowledge of how to package, no knowledge of how to create the spec file - and no intention to create it manually. Does osc create the spec file on the fly, same as checkinstall does?
And if you like you're even able to share software packages you created by this means and to contribute to any of the projects using the OBS infrastructure.
No.
If checkinstall is broken, just repair it!
I expect those needing and using it will even repair it. If not we're here at the very same point as with the sax2 discussion.
I'm not a dev. You are my software suplier, please repair it for me.
Have you read any of the available documentation?
I need no documentation to use checkinstall.
http://lizards.opensuse.org/2009/09/13/build-service-intro/ might be a good starting point.
Before any further replies please read the available articles.
### OBS intro quote start Build Service Intro Sunday, September 13th, 2009 by Andreas Jaeger
I stumbled upon a little series of articles at the LinuxFoundation Developer Network explaining the openSUSE Build Service.
The articles are:
* openSUSE Build System: Building Binary Packages for Many Linux Distributions at Once http://ldn.linuxfoundation.org/article/opensuse-build-system-building-binary...
* openSUSE Build System: Building RPM Packages http://ldn.linuxfoundation.org/article/opensuse-build-system-building-rpm-pa...
] Downloading the siproxd tarball, extracting it, and then uploading the ] spec file from the desktop machine got the build going. Soon after the ] spec file was uploaded the status for Fedora and openSUSE became ] "scheduled." The OBS i What process creates automatically that spec file? How many times do I have to tell you that I'm not a developper nor a packager? That I have no idea, no time to learn, and no inclination whatsoever, on how to create an spec file? I need an automated process. Fully automatic. Checkinstall. Gosh! Like talking to deaf people. :-/ - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAksb91IACgkQtTMYHG2NR9X1swCfQtyYapXEGHJ4TZaUXcbUAzoQ NQsAnRCDsFXJ1Gp6oQVlcxU6PKvzMj95 =I8e5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Sunday 06 December 2009 19:26:24 Carlos E. R. wrote:
Content-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.00.0912061917360.7514@nimrodel.valinor>
On Sunday, 2009-12-06 at 18:52 +0100, Lars Müller wrote:
On Sun, Dec 06, 2009 at 05:23:24PM +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Absolutely false.
Have you ever tried it?
No way.
I, we, don't intend to make rpms to be used by others, they are private. We can not use a public buildservice, even if we knew how to use it.
Please read my last mail again. In particular the end.
The openSUSE Build Service (OBS) and in particular the osc build feature doesn't force anyone to pusblish anything.
There isn't anything which forces you to publish the build results to the public. You build on your local system inside a clean chroot setup.
With no internet connection, and no need to log into your servers? [...]
Just use plain "build", it does not connect to the internet at all. osc uses build for building internally as well... Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, Program Manager openSUSE, aj@{novell.com,opensuse.org} Twitter: jaegerandi | Identica: jaegerandi SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 19:26:24 +0100 (CET), you wrote:
How many times do I have to tell you that I'm not a developper nor a packager? That I have no idea, no time to learn, and no inclination whatsoever, on how to create an spec file?
If you have no time, stop building your own packages.
I need an automated process. Fully automatic. Checkinstall.
And risk hosing your system? Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Monday, 2009-12-07 at 09:50 +0100, Philipp Thomas wrote:
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 19:26:24 +0100 (CET), you wrote:
packager? That I have no idea, no time to learn, and no inclination whatsoever, on how to create an spec file?
If you have no time, stop building your own packages.
I have no time to learn creation of spec files. I have time to run checkinstall, when needed.
I need an automated process. Fully automatic. Checkinstall.
And risk hosing your system?
Why, for godshake? - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAksdl/IACgkQtTMYHG2NR9VbEACeKzd+GxS40f5GBKHz4/u6rIcw 00cAniFMlDj+sCcj2tuXFcRWWM+7wgbi =5Uta -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday, 2009-12-06 at 18:52 +0100, Lars Müller wrote:
On Sun, Dec 06, 2009 at 05:23:24PM +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote:
If checkinstall is broken, just repair it!
I expect those needing and using it will even repair it. If not we're here at the very same point as with the sax2 discussion.
There is a difference. You are a suse employee and are paid to do things like this. I'm not. However, I help translating oS to Spanish, a translation which I don't use myself. Ie, I work on something for the benefit of others without even needing or benefitting from that effort. I expect at least some consideration from you. That you don't need checkinstall is no valid excuse. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAksdCnMACgkQtTMYHG2NR9XuCgCdHeBzoOjVSIiav/yuMLKuiass EBoAoIhKK9J+DaYRZ/QdxxRgJcoplQcz =ZG5b -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 03:00:17PM +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On Sunday, 2009-12-06 at 18:52 +0100, Lars Müller wrote:
On Sun, Dec 06, 2009 at 05:23:24PM +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote:
If checkinstall is broken, just repair it!
I expect those needing and using it will even repair it. If not we're here at the very same point as with the sax2 discussion.
There is a difference. You are a suse employee and are paid to do things like this.
As you have requested an additional comment - one I intended to save anyone reading this list - I try to give you an answer as simple and short as possible: No. I'm working on Samba. That's what SUSE pays me for. To offer users well working and current Samba binaries we, the Novell Samba Team, are using the openSUSE Build Service (OBS). As we used for many years a different approach I'm sure that I know what I'm talking about. The OBS approach made the packaging part of our work much, much easier. That's the reason why I'm sure to be called to comment on this topic. Nevertheless the majority of comments I'm writing on this list are made as part of my spare time. EOD Lars -- Lars Müller [ˈlaː(r)z ˈmʏlɐ] Samba Team SUSE Linux, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
And Cristian is doing this by good reasons. Cause the checkinstall approach does not lead to an as consistent results as a freshly set up chroot environment does.
The openSUSE Build Service and the used tool chain ensure such a clean environment.
Those who would like to use chekinstall only want to make rpms for themselves and do not want to distribute them. We let developers, package and repo maintaniers do that. We do not need those 'consistent results'. Furthermore I think buildservice is not for regular users, it is for developers. Chekinstall however is a simple program that can be used easily by normal users, not computer geeks. Istvan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday, 2009-12-06 at 21:14 +0100, Istvan Gabor wrote:
And Cristian is doing this by good reasons. Cause the checkinstall approach does not lead to an as consistent results as a freshly set up chroot environment does.
The openSUSE Build Service and the used tool chain ensure such a clean environment.
Those who would like to use chekinstall only want to make rpms for themselves and do not want to distribute them. We let developers, package and repo maintaniers do that. We do not need those 'consistent results'. Furthermore I think buildservice is not for regular users, it is for developers. Chekinstall however is a simple program that can be used easily by normal users, not computer geeks.
Exactly. The point of using checkinstall is just an alternative to simply running "make install" so that: a) the rpm database knows about it b) the package can be deinstalled instantly. We do not need not care about a "chroot environment". What for, if we don't distribute the rpm? We make an rpm for our exact environment, not a lab environment. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkscJjoACgkQtTMYHG2NR9X0bQCdG++XNbRlGxfq5ekPddqNVK5m YR8AoJbcc3d1+kAGfAkc7sJQG8WxR3O/ =eNm4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
On 06/12/09 10:36, Teruel de Campo MD wrote:
Any progress to make checkinstall work under opensuse 11.2?. I miss it.
No, it is broken by design.
Why??? That's something I've often used. I guess that's one more reason to not upgrade. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday, 2009-12-06 at 10:52 -0500, James Knott wrote:
Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
On 06/12/09 10:36, Teruel de Campo MD wrote:
Any progress to make checkinstall work under opensuse 11.2?. I miss it.
No, it is broken by design.
Why???
That's something I've often used. I guess that's one more reason to not upgrade.
No reason at all. They just want us to use the public buildservice instead of repairing it :-/ - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAksb2tgACgkQtTMYHG2NR9VhrACgg/OvnBgxMCGVnXoEzGpL8mxG 7Q4AoI5CeBmYo22fr4Spj6TMaHMakkjZ =ZuM3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
2009/12/6 Carlos E. R. <carlos.e.r@opensuse.org>:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Sunday, 2009-12-06 at 10:52 -0500, James Knott wrote:
Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
On 06/12/09 10:36, Teruel de Campo MD wrote:
Any progress to make checkinstall work under opensuse 11.2?. I miss it.
No, it is broken by design.
Why???
That's something I've often used. I guess that's one more reason to not upgrade.
No reason at all. They just want us to use the public buildservice instead of repairing it :-/
- -- Cheers, Carlos E. R.
I had the impression it was dropped/deprecated already... Regards, -- Ciro Iriarte http://cyruspy.wordpress.com -- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday, 2009-12-08 at 10:10 -0300, Ciro Iriarte wrote:
I had the impression it was dropped/deprecated already...
No, but it will be. And it has taken a lot of effort and pain to get it explained at last. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAksedTkACgkQtTMYHG2NR9X+cwCfVYACl4m/SIghZyYCwEFwzfYq yjAAn03aep0zeQUbop1i3azTBLiTrfBT =01PL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday, 2009-12-06 at 06:36 -0700, Teruel de Campo MD wrote:
Any progress to make checkinstall work under opensuse 11.2?. I miss it.
I haven't tested it yet.. What's the problem? In 11.0 it fails to create needed target directories. What I do is, either runing "make install" before "checkinstall", so that directories are created, or install a previously made rpm, which also creates those directories. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAksbtmQACgkQtTMYHG2NR9VTtACfSymLTQnBqRBpq/LffnI+WMpW iqAAn0knFEF7XruZh5FXG3pQj9mgqFfy =lrgm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sun, 2009-12-06 at 14:49 +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote:
In 11.0 it fails to create needed target directories. What I do is, either runing "make install" before "checkinstall", so that directories are created, or install a previously made rpm, which also creates those directories.
The first approach does not work under 11.2, it worked on 11.1 and before. I will try the second approach, as a matter of fact I have just installed efax-gtk from the rpm build under opensuse 11.1. Well I will learn how to use the build service but until then if this works great. -=terry=- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday, 2009-12-06 at 12:30 -0700, Teruel de Campo MD wrote:
On Sun, 2009-12-06 at 14:49 +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote:
In 11.0 it fails to create needed target directories. What I do is, either runing "make install" before "checkinstall", so that directories are created, or install a previously made rpm, which also creates those directories.
The first approach does not work under 11.2, it worked on 11.1 and before. I will try the second approach, as a matter of fact I have just installed efax-gtk from the rpm build under opensuse 11.1.
It works on my 11.2, I made an rpm for poedit this afternoon. I explained the procedure. Where does it fail for you? - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkscJwkACgkQtTMYHG2NR9XVSQCgmLL5UDh+ACDOLd5jZ/vNnav+ bRsAn1EFN8GVzItyk50Z/pA7giFrAV0H =zbxn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday, 2009-12-06 at 06:36 -0700, Teruel de Campo MD wrote:
Any progress to make checkinstall work under opensuse 11.2?. I miss it.
There are two problems. One, is what I mentioned about the directory creation, and how to bypass it. That's Bugzilla Bug 432497. Listed as solved. Not true. A second problem is that the created spec file and the script set up a buildroot under /var/tmp/checkinstall.RANDOMNAME/, but the rpmbuild program instead searches in: /usr/src/packages/BUILDROOT/package_name_version/ That's the current problem. The hack is to copy the files there in script mid-run. Thus, if there is a hack, the problem is solvable by a dev. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAksb368ACgkQtTMYHG2NR9V+4ACcCuANCv8IocH8jinVgY56zhL3 a2MAn3IEXUejUYNCff6/Uk3UvZI9EZju =VZVb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 17:45:26 +0100 (CET), you wrote:
That's Bugzilla Bug 432497. Listed as solved. Not true.
If it doesn't work, complain to the original author of checkinstall as I integrated the fix published on his web site! And if it doesn't work, why don't you reopen the bug? If nobody does that how should I know that checkinstall doesn't work?
A second problem is that the created spec file and the script set up a buildroot under /var/tmp/checkinstall.RANDOMNAME/, but the rpmbuild program instead searches in:
/usr/src/packages/BUILDROOT/package_name_version/
That's the current problem.
Yes, we explicitly set buildroot as recommended by the rpm developers upstream. The side effect is, that you can't easily redefine it. Look at the scripts that are part of quilt to see how this can be overcome. Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Monday, 2009-12-07 at 10:00 +0100, Philipp Thomas wrote:
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 17:45:26 +0100 (CET), you wrote:
That's Bugzilla Bug 432497. Listed as solved. Not true.
If it doesn't work, complain to the original author of checkinstall as I integrated the fix published on his web site! And if it doesn't work, why don't you reopen the bug? If nobody does that how should I know that checkinstall doesn't work?
I already did. I did not report earlier because I'm using 11.0, as 11.1 was not instalable on my system. I could not test your patch. Now that I'm using 11.2 on another machine, I did.
A second problem is that the created spec file and the script set up a buildroot under /var/tmp/checkinstall.RANDOMNAME/, but the rpmbuild program instead searches in:
/usr/src/packages/BUILDROOT/package_name_version/
That's the current problem.
Yes, we explicitly set buildroot as recommended by the rpm developers upstream. The side effect is, that you can't easily redefine it. Look at the scripts that are part of quilt to see how this can be overcome.
I have no idea of what "quilt" may be. Does checkinstall use it? I created a bugzilla with the solution to this. Just a word change in checkinstall. "Broken by design", and a single word change solves it? Wow. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAksdCCgACgkQtTMYHG2NR9Ux1QCfc2X9p+ovbZRJ9KAA7a4Wf0Dn itoAn1U+kIR4tyEd/nb0POVugij7R0wU =R+sP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 14:50:30 +0100 (CET), you wrote:
I created a bugzilla with the solution to this. Just a word change in checkinstall. "Broken by design", and a single word change solves it? Wow.
What's broken by design is the idea that the author of a given software package has an idea how a sane system should look like, leave alone the differences in different linux distributions. Some do, some act like "all the world is Redhat/Fedora based" while still others just don't care and tell you nonsense like "install the tarball and then run script xy to adapt your system to my idea of an installation". Such broken packages require manual intervention. But the worst thing about checkinstall is that its author doesn't care and for years has only integrated patches others sent him if he did anything at all! The code to support the *at() functions has been in checkinstall CVS for over half a year without anything happening. Authors that care about their software and its users act differently! BTW, Fedora already dropped checkinstall AFAICT. I don't use checkinstall at all and thus have no need for it and as upstream maintenance is nearly nonexisting, the fixes I've checked into OBS today is the last thing I will do for the package. I'll file a drop request and will stop maintaining the package. If anybody wants to use it: the sources are in the OBS. And Carlos, if you say you have no time look at Sascha Manns who started building packages with nearly no knowledge at all and mastered it (more or less :)! And he's no developer! Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Lunes, 7 de Diciembre de 2009 22:50:48 Philipp Thomas escribió:
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 14:50:30 +0100 (CET), you wrote:
I created a bugzilla with the solution to this. Just a word change in checkinstall. "Broken by design", and a single word change solves it? Wow.
But the worst thing about checkinstall is that its author doesn't care and for years has only integrated patches others sent him if he did anything at all! The code to support the *at() functions has been in checkinstall CVS for over half a year without anything happening. Authors that care about their software and its users act differently!
BTW, Fedora already dropped checkinstall AFAICT.
"Broken by design" not is broken for not maintenace. -- Saludos Lluis
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Monday, 2009-12-07 at 22:50 +0100, Philipp Thomas wrote:
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 14:50:30 +0100 (CET), you wrote:
I created a bugzilla with the solution to this. Just a word change in checkinstall. "Broken by design", and a single word change solves it? Wow.
What's broken by design is the idea that the author of a given software package has an idea how a sane system should look like, leave alone the differences in different linux distributions. Some do, some act like "all the world is Redhat/Fedora based" while still others just don't care and tell you nonsense like "install the tarball and then run script xy to adapt your system to my idea of an installation".
Such broken packages require manual intervention.
I don't see anything wrong there about checkinstall. What I understand you are saying is that the packages we install ourselves may be broken themselves, which would be true regardless of whether we use checkinstall or not. It simply means that original packages have to be adapted for each distribution, perhaps patched. That is what I expect oS packagers do for us. That is your (plural) job. But it doesn't mean at that checkinstall is broken by design, not at all! No doubt that the packages you people prepare are better than those we can hope to make. Nevertheless, We may have our reasons to roll our own packages now and then, for special reasons. And, of course, if the packages are patched or whatever they need, and then the rpm created with checkinstall, the end result would be similar to creation by buildservice or any other mean.
But the worst thing about checkinstall is that its author doesn't care and for years has only integrated patches others sent him if he did anything at all! The code to support the *at() functions has been in checkinstall CVS for over half a year without anything happening. Authors that care about their software and its users act differently!
Again, that doesn't prove the point told here that "it is broken by design", but rather, that its author has stopped maintaining it. Why didn't you say this from the beginning, instead of telling us that "it is broken by design" and "go and use buildservice instead"? You could teach your colleague some manners. He has started all this bitching :-/ Do you know that some people have told me that that statement has finally pushed them (corporate users) to jump distro?
BTW, Fedora already dropped checkinstall AFAICT.
I don't use checkinstall at all and thus have no need for it and as upstream maintenance is nearly nonexisting, the fixes I've checked into OBS today is the last thing I will do for the package.
I'll file a drop request and will stop maintaining the package. If anybody wants to use it: the sources are in the OBS.
Yes, I have known since years that you devs have no interest in checkinstall, whereas we users do have, but can't do anything about it. At least, now I understand some of the reasons. Thank you for that, and thank you for applying the patches. I haven't looked at that, yet. It is a very sad day. :-(
And Carlos, if you say you have no time look at Sascha Manns who started building packages with nearly no knowledge at all and mastered it (more or less :)! And he's no developer!
If I have to learn how to create spec files to create rpms I will not use the buildservice for making my private rpms. I'd rather just run make install in the /usr/local tree (another can of worms, I know). I don't see the advantage, and I can't build multimedia packages there, it is forbidden, anyway. And about the time... what do you prefer, that I spend days if I want to build, say, xine, for my own use, or that I spend that time translating, say, opensuse for use by others, or helping the community in some other way that I can do well? - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAksdnGsACgkQtTMYHG2NR9U/SQCfVQnjalUbEOVh3EAHi5g4e5M/ blwAni56M+ffGJNCnB/CJgQnhr+TzaYW =idDQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 01:23:06 +0100 (CET), you wrote:
But it doesn't mean at that checkinstall is broken by design, not at all!
Could we agree to disagree? I think that we'll never come to terms on this one :)
No doubt that the packages you people prepare are better than those we can hope to make. Nevertheless, We may have our reasons to roll our own packages now and then, for special reasons.
Yes, and then a system like the OBS or at least using the build command and miles better then checkinstall.
Yes, I have known since years that you devs have no interest in checkinstall
If that would be true I wouldn't have created a package for SuSE Linux back then. Originally I thought it was a neat idea and would help people build packages. Please remember my interest in checkinstall is as a packager, not as a author. And most of my time is needed for products that earn the money that's used to support openSUSE.
, whereas we users do have, but can't do anything about it.
Not all users. There are some that have learnt (or are learning) to build packages and that use the obs to build packages for themselves and/or others.
If I have to learn how to create spec files to create rpms I will not use the buildservice for making my private rpms.
So be it. It's a service that's free for you to use or refuse. If something like the obs had existed when I started dealing with packages I would have been overjoyed, BUt people differ :)
I'd rather just run make install in the /usr/local tree (another can of worms, I know). I don't see the advantage, and I can't build multimedia packages there, it is forbidden, anyway.
No, doing 'make install' isn't any better, I'd have to agree.
And about the time... what do you prefer
Me? I'd always prefer tinkering with packages >;->
or that I spend that time translating, say, opensuse for use by others,
Guess what? I'm doing both :)
or helping the community in some other way that I can do well?
It doesn't count what I prefer, what counts is what *you* prefer. Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday, 2009-12-08 at 03:06 +0100, Philipp Thomas wrote:
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 01:23:06 +0100 (CET), you wrote:
But it doesn't mean at that checkinstall is broken by design, not at all!
Could we agree to disagree? I think that we'll never come to terms on this one :)
Ok, ok :-) (to me, design is the initial work)
No doubt that the packages you people prepare are better than those we can hope to make. Nevertheless, We may have our reasons to roll our own packages now and then, for special reasons.
Yes, and then a system like the OBS or at least using the build command and miles better then checkinstall.
No doubt! But for me, having to prepare the spec file instead of having it automatically created is daunting. That's why users like me use checkinstall. We don't want packages for distribution, just a method to keep the rpm database correct.
Yes, I have known since years that you devs have no interest in checkinstall
If that would be true I wouldn't have created a package for SuSE Linux back then. Originally I thought it was a neat idea and would help people build packages. Please remember my interest in checkinstall is as a packager, not as a author. And most of my time is needed for products that earn the money that's used to support openSUSE.
Ok, no current interest in checkinstall, then. Some of you jump on top of us when the subject comes up in the list without giving explanations, like the one you posted on another branch of the thread, which has convinced me.
, whereas we users do have, but can't do anything about it.
Not all users. There are some that have learnt (or are learning) to build packages and that use the obs to build packages for themselves and/or others.
With a lot of effort. If I don't mistake the chap name, I asked him to document his process. A howto for newbies. Still, that makes sense if you want to publish packages. It doesn't make sense if I just want to recompile a different (older, newer) version of certain package with other options, or one you don't prepare (decss) for local use. It would take me a week to create the spec file, instead of just running a single command or two. For instance. One of the packages I make is xine, because I translate it. I get the cvs version, modify/complete the translation, then compile install it to check results. I need it fast. Sometimes I make an rpm for the mo files alone. It does not make sense to use the obs...
If I have to learn how to create spec files to create rpms I will not use the buildservice for making my private rpms.
So be it. It's a service that's free for you to use or refuse. If something like the obs had existed when I started dealing with packages I would have been overjoyed, BUt people differ :)
I agree completely that for you is a wonderful tool. No doubt at all about that. But it is not for my purposes...
I'd rather just run make install in the /usr/local tree (another can of worms, I know). I don't see the advantage, and I can't build multimedia packages there, it is forbidden, anyway.
No, doing 'make install' isn't any better, I'd have to agree.
And about the time... what do you prefer
Me? I'd always prefer tinkering with packages >;->
If instead of growing with MsDos I'd had linux, yes, me too :-)
or that I spend that time translating, say, opensuse for use by others,
Guess what? I'm doing both :)
Good for you :-) But you are paid to do packaging, or programming, or whatever. You probably do one thing on your paid time, the other on your free time. That's nice. My current job has nothing to do with computers :-(
or helping the community in some other way that I can do well?
It doesn't count what I prefer, what counts is what *you* prefer.
Well... it would take me weeks to produce a package for private use. You do that much better than I ever would. That's a waste of time, IMHO. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkseOAIACgkQtTMYHG2NR9W6EwCgigKwx55BRotDfOGe8NDZkF8T TtIAnA8lV1wOF/wSbIt6tp1OdQM2kSRL =Nq8P -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Tuesday 08 December 2009 05:26:52 Carlos E. R. wrote:
On Tuesday, 2009-12-08 at 03:06 +0100, Philipp Thomas wrote:
There are some that have learnt (or are learning) to build packages and that use the obs to build packages for themselves and/or others.
It doesn't make sense if I just want to recompile a different (older, newer) version of certain package with other options.
Actually, if makes a *lot* of sense for that. The spec file is going to be largely unchanged from version to version if it was written correctly in the first place. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. bss@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday, 2009-12-06 at 17:45 +0100, I wrote:
A second problem is that the created spec file and the script set up a buildroot under /var/tmp/checkinstall.RANDOMNAME/, but the rpmbuild program instead searches in:
/usr/src/packages/BUILDROOT/package_name_version/
That's the current problem. The hack is to copy the files there in script mid-run.
Let's see, how easy is to solve this one. I'll explain both problems, using a compilation of package poedit as an example. On first trial, I get this: ========================= Installation results =========================== Making install in src make[1]: Entering directory `/home/cer/Compilaciones/Translators/poedit-1.4.3/src' Making install in icons make[2]: Entering directory `/home/cer/Compilaciones/Translators/poedit-1.4.3/src/icons' make[3]: Entering directory `/home/cer/Compilaciones/Translators/poedit-1.4.3/src/icons' make[3]: Nothing to be done for `install-exec-am'. test -z "/usr/local/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps" || /bin/mkdir -p "/usr/local/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps" /bin/mkdir: cannot create directory `/usr/local/share/icons': No such file or directory make[3]: *** [install-icons16DATA] Error 1 make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/cer/Compilaciones/Translators/poedit-1.4.3/src/icons' make[2]: *** [install-am] Error 2 make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/cer/Compilaciones/Translators/poedit-1.4.3/src/icons' make[1]: *** [install-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/cer/Compilaciones/Translators/poedit-1.4.3/src' make: *** [install-recursive] Error 1 **** Installation failed. Aborting package creation. The program fails to create some target directories, I have no idea why. I'm not a dev. I lack some knowledge. Bug 432497 is aboth this (please vote for it). There are two hacks: a) create manually those directories. b) run make install first, then checkinstall. c) temporarily install a previously made rpm of this package (uninstall before installing the new one). Thus: bombadillo:/home/cer/Compilaciones/Translators/poedit-1.4.3 # rpm --install /usr/src/packages/RPMS/i386/poedit-1.4.3-1.i386.rpm and then we find the second problem, which is more complex to locate. We get this: Building RPM package... FAILED! *** Failed to build the package Do you want to see the log file? [y]: In the log we see: Building target platforms: i386 Building for target i386 Processing files: poedit-1.4.3-1.i386 error: File not found: /usr/src/packages/BUILDROOT/poedit-1.4.3-1.i386/usr error: File not found: /usr/src/packages/BUILDROOT/poedit-1.4.3-1.i386/usr/local .... It is looking for the files it is going to package in "/usr/src/packages/BUILDROOT/poedit-1.4.3-1.i386/", which does not exist. If in the script "/etc/checkinstallrc" you change, in order to investigate: # Inspect the file list before creating the package CK_INSPECT=1 # Review the .spec file before creating a .rpm REVIEW_SPEC=1 On running, it will open a text editor (vi) with the list of files to package, and the temporary spec file. Note: if you don't like vi, like me, just create "/etc/bash.bashrc.local": export EDITOR=/usr/bin/mcedit and relogin as root (in the xterm: ctrl-d, su -) And continue. With the checkinstall changed, we run again the script. When you reach the spec file, we see something of this sort: Summary: poEdit is cross-platform gettext catalogs (.po files) editor. Name: poedit Version: 1.4.3 Release: 1 License: GPL Packager: checkinstall-1.6.1 Group: Applications/System.......... BuildRoot: /var/tmp/checkinstall.0qISC2/package Provides: poedit Requires: ,/bin/sh Let's see. The summary is taken from the first line of file "description-pak" in the compilation dir, which I created. It is erased on end, so better change this var: # Automatic deletion of "description-pak"? DEL_DESC=0 More. The line "Requires" is wrong, you can erase it. It has been bad for years, no idea why. I'm no dev. You can hack the script to comment it out. The important thing now is the line "BuildRoot": what was created went there, not to "/usr/src/packages/BUILDROOT". If you copy one to the other: /var/tmp/checkinstall.0qISC2/package --> /usr/src/packages/BUILDROOT/poedit-1.4.3-1.i386/ and then you exit the editor, checkinstall creates the rpm just fine. That is the hack. The solution I did is this. I edited the script "/usr/sbin/checkinstall" changing this line (make a backup first): $RPMBUILD -bb ${RPM_TARGET_FLAG}${ARCHITECTURE} "$SPEC_PATH" &> ${TMP_DIR}/rpmbuild.log with this other: $RPMBUILD --buildroot $BUILDROOT -bb ${RPM_TARGET_FLAG}${ARCHITECTURE} "$SPEC_PATH" &> ${TMP_DIR}/rpmbuild.log That is what was broken and was impossible to mend! Was it so difficult? "Broken by design"? Gosh! :-/ (Bug 561317) Another solution would be to symlink one directory to the other, and remove the link on exit. I don't have the knowledge to decide. Now that we are at it, change this as well: cat > "$SPEC_PATH" << EOF Summary: $SUMMARY Name: $NAME Version: $VERSION Release: $RELEASE License: $LICENSE Packager: checkinstall-$CHECKINSTALL_VERSION Group: $PKG_GROUP BuildRoot: $BROOTPATH Provides: $PROVIDES #Requires: ${REQUIRES}/bin/sh %description EOF cat description-pak >> "$SPEC_PATH" With the "requires" line commented out. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAksdER0ACgkQtTMYHG2NR9U8mQCcD+Yz80HY/VWmqet+yrw2fzuW 3VoAn1nfzCl1o5ykagnPPepI3zwii7kc =rYCl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On 07/12/09 11:28, Carlos E. R. wrote:
That is what was broken and was impossible to mend! Was it so difficult? "Broken by design"? Gosh! :-/
Sure, that is going to work, but it isnt going to solve the design problem. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Lunes, 7 de Diciembre de 2009 16:04:50 Cristian Rodríguez escribió:
On 07/12/09 11:28, Carlos E. R. wrote:
That is what was broken and was impossible to mend! Was it so difficult? "Broken by design"? Gosh! :-/
Sure, that is going to work, but it isnt going to solve the design problem.
wath problem,pls? -- Saludos Lluis
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Monday, 2009-12-07 at 12:04 -0300, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
On 07/12/09 11:28, Carlos E. R. wrote:
That is what was broken and was impossible to mend! Was it so difficult? "Broken by design"? Gosh! :-/
Sure, that is going to work, but it isnt going to solve the design problem.
What design problem? The only problem I see is that you are not interested in it and refuse to help. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAksdJysACgkQtTMYHG2NR9X0ewCeMutN34sJf00h2yXNfLgKeRdS dYoAnjHPO3IuHa1anwDqc/Rq4KfkUq+q =AbKF -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 17:02:44 +0100 (CET), you wrote:
The only problem I see is that you are not interested in it and refuse to help.
Just stop bitching around, will you! Direct all your mails to the author of checkinstall in Mexico and if you have really big luck you'll get an answer. That author is the one to blame, not one of the maintainers at Novell/SUSE! There is a reason Fedora seems to have dropped checkinstall and one of the reasons could be is that said author hasn't been able to release working code in more then 1 1/2 years! Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Lunes, 7 de Diciembre de 2009 22:57:53 Philipp Thomas escribió:
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 17:02:44 +0100 (CET), you wrote:
The only problem I see is that you are not interested in it and refuse to help.
Just stop bitching around, will you! Direct all your mails to the author of checkinstall in Mexico and if you have really big luck you'll get an answer. That author is the one to blame, not one of the maintainers at Novell/SUSE! There is a reason Fedora seems to have dropped checkinstall and one of the reasons could be is that said author hasn't been able to release working code in more then 1 1/2 years!
¿¿¿¿¿broken by design????? Ja.ja.ja -- Saludos Lluis
On 07/12/09 19:38, Lluis wrote:
¿¿¿¿¿broken by design?????
Yes. it will, mess your system in one way or another. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Lunes, 7 de Diciembre de 2009 23:58:00 Cristian Rodríguez escribió:
On 07/12/09 19:38, Lluis wrote:
¿¿¿¿¿broken by design?????
Yes. it will, mess your system in one way or another.
To much years design is implemented . Is correct for users. Broken for utilisation? Design is correct. Maintenace( say other emails) not. -- Saludos Lluis
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 00:07:18 +0100, you wrote:
Design is correct.
NO! A program that assumes that the author of a given software package does everything correctly *is* broken by design. Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Monday, 2009-12-07 at 19:58 -0300, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
On 07/12/09 19:38, Lluis wrote:
¿¿¿¿¿broken by design?????
Yes. it will, mess your system in one way or another.
Prove it. Explain it. Or shut up. So far, as you refuse to explain it, you are not saying the truth. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAksdkDEACgkQtTMYHG2NR9VzuQCfcaBIhgCPMdcFxYWgouGFHe1k rr4AoJbkjgGuTxVVbHrbxgMk2RExgGr6 =6NwX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Monday 07 December 2009 5:58:00 pm Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
On 07/12/09 19:38, Lluis wrote:
¿¿¿¿¿broken by design?????
Yes. it will, mess your system in one way or another.
F.U.D. You should work for M$ you do it so good -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 19:29:25 -0500, you wrote:
F.U.D. You should work for M$ you do it so good
Not FUD! Read http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/why-you-should-not-use-... Still any questions? BTW, I wished src2pkg could also create RPM packages, then at least I'd have an package that's well maintained upstream. Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
"On Monday 07 December 2009 9:14:53 pm Philipp Thomas wrote:
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 19:29:25 -0500, you wrote:
F.U.D. You should work for M$ you do it so good
Not FUD! Read http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/why-you-should-not-use -checkinstall-595581/
Still any questions?
So, you fault the design because the author no longer has the time or interest. At least he wrote it and released it. The article you pointed to says it can break SLACKWARE...how does that apply to openSuSE. Carlos has shown it can work, you simply provide nothing except that you say it is broken by design, that it won't work. So, fix it, incorporate the changes Carlos has demonstrated can provide a working version that works with openSuSE. Oh, don't forget to package it... Carlos has already shown that it works, albeit with a little massaging, but that it works is because the design isn't broken, it is because technology changes. IOW, when a distro changes where it puts all the support files, when the /dev/hdX devices suddenly become /dev/sdX, you can expect that some support utilities may break, but it isn't because of design, it is because it is a moving target to keep up with a changing distro that often seems to change for no reason than change. Carlos showed it can be patched and published the how and what...what have you done? You state categorically that it is broken by design and state one should use the OBS which requires Internet, more skills than most people have, dependence upon a firm like Novell that has made a pact with M$ (devil) and they keep poor-mouthing so often and demonstrating it by laying off the very employees needed to provide proper support of not only this program/script but of many others of importance. With that track record, I don't see how one can trust that OBS will even be around....when it goes off line because of a corporate decision to cut losses, where does all that centralized support disappear to? The bit-bucket in the sky. At least, with my local mirror of the programs and source code RPMs, I don't have to worry about not being able to reach Novell.com or openSuSE.org and find out that some executive decided to a) charge for all such services, or b) cut their losses and get out of the unprofitable job of providing support for "all the major distributions" instead of SUSE and openSuSE. If the OBS ever becomes simple enough to compete with checkinstall, maybe it would be a viable replacement. Richard -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 22:17:15 -0500, you wrote:
what have you done?
Like gone and get the fixes from the upstream CVS and incorporate them? Like maintaining the bunch of patches we have to carry around not because the target is moving but because rthe author of checkinstall wrote buggy software?
more skills than most people have,
Again, I have a perfect counter example. I know an openSUSE packager from the community who new next to nothing but still started to package software. Guess what? He's learned a lot among the way.
dependence upon a firm like Novell that has made a pact with M$ (devil)
Ahh, got some more from that paranoid conspiracy area? You obviously don't notice how absurd that argument is in this context!
by laying off the very employees needed to provide proper support of not only this program/script but of many others of importance.
Guess what? If it hadn't been for me checkinstall would have never been included and I'm the only one who tried to maintain it all these years.
If the OBS ever becomes simple enough to compete with checkinstall, maybe it would be a viable replacement.
This is so riddiculous it's almost funny again. What you want is instant packaging and that's not going to happen anytime in the forseeable future. For this is definitely EOD (end of discussion). Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday, 2009-12-08 at 03:14 +0100, Philipp Thomas wrote:
Not FUD! Read http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/why-you-should-not-use-...
Again, thank you for this answer, I appreciate it. Really. This one really shows what the problem with checkinstall is. See? A nice explanation is much better than just shooing people away with barks. And reading that, I have to say that yes, I remember I have seen going into the rpm checkinstall makes some files that are not related at all to the package. It has happened to me. It is the reason why I modified the configuration so that the list of files pop up in an editor, so that I can remove them. I had forgotten that "detail".
Still any questions?
I have a few going round my head... but don't worry, now you have convinced me that there is something quite wrong with checkinstall. But not by design, but by lack of maintenance. Apparently it worked well eight years ago.
BTW, I wished src2pkg could also create RPM packages, then at least I'd have an package that's well maintained upstream.
- From what I read there, they are using a different installwatch library. Another person has suggested (on another list) whether we could fork checkinstall. I don't have the knowledge, but certainly I would like to try to correct some of the problems. Do you think we could adapt the checkinstall script, only for rpms, with installwatch library from the src2pkg people? Could you at least help us with advice? - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkseMo8ACgkQtTMYHG2NR9WBYQCfWLft0ipkpEzqoYE6yjcRIhvn FOsAn1RNvtHloC704LrYBE7OH1pJzCYe =BESf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 12:03:36 +0100 (CET), you wrote:
Do you think we could adapt the checkinstall script, only for rpms, with installwatch library from the src2pkg people? Could you at least help us with advice?
I've looked t the current src2pkg sources and AFAICT it doesn't use installwatch anymore. When I have a bit of spare time I'll have a closer look at the sources. If I was wrong and it does indeed use a modified installwatch library I would be willing to see if we can't use checkinstall with another installwatch. I'll keep you informed. Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Martes, 8 de Diciembre de 2009 19:10:10 Philipp Thomas escribió:
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 12:03:36 +0100 (CET), you wrote:
Do you think we could adapt the checkinstall script, only for rpms, with installwatch library from the src2pkg people? Could you at least help us with advice?
I've looked t the current src2pkg sources and AFAICT it doesn't use installwatch anymore. When I have a bit of spare time I'll have a closer look at the sources. If I was wrong and it does indeed use a modified installwatch library I would be willing to see if we can't use checkinstall with another installwatch. I'll keep you informed.
Philipp
Thanks for your work. -- Saludos Lluis
On Tuesday 08 December 2009 1:10:10 pm Philipp Thomas wrote:
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 12:03:36 +0100 (CET), you wrote:
Do you think we could adapt the checkinstall script, only for rpms, with installwatch library from the src2pkg people? Could you at least help us with advice?
I've looked t the current src2pkg sources and AFAICT it doesn't use installwatch anymore. When I have a bit of spare time I'll have a closer look at the sources. If I was wrong and it does indeed use a modified installwatch library I would be willing to see if we can't use checkinstall with another installwatch. I'll keep you informed.
Philipp
Now, *that* was a positive response. While the OBS may be better at some things, simplicity is not one of its' virtues.. As Carlos stated, sometimes you just want to build a simple RPM so the RPM database can keep track of user installed programs, possibly only normally available as a tarball, not for redistribution necessarily. Both tools can be valuable but OBS is a 1000 pound sledge hammer when a small tack hammer is needed sometimes. Richard -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Richard Creighton wrote:
On Tuesday 08 December 2009 1:10:10 pm Philipp Thomas wrote:
... I would be willing to see if we can't use checkinstall with another installwatch. I'll keep you informed.
... As Carlos stated, sometimes you just want to build a simple RPM so the RPM database can keep track of user installed programs, possibly only normally _available_as_a_tarball_, not for redistribution necessarily.
Both tools can be valuable but OBS is a 1000 pound sledge hammer when a small tack hammer is needed sometimes.
Oooh, I'm glad I scanned this thread. There've been some packages available only as tarballs that interested me. Most I've just let alone, but I've installed a couple using the tarballs, not realizing there was a way to have them tracked. I hope things get worked out, and I'll be watching, hoping for a positive result. Thanks, guys! John Perry -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
John E. Perry wrote:
Richard Creighton wrote:
On Tuesday 08 December 2009 1:10:10 pm Philipp Thomas wrote:
... I would be willing to see if we can't use checkinstall with another installwatch. I'll keep you informed.
... As Carlos stated, sometimes you just want to build a simple RPM so the RPM database can keep track of user installed programs, possibly only normally _available_as_a_tarball_, not for redistribution necessarily.
Both tools can be valuable but OBS is a 1000 pound sledge hammer when a small tack hammer is needed sometimes.
Oooh, I'm glad I scanned this thread. There've been some packages available only as tarballs that interested me. Most I've just let alone, but I've installed a couple using the tarballs, not realizing there was a way to have them tracked.
I hope things get worked out, and I'll be watching, hoping for a positive result. Thanks, guys!
John Perry
I have found obs to be perfectly convenient even for small more or less trivial packages. Once you have a neat little .spec for your little util, it's not merely that you get it compiled, it's that you get it compiled and packaged in a standard and non-conflicting way, for several platforms, and for several versions of opensuse times several platforms each, all essentially for free after initial setup. It's also a good reference. When you build something in obs, you are building in a pristine reference up to date "perfect" system, which you rarely can claim any of your own systems are. When you build a package in obs, and then there is some problem with running it on some box, you can generally assume that means there is something wrong with the box and not the package, which is not true when you are trying to build & run something yourself and the box seems to be fine before you started, so you may waste time looking in the wrong place for a problem to fix. I usually build locally on the newest box I have at the moment just to get a new .spec file written in the first place. It would be a pretty slow process using obs to actually figure out all the stuff to build a new package and develop a good .spec file in the first place. But once you have more or less working starting point it's such a timesaver maintaining it forever after. -- bkw -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 04:32:01PM -0500, Brian K. White wrote: [ 8< ]
I usually build locally on the newest box I have at the moment just to get a new .spec file written in the first place. It would be a pretty slow process using obs to actually figure out all the stuff to build a new package and develop a good .spec file in the first place. But once you have more or less working starting point it's such a timesaver maintaining it forever after.
For this the "osc build" command is of great help. It allows you to test if a change to the spec file or a patch works on your local system. osc is available from the osc package at the standard or openSUSE:Tools repository. It's possible to achieve the same with the help of the build package. Lars -- Lars Müller [ˈlaː(r)z ˈmʏlɐ] Samba Team SUSE Linux, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12/11/2009 10:32 PM, Brian K. White wrote:
I have found obs to be perfectly convenient even for small more or less trivial packages. Once you have a neat little .spec for your little util,
And that's precisely the hurdle: obtaining the .spec file. No doubt the OBS is better, generally. There are some cases where it is not. And the big problem is still getting the spec file, which checkinstall creates automatically (better or worse). - -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 11.2 "Emerald" GM (bombadillo)) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkslLVAACgkQU92UU+smfQVJjQCfaBRX0V2IdgXIx9y1f5b1Pw0o q6IAn2MA0lX0JSMgdVoTvVhK0Wihc8wi =PvrS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sun, 2009-12-13 at 19:07 +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote:
And the big problem is still getting the spec file, which checkinstall creates automatically (better or worse). Carlos
Thxs for helping to make checkinstall to work under 11.2. For me it does the job I need, well.., at least until I spend the time and figure out how to make the spec file ;-) Ciao -=terrry=- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 19:10 +0100, Philipp Thomas wrote:
I would be willing to see if we can't use checkinstall with another installwatch. I'll keep you informed.
Thxs Philipp, -=terry=- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:58:28 -0700, you wrote:
On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 19:10 +0100, Philipp Thomas wrote:
use checkinstall with another installwatch. I'll keep you informed.
OK, no option. src2pkg does not use the installwatch library anymore, so there is no source I could use aas a drop in replacement :( Maybe in my holidays between the years I'll find time to check older versions of src2pkg. Anyone interested in checkinstall should really try out the version I checked into devel:tools. This one has the code from checkinstall git repository to support the *at functions plus the fix for BUILDROOT that Carlos suggested. I'd be really interested to know how that version works so that I can submit it for factory. BTW, as you can see from the checkinstall homepage that code has been in the git repository since November last year and its author obviously hasn't seen the need to release a fixed version of checkinstall! Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12/10/2009 11:17 PM, Philipp Thomas wrote:
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:58:28 -0700, you wrote:
On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 19:10 +0100, Philipp Thomas wrote:
use checkinstall with another installwatch. I'll keep you informed.
OK, no option. src2pkg does not use the installwatch library anymore, so there is no source I could use aas a drop in replacement :( Maybe in my holidays between the years I'll find time to check older versions of src2pkg.
Oh, crumbs. Thanks. But thanks for your help. What is it using instead?
Anyone interested in checkinstall should really try out the version I checked into devel:tools. This one has the code from checkinstall git repository to support the *at functions plus the fix for BUILDROOT that Carlos suggested. I'd be really interested to know how that version works so that I can submit it for factory.
I was trying to do so, but... it is not there. You mean here: http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/devel:/tools/ ? I can't see it either in 11.2 or factory. Hold on, there is another repo of similar name... no, it is not here either: http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/devel:/tools:/building/openSUSE_11... :-?
BTW, as you can see from the checkinstall homepage that code has been in the git repository since November last year and its author obviously hasn't seen the need to release a fixed version of checkinstall!
:-( - -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 11.2 "Emerald" GM (bombadillo)) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkslLCYACgkQU92UU+smfQVYrwCdGxa7VprWxO7BgwaCqexTdkqa oFoAnjKl4g/rkGdBnd8NzFJ1EdhVOKgP =bRMT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:02:14 +0100, you wrote:
I was trying to do so, but... it is not there. You mean here:
Yep, but I just checked and for unknown reason all builds had been stopped. I've now recompressed the tarball and the patches with bzip2 instead of xz to enable build on older distributions that lack xz and restarted all builds. Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:02:14 +0100, you wrote:
Oh, crumbs.
My thinking too.
What is it using instead?
I haven't checked.
Sigh, so a bit more work was needed :( Shouldn't have told everybody to test when it wasn't even building ... Packages for all but SLE9 and SLE10 are available and I'll check those tomorrow. So now there *is a working version and I'd be happy if those that really use it would test this version and give me feedback. Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Monday, 2009-12-14 at 03:37 +0100, Philipp Thomas wrote:
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:02:14 +0100, you wrote:
Oh, crumbs.
My thinking too.
What is it using instead?
I haven't checked.
Ok, keep us informed whenyou can :-)
Sigh, so a bit more work was needed :( Shouldn't have told everybody to test when it wasn't even building ... Packages for all but SLE9 and SLE10 are available and I'll check those tomorrow.
Things happen. As my mother says, only those that try cooking have problems with cooking. If you don't try, you don't make messes, but also, you don't eat :-) (Al que cuece y amnasa, de todo le pasa)
So now there *is a working version and I'd be happy if those that really use it would test this version and give me feedback.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work completely. The buildroot problem is solved, yes. The problem of failure to create target directories, is not solved. I think that install creates the directories in the temporary target build directory, but instead tests for it in the final (for real) directory. Does this idea make sense? - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAksm0MAACgkQtTMYHG2NR9Xh1wCfUN19huVsZMSaTgzmRZ5O0oUF Lt8AmwRXKOBBQzVdbyLZzKSCm5B4zTNU =h5OO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 00:56:47 +0100 (CET), you wrote:
Unfortunately, it doesn't work completely. The buildroot problem is solved, yes. The problem of failure to create target directories, is not solved.
Do you have an example so I can reproduce it? Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday, 2009-12-15 at 11:28 +0100, Philipp Thomas wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 00:56:47 +0100 (CET), you wrote:
Unfortunately, it doesn't work completely. The buildroot problem is solved, yes. The problem of failure to create target directories, is not solved.
Do you have an example so I can reproduce it?
Sure, the one I'm testing all the time, poedit 1.4.3 (I had it handy and it is small, not because I want to compile that one). What do you need? But I think that you can test with (almost) any package that you don't have already installed. That's the quid of the question: if the rpm or package is installed already, checkinstall runs fine (as root, of course). If it is not installed, it fails to create directories. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAksn7DcACgkQtTMYHG2NR9Ve1wCcDohvuLxXpRyI4NljeHGes+C9 Z+8AmwfgRko7d0i0RxOc42J6jYKmM/vE =KhtY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:06:10 +0100 (CET), you wrote:
checkinstall runs fine (as root, of course). If it is not installed, it fails to create directories.
I can't reproduce it (with poedit). Running checkinstall as root succeeds, running as normal user fails. This is b0rken by design as checkinstall doesn't use its own buildroot but installs into the life system and something that I will not fix. Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 01:49:57 +0100, you wrote:
I can't reproduce it (with poedit). Running checkinstall as root succeeds, running as normal user fails.
Now it fails, o bother ... I have no explanation at the moment, but using --fstrans=no helps. I have no time until my christmas holiday that starts in Friday to really check what is going wrong here. Possibly it will have to wait until I return to work on the 11th of January. Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday, 2009-12-16 at 04:48 +0100, Philipp Thomas wrote:
Now it fails, o bother ... I have no explanation at the moment, but using --fstrans=no helps. I have no time until my christmas holiday that starts in Friday to really check what is going wrong here. Possibly it will have to wait until I return to work on the 11th of January.
I just heard that there is a new version of checkinstall: - ------------ Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:06:54 +0000 From: Sid Boyce <> To: opensuse-factory@opensuse.org Subject: Re: [opensuse-factory] checkinstall ... Checkinstall 1.6.2 is out. I don't know if it fits the requirements sufficiently to warrant another look. - ------------ Perhaps some of the problems have been solved there? :-? - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAks2uscACgkQtTMYHG2NR9XMewCfTRh21XPPsjmVgmAv9m+LCMMJ pY0AnjVUJPWp2fC/6JiTIFqGvD8fIu8e =IeP/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 02:39:13 +0100 (CET), you wrote:
I just heard that there is a new version of checkinstall:
I'll check and see if there is something new in that package. Stay tuned ... Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 04:10:31 +0100, you wrote:
I'll check and see if there is something new in that package. Stay tuned ...
It builds without further problems but still needs the fixes I created for the git version. Carlos, could you be so kind and test that version once its available from the obs (sr for factory sent but I don't know when they'll be accepted). Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Monday, 2009-12-28 at 04:40 +0100, Philipp Thomas wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 04:10:31 +0100, you wrote:
I'll check and see if there is something new in that package. Stay tuned ...
Thanks :-)
It builds without further problems but still needs the fixes I created for the git version. Carlos, could you be so kind and test that version once its available from the obs (sr for factory sent but I don't know when they'll be accepted).
Ok, I installed "checkinstall-1.6.2-14.2.i586". The /etc/checkinstallrc file was not replaced, but the /etc/checkinstallrc-dist is almost equivalent to what I have: diff /etc/checkinstallrc /etc/checkinstallrc-dist 52c52 < INSTYPE="R" - ---
INSTYPE="" 133c133 < REVIEW_SPEC=1
REVIEW_SPEC=0
It still has problems with creation of directories: - ------------------- Installing with make...Installing with install... ========================= Installation results =========================== Making install in src make[1]: Entering directory `/home/cer/Compilaciones/Translators/poedit-1.4.3/src' Making install in icons make[2]: Entering directory `/home/cer/Compilaciones/Translators/poedit-1.4.3/src/icons' make[3]: Entering directory `/home/cer/Compilaciones/Translators/poedit-1.4.3/src/icons' make[3]: Nothing to be done for `install-exec-am'. test -z "/usr/local/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps" || /bin/mkdir -p "/usr/local/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps" /bin/mkdir: cannot create directory `/usr/local/share/icons/hicolor': No such file or directory make[3]: *** [install-icons16DATA] Error 1 make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/cer/Compilaciones/Translators/poedit-1.4.3/src/icons' make[2]: *** [install-am] Error 2 make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/cer/Compilaciones/Translators/poedit-1.4.3/src/icons' make[1]: *** [install-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/cer/Compilaciones/Translators/poedit-1.4.3/src' make: *** [install-recursive] Error 1 **** Installation failed. Aborting package creation. Cleaning up...OK Bye. - -------------- It is weird that... :-? I made a run with "debug=1" but I don't see anything that can help. No log. Ah, running with debug=2 I got a "/var/tmp/tmp.fpUCiqhLer/dbgfile" file. If you think it can be usefull, I'll send it or put it up somewhere, bugzilla or pastebin. I install the previous version of poedit (the package I'm using for testing): bombadillo:/home/cer/Compilaciones/Translators/poedit-1.4.3 # rpm --install /usr/src/packages/RPMS/i386/poedit-1.4.3-1.i386.rpm Then run again checkinstall: which suceeds. Dunno :-? - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAks5KiIACgkQtTMYHG2NR9W97ACggIAZlYB23ReHvdOUo0xdnUzs YpMAnjroQcStnNGlB3xGJN8glftY3Vji =368V -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 22:58:50 +0100 (CET), you wrote:
Ok, I installed "checkinstall-1.6.2-14.2.i586".
THANKS for the testing!
The /etc/checkinstallrc file was not replaced,
Hmm, strange. I'll have to check the .spec file as I don't remember to have marked it noreplace ... [checks] Nope, I didn't do so. I'll check in the new year.
It still has problems with creation of directories:
- ------------------- Installing with make...Installing with install...
========================= Installation results =========================== /bin/mkdir: cannot create directory `/usr/local/share/icons/hicolor': No such file or directory
Could you do a strace -f -o checkinstall.trace - e trace=file checkinstall run and send me the resulting checkinstall.trace?
Ah, running with debug=2 I got a "/var/tmp/tmp.fpUCiqhLer/dbgfile" file. If you think it can be usefull, I'll send it or put it up somewhere, bugzilla or pastebin.
I have no idea what's in that file, but if you don't mind send it to the from address of this mail. Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 22:58:50 +0100 (CET), you wrote:
Ok, I installed "checkinstall-1.6.2-14.2.i586".
Could you test the patch for checkinstall that I checked in that overrides rpmbuild's buildroot from the commandline and give me feedback? This should fix the last known bug. Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2010-01-06 00:01, Philipp Thomas wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 22:58:50 +0100 (CET), you wrote:
Ok, I installed "checkinstall-1.6.2-14.2.i586".
Could you test the patch for checkinstall that I checked in that overrides rpmbuild's buildroot from the commandline and give me feedback? This should fix the last known bug.
I think I tested this already, that part was solved. With the package listed above, if I bypass the directory creation problem by installing a copy of the target rpm before running checkinstall, the buildroot problem does not appear. Testing again. I install "checkinstall-1.6.2-16.1.i586". /etc/checkinstallrc is not replaced, I think. bombadillo:/home/cer/Compilaciones/Translators/poedit-1.4.3 # diff /etc/checkinstallrc /etc/checkinstallrc-dist 16c16 < DEBUG=2 - ---
DEBUG=0 52c52 < INSTYPE="R"
INSTYPE="" 133c133 < REVIEW_SPEC=1
REVIEW_SPEC=0
I run it: ...# strace -f -o checkinstall.rpmnotinstalled_V_1.6.2-16.1.trace -e trace=file checkinstall Fails as expected: ========================= Installation results =========================== debug: INSTW_EXCLUD before sort =/home/cer/Compilaciones/Translators/poedit-1.4.3,/dev,/proc,/tmp,/var/tmp debug: INSTW_EXCLUDE=/dev,/home/cer/Compilaciones/Translators/poedit-1.4.3,/proc,/tmp,/var/tmp, debug: INSTW_ROOTPATH=/var/tmp/tmp.TRoZsU26ll debug: INSTW_LOGFILE=/var/tmp/tmp.TRoZsU26ll/newfiles.tmp debug: INSTW_DBGFILE=/var/tmp/tmp.TRoZsU26ll/dbgfile debug: INSTW_DBGLVL=2 Making install in src make[1]: Entering directory `/home/cer/Compilaciones/Translators/poedit-1.4.3/src' Making install in icons make[2]: Entering directory `/home/cer/Compilaciones/Translators/poedit-1.4.3/src/icons' make[3]: Entering directory `/home/cer/Compilaciones/Translators/poedit-1.4.3/src/icons' make[3]: Nothing to be done for `install-exec-am'. test -z "/usr/local/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps" || /bin/mkdir -p "/usr/local/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps" /bin/mkdir: cannot create directory `/usr/local/share/icons': No such file or directory make[3]: *** [install-icons16DATA] Error 1 make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/cer/Compilaciones/Translators/poedit-1.4.3/src/icons' make[2]: *** [install-am] Error 2 make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/cer/Compilaciones/Translators/poedit-1.4.3/src/icons' make[1]: *** [install-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/cer/Compilaciones/Translators/poedit-1.4.3/src' make: *** [install-recursive] Error 1 **** Installation failed. Aborting package creation. Cleaning up...(Debugging mode on, KEEPING temp dir /var/tmp/tmp.TRoZsU26ll)...OK Bye. # rpm --install /usr/src/packages/RPMS/i386/poedit-1.4.3-1.i386.rpm # strace -f -o checkinstall.rpminstalled_V_1.6.2-16.1.trace -e trace=file checkinstall ... And succeeds, as expected. I'll sends the log files direct in a moment. - -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 11.2 "Emerald" GM (bombadillo)) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAktFJLQACgkQU92UU+smfQU52gCfcgll4kugf70Er6fuim7gqGK/ EKMAoIwk3JtzAvlM6FbghV9HCFon94SE =Luu9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 01:03:00 +0100, you wrote:
I think I tested this already, that part was solved.
Yes, after the german user supplied me with a link to the message he had found I realized that this bug is lready fixed. Sorry for the noise.
**** Installation failed. Aborting package creation.
So this is still a problem to solve ...
And succeeds, as expected. I'll sends the log files direct in a moment.
No need for that. I'll do the tracing myself. But given that my father passed away this evening, there are far more urgent things that require my attention. I'll be away from email and work for some time. Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday, 2010-01-07 at 01:55 +0100, Philipp Thomas wrote:
And succeeds, as expected. I'll sends the log files direct in a moment.
No need for that. I'll do the tracing myself. But given that my father passed away this evening, there are far more urgent things that require my attention. I'll be away from email and work for some time.
I'm sorry. I suffered that loss a few years ago and I know what it means. Take your time. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAktFNPUACgkQtTMYHG2NR9WQxwCeOXrm+hcQ3D10rF1oEWxD9EUS 2SEAn3ECy+VHO0NhVtB5SI/LLHw47sk1 =7o+X -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
participants (18)
-
Andreas Jaeger -
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. -
Brian K. White -
Carlos E. R. -
Carlos E. R. -
Ciro Iriarte -
Cristian Rodríguez -
Istvan Gabor -
James Knott -
John Andersen -
John E. Perry -
Jon Cosby -
Lars Müller -
Lluis -
Peter Nikolic -
Philipp Thomas -
Richard Creighton -
Teruel de Campo MD