Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-packaging (106 mails)

< Previous Next >
[opensuse-packaging] Re: 13.2 systemd update breaks udev version detection
Hi Andreas,

On 12/17/2015 03:23 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
Hi Franck,

Am 17.12.2015 um 15:05 schrieb Franck Bui:
On 12/16/2015 07:34 PM, Marcus Meissner wrote:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 07:01:45PM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
Today's seems to have
broken 13.2 builds of Virtualization qemu.

We have the following snippet there:

%if %( echo `rpm -q --queryformat %%{version} udev` ) > 190
%define _udevrulesdir /usr/lib/udev/rules.d
%define _udevrulesdir /lib/udev/rules.d

can't you use '%_udevrulesdir' macro instead ?

Does that work as far back as 13.1 or SLE11? That snippet is obviously
not my invention, so you tell me.

I would say: if it's defined then use it otherwise define it as
'/lib/udev/rules.d': on distribution where it's defined, systemd is used
and udev is >= 210 in this case. Otherwise sysvinit is still used and
udev is old enough to look for its rules files in /lib/udev.

That said it might make sense to introduce %_udevrulesdir in udev
package for SLE11 (and any other supported products using udev).

From systemd.3661 to systemd.4042 I notice the following change:
-Version: 210
+Version: 210.1448627060.53ee915
which looks _service-generated. Was this intentional? If yes, how are we
supposed to handle this now?

Well, I don't know but I would have expected this solved at the time the
_service thing had been introduced.

Well, for me, this was introduced yesterday. ;)

only a couple of weeks to me ;)

We do not see any problems with Factory so far, is there a similar
submission in flight?

not yet, factory is still getting the source code from a tarball (not
from the git repo).

Might it be an option to simply drop the automatic set_version service
and bumping it manually? (I recently played with it for
hardware/libjaylink and did not find a way to fully customize it beyond
%ct for the second component.)

Well set_version avoids any human intervention so it's less subject to
mistake. And since it's there, it's supposed to be used and fixed if broken.

BTW which error are you seeing ?

I took a quick look at rpmvercmp() which seems to do the version
comparaison and it should work. I did a quick experiment and extracted
this function and basically did:

rpmvercmp("210.1448627060.53ee915", "190")

and it worked as expected.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
Follow Ups