February 2020 - openSUSE Packaging - openSUSE Mailing Lists

[opensuse-packaging] How to handle -doc packages?
by Ludwig Nussel 13 Jul '20

13 Jul '20

Hi, Some packages split out their man pages or other documentation into a sub package. More often than not that subpackage then is recommended. IOW installed by default which is undesirable. We also have a pattern for documenation though. So IMO it makes sense to link installing such documenation packages to the pattern. The question is how though. Assuming we have foo, foo-doc and patterns-base-documentation I see several ways: 1. pattern is in charge a. in patterns-base-documentation Recommends: foo-doc b. in patterns-base-documentation Recommends: foo-doc if foo 2. package is in charge a. in foo Recommends: foo-doc if patterns-base-documentation b. in foo-doc Supplements: packageand(foo:patterns-base-documentation) 1) pro: when looking at the pattern eg. in YaST one can actually see an overview of what documentation is available. con: pattern needs to be adjusted for every change in packaging. Extra step and easy to forget. 2) pro: packager can add, split, merge or drop packages any time con: package installation is a bit more black magic. The pattern leads to pulling in more packages than expected. Thoughts? cu Ludwig -- (o_ Ludwig Nussel //\ V_/_ http://www.suse.com/ SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

10 27

[opensuse-packaging] factory_auto declines package with commented out patch
by Atri Bhattacharya 08 May '20

08 May '20

Hi, It seems factory_auto declines packages where a patch needing to be rebased is commented out from the sources entirely, yet this is the only way to avoid applying the patch when using `%autosetup`. See, for example, sr#773323 which has Patch12 marked as 'NEEDS-REBASE' and commented out. It has been duly declined. Is there any way, short of doing away with `%autosetup`, to get this through factory_auto? Thanks for any advice. [1] https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/773323 -- Atri Bhattacharya Sent from openSUSE Tumbleweed 20200214 on tp-yoga260. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

2 2

[opensuse-packaging] Require a specific major version go1.X
by Johannes Kastl 31 Mar '20

31 Mar '20

Good morning ladies and gentlemen, is there any documentation on how to exactly require a specific version of go1.X (use go1.10, not any later version? Use go1.12 or later?)? I am (once again) new to packaging golang packages, and have some that seem to require newer versions, e.g. go1.12 or go.14. Others like git-lfs seem to not build correctly unless I tell them to build with go1.10. Not sure if this really fixes the build problems, and as I am not a go expert I cannot tell if this idea is complete bogus. Nevertheless, I'd like to try out... ;-) This seems to work: BuildRequire: go < 1.13 BuildRequire: go >= 1.12 This does not: BuildRequire: go1.12 Nope: BuildRequire: go = 1.12 (as the available version is 1.12.9 or something like that) Seems like this would be a useful information to add to https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_Go (which I will update once I find out how to do that). Kind Regards, Johannes -- Johannes Kastl Linux Consultant & Trainer Tel.: +49 (0) 151 2372 5802 Mail: kastl(a)b1-systems.de B1 Systems GmbH Osterfeldstraße 7 / 85088 Vohburg http://www.b1-systems.de GF: Ralph Dehner Unternehmenssitz: Vohburg / AG: Ingolstadt,HRB 3537

6 13

[opensuse-packaging] How to handle "unpackaged conflicts"?
by Mathias Homann 21 Feb '20

21 Feb '20

Hi guys, I'm trying to package the latest bleachbit version. It installs a file in /usr/share/metainfo. If I put "%dir /usr/share/metainfo" in my specfile, I get a massive number of "conflicts with" from rpm when I try to install it, when I don't put it in I get "unpackaged file" from osc build... What do I do? Cheers Mathias -- Mathias Homann Mathias.Homann(a)openSUSE.org telegram: https://telegram.me/lemmy98 irc: [lemmy] on freenode and ircnet obs: lemmy04 gpg key fingerprint: 8029 2240 F4DD 7776 E7D2 C042 6B8E 029E 13F2 C102 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

6 10

[opensuse-packaging] factory_auto declines package with commented out patch
by Atri Bhattacharya 19 Feb '20

19 Feb '20

Hi, It seems factory_auto declines packages where a patch needing to be rebased is commented out from the sources entirely, yet this is the only way to avoid applying the patch when using `%autosetup`. See, for example, sr#773323 which has Patch12 marked as 'NEEDS-REBASE' and commented out. It has been duly declined. Is there any way, short of doing away with `%autosetup`, to get this through factory_auto? Thanks for any advice. [1] https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/773323 -- Atri Bhattacharya -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

7 13

[opensuse-packaging] factory_auto declines package with commented out patch
by Atri Bhattacharya 18 Feb '20

18 Feb '20

Hi, It seems factory_auto declines packages where a patch needing to be rebased is commented out from the sources entirely, yet this is the only way to avoid applying the patch when using `%autosetup`. See, for example, sr#773323 which has Patch12 marked as 'NEEDS-REBASE' and commented out. It has been duly declined. Is there any way, short of doing away with `%autosetup`, to get this through factory_auto? Thanks for any advice. [1] https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/773323 -- Atri Bhattacharya Space sciences, Technologies and Astrophysics Research (STAR) Institute, Université de Liège, Bât. B5a, Sart Tilman, 4000 Liège, Belgium Phone: +32 4 366 36 38 http://www.theo.phys.ulg.ac.be/wiki/Bhattacharya_Atri Tue 18 Feb 18:05:48 CET 2020 Sent from openSUSE Tumbleweed 20200214 on tp-yoga260. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

1 0

[opensuse-packaging] license and subpackages
by Jordi Massaguer Pla 11 Feb '20

11 Feb '20

Hi, I have this package that has subpackages. What should I do with the license files? Should they be part of the main package? Should I copy them into every subpackage? Should I create a "-doc" subpackage and make it a "supplements" of all the other subpackages? thanks jordi -- Jordi Massaguer Pla Release Manager for SUSE CaaS Platform SUSE Linux https://www.suse.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

4 4

[opensuse-packaging] packaging python ctype-based bindings
by Matwey V. Kornilov 07 Feb '20

07 Feb '20

Hello, I am looking for example or guidelines on how to properly package python bindings which use ctype LoadLibrary interface. Let me recall, that there is no any glue binary shared object file, in this case. python just load the original library shared object in runtime (as you do with dlopen() in C language) and then represents it symbols as a python object. So, this kind of bindings is a pure python module (should be noarch?). Nevertheless, I still need to specify "Requires:" in the corresponding spec file, since missed original library will lead to some exception during the python module loading making the module installation unusable. The question is how to specify required SONAME correctly in this case taking into account ABI compatibility. -- With best regards, Matwey V. Kornilov -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org

1 0