purpose of ruby(abi), python(abi), etc
by Vít Ondruch
Hi,
Can somebody enlighten me, what is the purpose of ruby(abi) (replace by
python(abi) if you wish) virtual provide? Especially, why Ruby packaging
guidelines mandate "Requires: ruby(abi) = 1.9.1", i.e. versioned
require? And why in Python packages, python(abi) is automatically generated?
If the package is noarch, there is very high chance, that it would work
with Ruby 1.8 as good as with Ruby 1.9 or even Ruby 2.0. If the package
is arch dependent, it has automatically generated dependency on
libruby.so.1.9. So there is no chance to install it or run it with other
version of Ruby.
Now why I am asking? We would like to have in F19 Ruby 2.0 accompanied
by JRuby 1.7 and in the future, we would love to see these interpreters
interchangeable, i.e. it doesn't matter which interpreter is on your
system, since it will be able to run the gem/application shipped in
Fedora. However, while Ruby 2.0 should provide "ruby(abi) = 2.0", JRuby
are not yet fully 2.0 ready, so they should not provide "ruby(abi) =
2.0". Moreover, the term ABI with JRuby is a bit misleading.
So how we can make every noarch ruby package compatible with both
interpreters in terms of requires? One possibility would be to drop the
abi version unless it is explicitly needed. However, it renders
ruby(abi) as not the best virtual provide name for this goal.
Any ideas?
Vít
10 years, 8 months
parallel make
by Parag Nemade
Hi,
I want to know is there any documentation available on parallel
make? If a package is not building with parallel make then can we fix
Makefile?
Parag.
10 years, 9 months
Fedora Review error.
by Sourav Basu
Hello Everyone,
I'm trying to review packages using fedora-review. However when I am using "fedora-review -b xxxxxxx" option then it always fails. I have to use koji to do the review.
Here's a result:
[tumu@tumu ~]$ fedora-review -b 877763
Processing bugzilla bug: 877763
Bugzilla v0.7.0 initializing
Chose subclass RHBugzilla v0.1
Trying bugzilla cookies for authentication
Getting .spec and .srpm Urls from : 877763
--> SRPM url: http://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/packages/gnome-photos-3.7.2-4.fc18.src.rpm
--> Spec url: http://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/packages/gnome-photos.spec
Using review directory: /home/tumu/877763-gnome-photos
Downloading .spec and .srpm files
Downloading (Source0): http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/gnome-photos/3.7/gnome-photos-3.7....
Running checks and generate report
ERROR: Exception(/home/tumu/877763-gnome-photos/srpm/gnome-photos-3.7.2-4.fc18.src.rpm) Config(fedora-16-i386) 0 minutes 8 seconds
INFO: Results and/or logs in: /home/tumu/877763-gnome-photos/results
ERROR: Command failed:
Probably non-rawhide buildroot used. Rawhide should be used for most package reviews
Build failed rc = Build error(s)
Error: 'Mock build failed.' (logs in ~/.cache/fedora-review.log)
Why am I facing this problem all the time?
Any idea?
Regards,
Sourav
10 years, 9 months
Need help with the rpmbuild
by Sankar Tanguturi
Hi Everyone,
Sorry if this is the wrong forum to post my question. We are working to upstream 'open-vm-tools'. Please check https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883614 for more details. I followed all the instructions specified in 'https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package' wiki and created a SPEC file. I executed 'rpmbuild' command and was able to build the RPM. But when I try to install the generated RPM, I get weird errors.
[makerpm@localhost rpmbuild]$ rpm -i RPMS/i686/open-vm-tools-9.2.2-1.fc16.i686.rpm
error: Failed dependencies:
23879e73b56e03ec4021578fabc96107a6d645.debug is needed by open-vm-tools-9.2.2-1.fc16.i686
296f536e590c574ca46dbbf83ef5d9c48a1496.debug is needed by open-vm-tools-9.2.2-1.fc16.i686
3887c51239b4ac1dbfa82bb4ec604e8ccfc3e9.debug is needed by open-vm-tools-9.2.2-1.fc16.i686
3f61116741824d14b05af8741d292d76941339.debug is needed by open-vm-tools-9.2.2-1.fc16.i686
62e7dd4b08fdbf4bfa7183d3c2e42b7a7be3e6.debug is needed by open-vm-tools-9.2.2-1.fc16.i686
71d274053d85397facd43921768ad642e3ed75.debug is needed by open-vm-tools-9.2.2-1.fc16.i686
a2514595ec61e445de4554d33bc24f98f8ccee.debug is needed by open-vm-tools-9.2.2-1.fc16.i686
a33a27d346d8a7fa158067f8ff5146ba1f9e7c.debug is needed by open-vm-tools-9.2.2-1.fc16.i686
b30064484109a463fc9da7028747f5bc5bce3e.debug is needed by open-vm-tools-9.2.2-1.fc16.i686
b90ed6bedca1b983f72e147e1cae5cb742bed8.debug is needed by open-vm-tools-9.2.2-1.fc16.i686
ca8c559a0588472c4438abeb2e77b5a986a21d.debug is needed by open-vm-tools-9.2.2-1.fc16.i686
d6134c7ca30ea780904d0467d1e82e758c21e2.debug is needed by open-vm-tools-9.2.2-1.fc16.i686
...
I don't have any idea what these random generated numbers are and where they are coming from. I am very much sure 'open-vm-tools' package doesn't build/generate these .debug files. Can someone help resolve this issue. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
~Thanks and Regards
Sankar Aditya Tanguturi
10 years, 9 months
guayadeque pkgconfig question
by Martin Gansser
Hi,
i am working on a review of guayadeque https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853553
since serveral month.
my question is: how is the best way to handle this particular wx lib using cmake.
Can someone with more knowledge suggest a solution.
Ivan the reviewer[mailto:drizt@land.ru] didn't respond on any questions...
he continues to insist that pkgconfig is the right way to do it.
thanks Martin
10 years, 9 months
Re: [Fedora-packaging] Strange gdm packaging
by Michael Schwendt
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:36:26 -0500 (EST), Ray Strode wrote:
> > Has this been introduced recently, or has it been like that always?
> >
>
> Looking through the history, it's been that way as long as there was a libs subpackage.
> I didn't do a very good job documenting adding the subpackage in the commit message either.
> I just snuck it into a "upgrade to latest release" message:
>
> Date: Tue Oct 18 22:47:14 2011 -0400
Okay, that explains it. I've filed a bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/889674
It would be EasyFix, but there is an explicit dep in "gnome-shell"
on "gdm-libs" (for the gi file) already, and it's not clear to me yet
whether gnome-shell also wants files from "gdm" (via the indirect dep
currently). That makes the -libs subpackage questionable.
10 years, 9 months
Strange gdm packaging
by Michael Schwendt
gdm-libs :
/usr/lib/girepository-1.0/Gdm-1.0.typelib 36588
gdm-devel :
/usr/include/gdm 4096
/usr/include/gdm/gdm-client-glue.h 40152
/usr/include/gdm/gdm-client.h 6634
/usr/include/gdm/gdm-sessions.h 1314
/usr/include/gdm/gdm-user-switching.h 1128
/usr/include/gdm/simple-greeter/gdm-login-extension.h 6496
/usr/lib/pkgconfig/gdm.pc 224
/usr/lib/pkgconfig/gdmsimplegreeter.pc 295
/usr/share/gir-1.0/Gdm-1.0.gir 340747
gdm :
…
/usr/lib64/libgdm.so 15
/usr/lib64/libgdm.so.1 15
/usr/lib64/libgdm.so.1.0.0 145648
/usr/lib64/libgdmsimplegreeter.so 28
/usr/lib64/libgdmsimplegreeter.so.1 28
/usr/lib64/libgdmsimplegreeter.so.1.0.0 91832
…
Has this been introduced recently, or has it been like that always?
10 years, 9 months
Creating a "super rpm" that installs other rpms
by Fred White
Hello,
I'm creating a "super rpm" which in turn installs other rpms, and executes
a script and performs non-interactive installation (using expect). These
are application specific RPMs and are currently not available in our
rhn/spacewalk channels. These RPMs needs to be installed in a specific
order and some of them also needs to be installed with nodeps (rpm -i
--nodeps), since there are missing dependencies, and there are vendor
instructions to do so.
I'm seeking advise and suggestions on two issues below:
Issue 1) What are general Fedora packaging guidelines around creating such
an RPM? I'm looking to understand what are the caveats
(non-recommendations) to this approach.
- I'm not adding a list of these RPMs in the %Requires section of the
SPEC file because that requires further modification of the rhn/spacewalk
channels.
- RPM installation will be done in the %install section and the script
will be run in the %postinstall using expect (haven't looked at this yet)
Issue 2) I went ahead and built this anyway. Please fine snippet from the
SPEC file and output here:
http://fpaste.org/fuK4/
I'm not clearing RPM_BUILD_ROOT in my install section, but while building
it clears it anyway, hence my installation fails since there are not rpms
there at that time. Is this normal?
So what *should* happen is:
%prep
.. unpacking source
.. cp %(_builddir)/foo %(buildroot)
%install
rpm -ivh a.rpm
But instead:
%prep
.. unpacking source
.. cp %(_builddir)/foo %(buildroot)
%install
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
.. no rpms to install
Any advise and suggestions is highly appreciated. - Thanks!
10 years, 9 months
