1:54 a.m.
seth vidal <skvidal <at> fedoraproject.org> writes:
Just to make sure I understand you. You're changing the packages
to have
different requirements and you're NOT changing the evr of the pkg?
Really? Don't do that.
but even so - what dep errors are you getting? Can you include them?
Well, I know it looks odd, but I'm not trying to be perverse, on the
contrary. I needed to generate F14 deltarpm binary rpms that use the new
compression, but wanted to use no more than necessary from F15. It's
necessary to use F15's xz packages, obviously, but it turns out that the
F14 deltarpm src package works as long as rpmbuild is run while the F15
xz packages are installed. The "old" and "new" in my directory names
refer to old and new compression, so "deltarpm.old" and "xz.old"
contain
the standard F14 binaries. If I take out the first "run" from my script,
here is the output:
[root@compaq-pc RPMS]# yum shell compression_downgrade.txt
Loaded plugins: langpacks, presto, refresh-packagekit, security
Adding en_US to language list
Setting up Yum Shell
Setting up Reinstall Process
Examining deltarpm.old/deltaiso-3.6-0.6.20110223git.fc14.x86_64.rpm:
deltaiso-3.6-0.6.20110223git.fc14.x86_64
Examining deltarpm.old/deltarpm-3.6-0.6.20110223git.fc14.x86_64.rpm:
deltarpm-3.6-0.6.20110223git.fc14.x86_64
Examining
deltarpm.old/python-deltarpm-3.6-0.6.20110223git.fc14.x86_64.rpm:
python-deltarpm-3.6-0.6.20110223git.fc14.x86_64
Setting up Remove Process
Setting up Downgrade Process
Examining xz.old/xz-4.999.9-0.2.beta.20100401git.fc14.x86_64.rpm:
xz-4.999.9-0.2.beta.20100401git.fc14.x86_64
Examining xz.old/xz-devel-4.999.9-0.2.beta.20100401git.fc14.x86_64.rpm:
xz-devel-4.999.9-0.2.beta.20100401git.fc14.x86_64
Examining xz.old/xz-libs-4.999.9-0.2.beta.20100401git.fc14.x86_64.rpm:
xz-libs-4.999.9-0.2.beta.20100401git.fc14.x86_64
--> Running transaction check
---> Package deltaiso.x86_64 0:3.6-0.6.20110223git.fc14 set to be
reinstalled
---> Package deltarpm.x86_64 0:3.6-0.6.20110223git.fc14 set to be
reinstalled
---> Package python-deltarpm.x86_64 0:3.6-0.6.20110223git.fc14 set to be
reinstalled
---> Package xz.x86_64 0:4.999.9-0.2.beta.20100401git.fc14 set to be
downgraded
---> Package xz.x86_64 0:5.0.1-2.fc14 set to be erased
---> Package xz-compat-libs.x86_64 0:5.0.1-2.fc14 set to be erased
---> Package xz-devel.x86_64 0:4.999.9-0.2.beta.20100401git.fc14 set to
be downgraded
---> Package xz-devel.x86_64 0:5.0.1-2.fc14 set to be erased
---> Package xz-libs.x86_64 0:4.999.9-0.2.beta.20100401git.fc14 set to
be downgraded
---> Package xz-libs.x86_64 0:5.0.1-2.fc14 set to be erased
--> Finished Dependency Resolution
Error: Package: deltaiso-3.6-0.6.20110223git.fc14.x86_64
(@/deltaiso-3.6-0.6.20110223git.fc14.x86_64)
Requires: liblzma.so.5()(64bit)
Removing: xz-libs-5.0.1-2.fc14.x86_64 (@/xz-libs-5.0.1-2.fc14.x86_64)
liblzma.so.5()(64bit)
Downgraded By: xz-libs-4.999.9-0.2.beta.20100401git.fc14.x86_64
(/xz-libs-4.999.9-0.2.beta.20100401git.fc14.x86_64)
Not found
Error: Package: python-deltarpm-3.6-0.6.20110223git.fc14.x86_64
(@/python-deltarpm-3.6-0.6.20110223git.fc14.x86_64)
Requires: liblzma.so.5()(64bit)
Removing: xz-libs-5.0.1-2.fc14.x86_64 (@/xz-libs-5.0.1-2.fc14.x86_64)
liblzma.so.5()(64bit)
Downgraded By: xz-libs-4.999.9-0.2.beta.20100401git.fc14.x86_64
(/xz-libs-4.999.9-0.2.beta.20100401git.fc14.x86_64)
Not found
Error: Package: deltarpm-3.6-0.6.20110223git.fc14.x86_64
(@/deltarpm-3.6-0.6.20110223git.fc14.x86_64)
Requires: liblzma.so.5()(64bit)
Removing: xz-libs-5.0.1-2.fc14.x86_64 (@/xz-libs-5.0.1-2.fc14.x86_64)
liblzma.so.5()(64bit)
Downgraded By: xz-libs-4.999.9-0.2.beta.20100401git.fc14.x86_64
(/xz-libs-4.999.9-0.2.beta.20100401git.fc14.x86_64)
Not found
Leaving Shell
[root@compaq-pc RPMS]#
5:50 a.m.
Andre Robatino <robatino <at> fedoraproject.org> writes:
Well, I know it looks odd, but I'm not trying to be perverse, on
the
contrary. I needed to generate F14 deltarpm binary rpms that use the new
compression, but wanted to use no more than necessary from F15. It's
necessary to use F15's xz packages, obviously, but it turns out that the
F14 deltarpm src package works as long as rpmbuild is run while the F15
xz packages are installed.
Actually, at the moment the EVR of the F14, F15, and rawhide deltarpm packages
are the same except for the disttag (deltarpm-3.6-0.6.20110223git.fc14,
deltarpm-3.6-0.6.20110223git.fc15, deltarpm-3.6-0.6.20110223git.fc16) so even if
I used one of the others, the resulting F14 rpmbuild rpms would still have the
same EVR as the regular F14 packages.
6:16 a.m.
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 11:50:09 +0000 (UTC), Andre wrote:
Andre Robatino <robatino <at> fedoraproject.org> writes:
> Well, I know it looks odd, but I'm not trying to be perverse, on the
> contrary. I needed to generate F14 deltarpm binary rpms that use the new
> compression, but wanted to use no more than necessary from F15. It's
> necessary to use F15's xz packages, obviously, but it turns out that the
> F14 deltarpm src package works as long as rpmbuild is run while the F15
> xz packages are installed.
Actually, at the moment the EVR of the F14, F15, and rawhide deltarpm packages
are the same except for the disttag (deltarpm-3.6-0.6.20110223git.fc14,
deltarpm-3.6-0.6.20110223git.fc15, deltarpm-3.6-0.6.20110223git.fc16) so even if
I used one of the others, the resulting F14 rpmbuild rpms would still have the
same EVR as the regular F14 packages.
The dist tag is part of the R in EVR, however, so whenever you rpmbuild
something in order to _rebuild_ it, you need to bump the R to turn the build
into a valid update. For dist-specific rebuilds, you would append your own
least-significant release value at the right side of the dist tag.
7:02 a.m.
Michael Schwendt <mschwendt <at> gmail.com> writes:
The dist tag is part of the R in EVR, however, so whenever you
rpmbuild
something in order to _rebuild_ it, you need to bump the R to turn the build
into a valid update. For dist-specific rebuilds, you would append your own
least-significant release value at the right side of the dist tag.
In the rpmbuild man page, I didn't see any obvious way to do this (but am not
familiar with rpmbuild so might have missed something). The default behavior,
which replaces the source rpm's disttag with "fc14", gives the same EVR as
the
original F14 rpms.
8:39 a.m.
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:02:11 +0000 (UTC), Andre wrote:
> The dist tag is part of the R in EVR, however, so whenever you
rpmbuild
> something in order to _rebuild_ it, you need to bump the R to turn the build
> into a valid update. For dist-specific rebuilds, you would append your own
> least-significant release value at the right side of the dist tag.
In the rpmbuild man page, I didn't see any obvious way to do this (but am not
familiar with rpmbuild so might have missed something). The default behavior,
which replaces the source rpm's disttag with "fc14", gives the same EVR as
the
original F14 rpms.
rpmbuild cannot do it on-the-fly for a given src.rpm, but there are tools that
can be used to automate such builds:
$ rpm -ql rpmdevtools|grep bump
/usr/bin/rpmdev-bumpspec
/usr/share/man/man1/rpmdev-bumpspec.1.gz
Notice option -r in the manual.
4829
days inactive
4829
days old
4 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Andre Robatino -
Michael Schwendt