Re: [CentOS] spec file frustration (rant)

[Leonard den Ottolander]

Hello Johnny,

On Wed, 2016-12-14 at 23:21 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> Not sure what you are asking.
> 
> You don't want to put large GZ tarballs in git .. we only put text file
> in git.  All binary files are put in a look-aside cache.

Alright. That is exactly the answer I was looking for :) . Thanks.

Regards,
Leonard.

-- 
mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] spec file frustration (rant)

[Johnny Hughes]

On 12/14/2016 03:32 PM, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
> Hello Phil,
> 
> On Wed, 2016-12-14 at 20:57 +, Phil Wyett wrote:
>> The path to the repo is wrong.
>>
>> git clone https://git.centos.org/git/centos-git-common.git
> 
> Too late to boost my brain with more coffee for today. Not as sharp as I
> would like to be ;) .
> 
> Still leaves me with the question why a script to download the source
> tarballs is needed when just not adding a .gitignore entry for them to
> the repos would fix the issue. Could someone involved care to explain
> the rationale behind this or point me to a thread where this has been
> discussed/explained?
> 

Not sure what you are asking.

You don't want to put large GZ tarballs in git .. we only put text file
in git.  All binary files are put in a look-aside cache.

So, when you do git clone you get all the text sources .. when you do
get_sources.sh (or into_srpm.sh) you get all the binary sources
(tarballs, etc.).  You need both to be able to build the SRPM.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] spec file frustration (rant)

[Phil Wyett]

On Wed, 2016-12-14 at 22:32 +0100, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
> Hello Phil,
> 
> On Wed, 2016-12-14 at 20:57 +, Phil Wyett wrote:
> > The path to the repo is wrong.
> > 
> > git clone https://git.centos.org/git/centos-git-common.git
> 
> Too late to boost my brain with more coffee for today. Not as sharp as I
> would like to be ;) .
> 
> Still leaves me with the question why a script to download the source
> tarballs is needed when just not adding a .gitignore entry for them to
> the repos would fix the issue. Could someone involved care to explain
> the rationale behind this or point me to a thread where this has been
> discussed/explained?
> 
> Cheers,
> Leonard.
> 

Hi,

Read: https://wiki.centos.org/Sources

This doc explains structure of text and non text sources/overall
structure of the server.

Regards

Phil

-- 

Google+: https://plus.google.com/+PhilWyett
Blog: https://philwyett-hemi.blogspot.co.uk/
GitLab: https://gitlab.com/philwyett_hemi/





signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] spec file frustration (rant)

[Leonard den Ottolander]

Hello Phil,

On Wed, 2016-12-14 at 20:57 +, Phil Wyett wrote:
> The path to the repo is wrong.
> 
> git clone https://git.centos.org/git/centos-git-common.git

Too late to boost my brain with more coffee for today. Not as sharp as I
would like to be ;) .

Still leaves me with the question why a script to download the source
tarballs is needed when just not adding a .gitignore entry for them to
the repos would fix the issue. Could someone involved care to explain
the rationale behind this or point me to a thread where this has been
discussed/explained?

Cheers,
Leonard.

-- 
mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] spec file frustration (rant)

[Phil Wyett]

On Wed, 2016-12-14 at 21:38 +0100, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
> Hello Jonathan,
> 
> On Wed, 2016-12-14 at 15:03 -0500, Jonathan Billings wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 07:29:19PM +0100, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
> > > > get_sources.sh
> > > 
> > > The name suggests this is what we need (or do we??) If only I could find
> > > that script anywhere...
> > 
> > Johnny said it at the beginning of his email.  I'll paste it again so
> > you don't have to go re-read it:
> 
> > On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 06:58:02AM -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> > > They are located here:
> > > 
> > > https://git.centos.org/summary/centos-git-common.git
> 
> Thanks for pointing out my oversight.
> 
> However, cloning that repo does not work...
> 
> $ git clone https://git.centos.org/summary/centos-git-common.git
> Initialized empty Git repository
> in /data/leonard/srcothers/centos/centos-git-common/.git/
> warning: remote HEAD refers to nonexistent ref, unable to checkout.
> 
> What am I missing?

Hi,

The path to the repo is wrong.

git clone https://git.centos.org/git/centos-git-common.git

The one you are trying is the web interface address.

Regards

Phil

-- 

Google+: https://plus.google.com/+PhilWyett
Blog: https://philwyett-hemi.blogspot.co.uk/
GitLab: https://gitlab.com/philwyett_hemi/





signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] spec file frustration (rant)

[Leonard den Ottolander]

Hello Jonathan,

On Wed, 2016-12-14 at 15:03 -0500, Jonathan Billings wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 07:29:19PM +0100, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
> > > get_sources.sh
> > 
> > The name suggests this is what we need (or do we??) If only I could find
> > that script anywhere...
> 
> Johnny said it at the beginning of his email.  I'll paste it again so
> you don't have to go re-read it:

> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 06:58:02AM -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> > They are located here:
> > 
> > https://git.centos.org/summary/centos-git-common.git

Thanks for pointing out my oversight.

However, cloning that repo does not work...

$ git clone https://git.centos.org/summary/centos-git-common.git
Initialized empty Git repository
in /data/leonard/srcothers/centos/centos-git-common/.git/
warning: remote HEAD refers to nonexistent ref, unable to checkout.

What am I missing?

And then there remains the question: git checkout for a package gathers
the spec file and patches, so why do we need a script to get the source
tarball when all that is stopping it from getting checked out is an
entry in .gitignore? A whole script to undo that one entry
in .gitignore? What's the idea behind this?

Regards,
Leonard.

-- 
mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] spec file frustration (rant)

[Jonathan Billings]

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 07:29:19PM +0100, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
> > get_sources.sh
> 
> The name suggests this is what we need (or do we??) If only I could find
> that script anywhere...

Johnny said it at the beginning of his email.  I'll paste it again so
you don't have to go re-read it:


On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 06:58:02AM -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish .. but the tools to get
> an SRPM or the Sources from CentOS are dead simple.
> 
> They are located here:
> 
> https://git.centos.org/summary/centos-git-common.git
> 
> And they are very easy .. and most are bash scripts.


-- 
Jonathan Billings 
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] spec file frustration (rant)

[Leonard den Ottolander]

Hello Johnny,

On Wed, 2016-12-14 at 06:58 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> So:
> 
> git clone https://git.centos.org/summary/rpms!skopeo

Apart from the syntax error because the exclamation mark is not escaped
this leads nowhere.

So I tried:

$ git clone https://git.centos.org/git/rpms/skopeo.git

> (that just happens to be what I am working on right now)
> 
> cd skopeo
> 
> git branch -a (so you can see the branches .. optional)
> 
> git checkout c7-extras

So far so good. We now got a spec file. Doing the same for bc: a spec
file and patches. Still no source.

> get_sources.sh

The name suggests this is what we need (or do we??) If only I could find
that script anywhere...

So lets dig around a bit:

skopeo]$ cat .gitignore 
SOURCES/skopeo-1f655f3.tar.gz

bc]$ cat .gitignore 
SOURCES/bc-1.06.95.tar.bz2

python-rhsm]$ cat .gitignore 
SOURCES/python-rhsm-1.17.9.tar.gz

I think this solves Alice's issue once the .gitignore file is fixed.

For some reason the tarballs seem to be ignored. Something I need to fix
in my git config or is it at your end?

Regards,
Leonard.

-- 
mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] spec file frustration (rant)

[Johnny Hughes]

On 12/13/2016 04:16 PM, Alice Wonder wrote:
> I'm getting spec files from centos git which is really convenient when
> the related source is easy to find. But some things - e.g. from a spec file
> 
> # How to create the source tarball:
> #
> # git clone git://git.fedorahosted.org/git/python-rhsm.git/
> # cd client/python-rhsm
> # tito build --tag python-rhsm-$VERSION-$RELEASE --tgz
> 
> Never used tito before, so I install it and try, and rather than giving
> me the source package I need - it gives me a python traceback
> complaining that I haven't configured some things properly.
> 
> Seems a lot of the software distribution world is getting overly complex
> with an expectation that the end user who needs to exercise his FLOSS
> rights has to use git or nodejs or for php composer or whatever just to
> get what use to be available with no more complexity than choosing
> tar.gz or tar.bz2 or .zip if the dev was Windows.
> 
> Whatever happened to KISS and why can't source tarballs be distributed
> as source tarballs?
> 
> Back when I was a Fedora packager - the packaging guidelines would
> reject a package of the Source tarball wasn't a URL and if the timestamp
> on the tarball in the src.rpm didn't match upstream even if the checksum
> was identical.
> 
> Guess those days are gone.
> 
> /rant

I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish .. but the tools to get
an SRPM or the Sources from CentOS are dead simple.

They are located here:

https://git.centos.org/summary/centos-git-common.git

And they are very easy .. and most are bash scripts.

So:

git clone https://git.centos.org/summary/rpms!skopeo

(that just happens to be what I am working on right now)

cd skopeo

git branch -a (so you can see the branches .. optional)

git checkout c7-extras

get_sources.sh

=

Now you have the full SRPM in the same directory structure as if you had
installed the SRPM.

If you would have used 'into_srpm.sh' instead of 'get_sources.sh' .. you
would have the SRPM generated as well as the full tree.  There are
switches for the tools (-c for get_sources.sh to check the crc info for
already downloaded files .. -d for into_srpm.sh for changing the dist
tag of a generated SRPM, etc.)

I use these tools for every package built for CentOS and they are very
easy to use.

Now, obviously that does not include development inside an extracted
SRPM.  But I normally just use diff (or git) to track changes and
generate patches, etc.

Thanks,
Johnny Hughes



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] spec file frustration (rant)

[Leonard den Ottolander]

Hello Valeri,

On Tue, 2016-12-13 at 17:21 -0600, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
> That is inevitable: some of the tools/projects to work may require you to
> bring a huge external infrastructure if you want to use them. This has no
> way around.

The point is not that one requires (many) tools to build a project, the
problem is that tools like f.e. composer make it unclear to the user
what exactly is being pulled from where and for what reason and whether
the pulled sources are being verified with checksums. Just providing a
text with a set of requirements and urls makes it much easier for the
user to verify the sources. It's about transparency.

Regards,
Leonard.

-- 
mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] spec file frustration (rant)

[Leonard den Ottolander]

Hello Alice,

On Tue, 2016-12-13 at 14:16 -0800, Alice Wonder wrote:
> I'm getting spec files from centos git which is really convenient when 
> the related source is easy to find. But some things - e.g. from a spec file
> 
> # How to create the source tarball:
> #
> # git clone git://git.fedorahosted.org/git/python-rhsm.git/
> # cd client/python-rhsm
> # tito build --tag python-rhsm-$VERSION-$RELEASE --tgz

Seems like a valid issue to take upstream. Especially since Red Hat now
uses the centos repo to provide their sources to the public.

It is possible to get a free RH developer account (speaking of
transparency, it took me a while to find the right banner to click on to
actually get that free account ;p ), but the source code is only
provided as 2 dvds and it is unclear to me where to find sources for
updated packages. Or perhaps you have to download 2 dvds every time they
update that image. Ouch.

Regards,
Leonard.

-- 
mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] spec file frustration (rant)

[Phil Wyett]

On Wed, 2016-12-14 at 00:25 +, Phil Wyett wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-12-13 at 16:14 -0800, Alice Wonder wrote:
> > On 12/13/2016 03:57 PM, Phil Wyett wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2016-12-13 at 15:39 -0800, Alice Wonder wrote:
> > >> On 12/13/2016 03:34 PM, Phil Wyett wrote:
> > >>> On Tue, 2016-12-13 at 14:16 -0800, Alice Wonder wrote:
> >  I'm getting spec files from centos git which is really convenient when
> >  the related source is easy to find. But some things - e.g. from a spec 
> >  file
> > 
> >  # How to create the source tarball:
> >  #
> >  # git clone git://git.fedorahosted.org/git/python-rhsm.git/
> >  # cd client/python-rhsm
> >  # tito build --tag python-rhsm-$VERSION-$RELEASE --tgz
> > 
> >  Never used tito before, so I install it and try, and rather than giving
> >  me the source package I need - it gives me a python traceback
> >  complaining that I haven't configured some things properly.
> > 
> >  Seems a lot of the software distribution world is getting overly 
> >  complex
> >  with an expectation that the end user who needs to exercise his FLOSS
> >  rights has to use git or nodejs or for php composer or whatever just to
> >  get what use to be available with no more complexity than choosing
> >  tar.gz or tar.bz2 or .zip if the dev was Windows.
> > 
> >  Whatever happened to KISS and why can't source tarballs be distributed
> >  as source tarballs?
> > 
> >  Back when I was a Fedora packager - the packaging guidelines would
> >  reject a package of the Source tarball wasn't a URL and if the 
> >  timestamp
> >  on the tarball in the src.rpm didn't match upstream even if the 
> >  checksum
> >  was identical.
> > 
> >  Guess those days are gone.
> > 
> >  /rant
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> Not seen this one before, but don't play with much python. The SPEC
> > >>> really should just refer too a URL too a compressed archive as the
> > >>> packages home site supplies them.
> > >>>
> > >>> https://github.com/candlepin/python-rhsm/releases
> > >>>
> > >>> Regards
> > >>>
> > >>> Phil
> > >>
> > >> I went to the github and it doesn't have a packaged release that matches
> > >> the version. I managed to find it in the build system logs, but its just
> > >> weird.
> > >>
> > >> If I recall, formerly for a tarball to be different than what was on
> > >> upstream, it had to have a legal reason (e.g. patents) and a script in
> > >> the sources that could turn upstream tarball into the version used.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Out of interest, which version do you refer to?
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Phil
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > 1.17.9 is the version in CentOS 7.3 and what I needed (and found on a 
> > build server)
> 
> Hi,
> 
> To get source for a package in CentOS, you follow the get_sources.sh'
> section and 'Example workflow' section in:
> 
> https://wiki.centos.org/Sources
> 
> For your package...
> 
> * Setup 'centos-git-common' i.e. clone it to your system.
> 
> * Do the clone and checkout for your package.
> 
> git clone https://git.centos.org/summary/rpms!python-rhsm.git
> cd python-rhsm
> git checkout c7
> sh /get_sources.sh
> 
> You should then have the spec, any patches and tarball(s).
> 
> Regards
> 
> Phil
> 

Sorry rushed that.

Should be:

git clone https://git.centos.org/git/rpms/python-rhsm.git

Regards

Phil

-- 

Google+: https://plus.google.com/+PhilWyett
Blog: https://philwyett-hemi.blogspot.co.uk/
GitLab: https://gitlab.com/philwyett_hemi/





signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] spec file frustration (rant)

[Phil Wyett]

On Tue, 2016-12-13 at 16:14 -0800, Alice Wonder wrote:
> On 12/13/2016 03:57 PM, Phil Wyett wrote:
> > On Tue, 2016-12-13 at 15:39 -0800, Alice Wonder wrote:
> >> On 12/13/2016 03:34 PM, Phil Wyett wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 2016-12-13 at 14:16 -0800, Alice Wonder wrote:
>  I'm getting spec files from centos git which is really convenient when
>  the related source is easy to find. But some things - e.g. from a spec 
>  file
> 
>  # How to create the source tarball:
>  #
>  # git clone git://git.fedorahosted.org/git/python-rhsm.git/
>  # cd client/python-rhsm
>  # tito build --tag python-rhsm-$VERSION-$RELEASE --tgz
> 
>  Never used tito before, so I install it and try, and rather than giving
>  me the source package I need - it gives me a python traceback
>  complaining that I haven't configured some things properly.
> 
>  Seems a lot of the software distribution world is getting overly complex
>  with an expectation that the end user who needs to exercise his FLOSS
>  rights has to use git or nodejs or for php composer or whatever just to
>  get what use to be available with no more complexity than choosing
>  tar.gz or tar.bz2 or .zip if the dev was Windows.
> 
>  Whatever happened to KISS and why can't source tarballs be distributed
>  as source tarballs?
> 
>  Back when I was a Fedora packager - the packaging guidelines would
>  reject a package of the Source tarball wasn't a URL and if the timestamp
>  on the tarball in the src.rpm didn't match upstream even if the checksum
>  was identical.
> 
>  Guess those days are gone.
> 
>  /rant
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Not seen this one before, but don't play with much python. The SPEC
> >>> really should just refer too a URL too a compressed archive as the
> >>> packages home site supplies them.
> >>>
> >>> https://github.com/candlepin/python-rhsm/releases
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>>
> >>> Phil
> >>
> >> I went to the github and it doesn't have a packaged release that matches
> >> the version. I managed to find it in the build system logs, but its just
> >> weird.
> >>
> >> If I recall, formerly for a tarball to be different than what was on
> >> upstream, it had to have a legal reason (e.g. patents) and a script in
> >> the sources that could turn upstream tarball into the version used.
> >>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Out of interest, which version do you refer to?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Phil
> >
> >
> 
> 1.17.9 is the version in CentOS 7.3 and what I needed (and found on a 
> build server)

Hi,

To get source for a package in CentOS, you follow the get_sources.sh'
section and 'Example workflow' section in:

https://wiki.centos.org/Sources

For your package...

* Setup 'centos-git-common' i.e. clone it to your system.

* Do the clone and checkout for your package.

git clone https://git.centos.org/summary/rpms!python-rhsm.git
cd python-rhsm
git checkout c7
sh /get_sources.sh

You should then have the spec, any patches and tarball(s).

Regards

Phil

-- 

Google+: https://plus.google.com/+PhilWyett
Blog: https://philwyett-hemi.blogspot.co.uk/
GitLab: https://gitlab.com/philwyett_hemi/





signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] spec file frustration (rant)

[Alice Wonder]

On 12/13/2016 03:57 PM, Phil Wyett wrote:

On Tue, 2016-12-13 at 15:39 -0800, Alice Wonder wrote:

On 12/13/2016 03:34 PM, Phil Wyett wrote:

On Tue, 2016-12-13 at 14:16 -0800, Alice Wonder wrote:

I'm getting spec files from centos git which is really convenient when
the related source is easy to find. But some things - e.g. from a spec file

# How to create the source tarball:
#
# git clone git://git.fedorahosted.org/git/python-rhsm.git/
# cd client/python-rhsm
# tito build --tag python-rhsm-$VERSION-$RELEASE --tgz

Never used tito before, so I install it and try, and rather than giving
me the source package I need - it gives me a python traceback
complaining that I haven't configured some things properly.

Seems a lot of the software distribution world is getting overly complex
with an expectation that the end user who needs to exercise his FLOSS
rights has to use git or nodejs or for php composer or whatever just to
get what use to be available with no more complexity than choosing
tar.gz or tar.bz2 or .zip if the dev was Windows.

Whatever happened to KISS and why can't source tarballs be distributed
as source tarballs?

Back when I was a Fedora packager - the packaging guidelines would
reject a package of the Source tarball wasn't a URL and if the timestamp
on the tarball in the src.rpm didn't match upstream even if the checksum
was identical.

Guess those days are gone.

/rant


Hi,

Not seen this one before, but don't play with much python. The SPEC
really should just refer too a URL too a compressed archive as the
packages home site supplies them.

https://github.com/candlepin/python-rhsm/releases

Regards

Phil


I went to the github and it doesn't have a packaged release that matches
the version. I managed to find it in the build system logs, but its just
weird.

If I recall, formerly for a tarball to be different than what was on
upstream, it had to have a legal reason (e.g. patents) and a script in
the sources that could turn upstream tarball into the version used.



Hi,

Out of interest, which version do you refer to?

Regards

Phil




1.17.9 is the version in CentOS 7.3 and what I needed (and found on a 
build server)


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] spec file frustration (rant)

[Phil Wyett]

On Tue, 2016-12-13 at 15:39 -0800, Alice Wonder wrote:
> On 12/13/2016 03:34 PM, Phil Wyett wrote:
> > On Tue, 2016-12-13 at 14:16 -0800, Alice Wonder wrote:
> >> I'm getting spec files from centos git which is really convenient when
> >> the related source is easy to find. But some things - e.g. from a spec file
> >>
> >> # How to create the source tarball:
> >> #
> >> # git clone git://git.fedorahosted.org/git/python-rhsm.git/
> >> # cd client/python-rhsm
> >> # tito build --tag python-rhsm-$VERSION-$RELEASE --tgz
> >>
> >> Never used tito before, so I install it and try, and rather than giving
> >> me the source package I need - it gives me a python traceback
> >> complaining that I haven't configured some things properly.
> >>
> >> Seems a lot of the software distribution world is getting overly complex
> >> with an expectation that the end user who needs to exercise his FLOSS
> >> rights has to use git or nodejs or for php composer or whatever just to
> >> get what use to be available with no more complexity than choosing
> >> tar.gz or tar.bz2 or .zip if the dev was Windows.
> >>
> >> Whatever happened to KISS and why can't source tarballs be distributed
> >> as source tarballs?
> >>
> >> Back when I was a Fedora packager - the packaging guidelines would
> >> reject a package of the Source tarball wasn't a URL and if the timestamp
> >> on the tarball in the src.rpm didn't match upstream even if the checksum
> >> was identical.
> >>
> >> Guess those days are gone.
> >>
> >> /rant
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Not seen this one before, but don't play with much python. The SPEC
> > really should just refer too a URL too a compressed archive as the
> > packages home site supplies them.
> >
> > https://github.com/candlepin/python-rhsm/releases
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Phil
> 
> I went to the github and it doesn't have a packaged release that matches 
> the version. I managed to find it in the build system logs, but its just 
> weird.
> 
> If I recall, formerly for a tarball to be different than what was on 
> upstream, it had to have a legal reason (e.g. patents) and a script in 
> the sources that could turn upstream tarball into the version used.
> 

Hi,

Out of interest, which version do you refer to?

Regards

Phil

-- 

Google+: https://plus.google.com/+PhilWyett
Blog: https://philwyett-hemi.blogspot.co.uk/
GitLab: https://gitlab.com/philwyett_hemi/





signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] spec file frustration (rant)

[Alice Wonder]

On 12/13/2016 03:34 PM, Phil Wyett wrote:

On Tue, 2016-12-13 at 14:16 -0800, Alice Wonder wrote:

I'm getting spec files from centos git which is really convenient when
the related source is easy to find. But some things - e.g. from a spec file

# How to create the source tarball:
#
# git clone git://git.fedorahosted.org/git/python-rhsm.git/
# cd client/python-rhsm
# tito build --tag python-rhsm-$VERSION-$RELEASE --tgz

Never used tito before, so I install it and try, and rather than giving
me the source package I need - it gives me a python traceback
complaining that I haven't configured some things properly.

Seems a lot of the software distribution world is getting overly complex
with an expectation that the end user who needs to exercise his FLOSS
rights has to use git or nodejs or for php composer or whatever just to
get what use to be available with no more complexity than choosing
tar.gz or tar.bz2 or .zip if the dev was Windows.

Whatever happened to KISS and why can't source tarballs be distributed
as source tarballs?

Back when I was a Fedora packager - the packaging guidelines would
reject a package of the Source tarball wasn't a URL and if the timestamp
on the tarball in the src.rpm didn't match upstream even if the checksum
was identical.

Guess those days are gone.

/rant


Hi,

Not seen this one before, but don't play with much python. The SPEC
really should just refer too a URL too a compressed archive as the
packages home site supplies them.

https://github.com/candlepin/python-rhsm/releases

Regards

Phil


I went to the github and it doesn't have a packaged release that matches 
the version. I managed to find it in the build system logs, but its just 
weird.


If I recall, formerly for a tarball to be different than what was on 
upstream, it had to have a legal reason (e.g. patents) and a script in 
the sources that could turn upstream tarball into the version used.


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] spec file frustration (rant)

[Phil Wyett]

On Tue, 2016-12-13 at 14:16 -0800, Alice Wonder wrote:
> I'm getting spec files from centos git which is really convenient when 
> the related source is easy to find. But some things - e.g. from a spec file
> 
> # How to create the source tarball:
> #
> # git clone git://git.fedorahosted.org/git/python-rhsm.git/
> # cd client/python-rhsm
> # tito build --tag python-rhsm-$VERSION-$RELEASE --tgz
> 
> Never used tito before, so I install it and try, and rather than giving 
> me the source package I need - it gives me a python traceback 
> complaining that I haven't configured some things properly.
> 
> Seems a lot of the software distribution world is getting overly complex 
> with an expectation that the end user who needs to exercise his FLOSS 
> rights has to use git or nodejs or for php composer or whatever just to 
> get what use to be available with no more complexity than choosing 
> tar.gz or tar.bz2 or .zip if the dev was Windows.
> 
> Whatever happened to KISS and why can't source tarballs be distributed 
> as source tarballs?
> 
> Back when I was a Fedora packager - the packaging guidelines would 
> reject a package of the Source tarball wasn't a URL and if the timestamp 
> on the tarball in the src.rpm didn't match upstream even if the checksum 
> was identical.
> 
> Guess those days are gone.
> 
> /rant

Hi,

Not seen this one before, but don't play with much python. The SPEC
really should just refer too a URL too a compressed archive as the
packages home site supplies them.

https://github.com/candlepin/python-rhsm/releases

Regards

Phil

-- 

Google+: https://plus.google.com/+PhilWyett
Blog: https://philwyett-hemi.blogspot.co.uk/
GitLab: https://gitlab.com/philwyett_hemi/





signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] spec file frustration (rant)

[Alice Wonder]

On 12/13/2016 03:21 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:



Another thing is: when building of the project (libraries, binaries, etc)
requires sophisticated infrastructure that is not necessary after you
built it.


Yes, that's why I mentioned nodejs. A rather cool JavaScript project 
didn't do quite what I wanted, but to modify it I had to install some 
nodejs environment that was used to "build" the JavaScript and had to be 
re-run for any tweak to the components and always built a rather large 
JavaScript file even minified.


I ended up just scrapping it any writing my own even though its not as 
flexible, and I'm still trying to figure out how requiring a node setup 
is a good idea to require for generating a static file.


But that's the trend.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] spec file frustration (rant)

[Valeri Galtsev]

On Tue, December 13, 2016 5:09 pm, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 12/13/2016 2:35 PM, Nicolas Kovacs wrote:
>> That's why I'm running Slackware on most of my systems.
>
> that doesn't solve the issue of various FOSS projects using all kinda
> whacky build toolkits and requirements.
>
> one tool I wanted to build a few weeks ago depended on common lisp.
>
> another package I wanted to play with required this whole complex python
> infrastructure which I'd never seen or heard of before (Im not a python
> dev although I can follow bits of code, and even make minor changes),
> and the build commands in that infrastructure were pulling in source
> packages from various servers all over the world, which kinda scared me
> from a security standpoint.

That is inevitable: some of the tools/projects to work may require you to
bring a huge external infrastructure if you want to use them. This has no
way around.

Another thing is: when building of the project (libraries, binaries, etc)
requires sophisticated infrastructure that is not necessary after you
built it. This and only this is what I meant when mentioned FreeBSD pkg
and poudriere for building custom configured packages - you only need that
infrastructure when building (on build box in build jail...).

But in general, yes, the world seems to have gone the way "why simple,
when you can do it complex way".

I guess I should have added rant tags...

Valeri

>
>
>
> --
> john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz
>
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>



Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] spec file frustration (rant)

[John R Pierce]

On 12/13/2016 2:35 PM, Nicolas Kovacs wrote:

That's why I'm running Slackware on most of my systems.


that doesn't solve the issue of various FOSS projects using all kinda 
whacky build toolkits and requirements.


one tool I wanted to build a few weeks ago depended on common lisp.

another package I wanted to play with required this whole complex python 
infrastructure which I'd never seen or heard of before (Im not a python 
dev although I can follow bits of code, and even make minor changes), 
and the build commands in that infrastructure were pulling in source 
packages from various servers all over the world, which kinda scared me 
from a security standpoint.




--
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] spec file frustration (rant)

[Nicolas Kovacs]

Le 13/12/2016 à 23:16, Alice Wonder a écrit :
> Seems a lot of the software distribution world is getting overly complex
> with an expectation that the end user who needs to exercise his FLOSS
> rights has to use git or nodejs or for php composer or whatever just to
> get what use to be available with no more complexity than choosing
> tar.gz or tar.bz2 or .zip if the dev was Windows.
> 
> Whatever happened to KISS



That's why I'm running Slackware on most of my systems.



-- 
Microlinux - Solutions informatiques durables
7, place de l'église - 30730 Montpezat
Web  : http://www.microlinux.fr
Mail : i...@microlinux.fr
Tél. : 04 66 63 10 32
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] spec file frustration (rant)

[Valeri Galtsev]

On Tue, December 13, 2016 4:16 pm, Alice Wonder wrote:
> I'm getting spec files from centos git which is really convenient when
> the related source is easy to find. But some things - e.g. from a spec
> file
>
> # How to create the source tarball:
> #
> # git clone git://git.fedorahosted.org/git/python-rhsm.git/
> # cd client/python-rhsm
> # tito build --tag python-rhsm-$VERSION-$RELEASE --tgz
>
> Never used tito before, so I install it and try, and rather than giving
> me the source package I need - it gives me a python traceback
> complaining that I haven't configured some things properly.
>
> Seems a lot of the software distribution world is getting overly complex
> with an expectation that the end user who needs to exercise his FLOSS
> rights has to use git or nodejs or for php composer or whatever just to
> get what use to be available with no more complexity than choosing
> tar.gz or tar.bz2 or .zip if the dev was Windows.
>
> Whatever happened to KISS and why can't source tarballs be distributed
> as source tarballs?
>
> Back when I was a Fedora packager - the packaging guidelines would
> reject a package of the Source tarball wasn't a URL and if the timestamp
> on the tarball in the src.rpm didn't match upstream even if the checksum
> was identical.
>
> Guess those days are gone.


Not exactly. I'm pretty happy with FreeBSD pkg system, and with poudriere
whenever I need custom configs different from what package maintainers
choice. No unneeded complication crap.

Of course, this is only rant from point of view of mentioning our rival:
FreeBSD on our list ;-)


Valeri

>
> /rant
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>



Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos