[EPEL-devel] Re: [new / help wanted] fence-agents-epel package
wouldnt think make split packages vs all the agents just in the -epel
package as i originally submitted? im fine either way just not clear.
do i need to make other changes or does the rest seem ok since i am not
tied to requiring man pages?
On 2022-08-25 08:29, Troy Dawson wrote:
For the names, the source rpm needs to have the -epel suffice
(fence-agents-epel) but then all the "missing" packages have the same
name they would have if they were in RHEL or Fedora. So in this case
they would be
fence-agents-pve
fence-agents-raritan
fence-agents-rcd-serial
fence-agents-virsh
If you look at my attachment in my previous email I have them set that way.
Troy
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 3:38 PM Alex Talaran <mailto:atala...@gmail.com>> wrote:
i dont need them but wasnt sure if required for epel to keep things
complete and similar to the base package. how did you want me to change
the names? i left it the same as in the original spec file, and named
this one -epel after previous discussion on list
On 2022-08-24 17:13, Troy Dawson wrote:
> I'm sure having all the fence agents in one package is nice for
you, but
> if someone has both Fedora and RHEL based machines, they would
> appreciate the packages having the same naming conventions.
> This is looking pretty good.
> I'll do some poking about for the man pages. How badly do you
want the
> man pages?
>
> Troy
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 6:40 AM Alex Talaran mailto:atala...@gmail.com>
> <mailto:atala...@gmail.com <mailto:atala...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
>
> attached a new spec using 4.10 which should match el9
(desired distro
> version) as you noted.
> srpm and rpm still seem to build fine without man pages,
still not sure
> how to generate them.
>
> On 2022-08-08 17:22, Troy Dawson wrote:
> > Hi Alex,
> > I've been looking into this some.
> >
> > What distribution do you want this for?
> > I haven't seen anywhere in your emails saying if this is
for RHEL
> 8 or
> > RHEL 9?
> > The spec file you have attached is for fence-agents-4.11,
which
> is only
> > in Fedora, so that doesn't let me know either.
> >
> > The major problem is that the fence-agents-pve version has to
> match the
> > fence-agents that is in your version of RHEL.
> > So for RHEL8 (or compatible) it needs to be version
4.2.1. For
> RHEL 9
> > it needs to be 4.10.0
> >
> > We need to start with the correct version of fence-agents and
> work from
> > there.
> >
> > Troy
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 10:03 AM Alex Talaran
mailto:atala...@gmail.com>
> <mailto:atala...@gmail.com <mailto:atala...@gmail.com>>
> > <mailto:atala...@gmail.com <mailto:atala...@gmail.com>
<mailto:atala...@gmail.com <mailto:atala...@gmail.com>>>> wrote:
> >
> > i was able to get this built and installable if anyone
wants
> to help
> > test or maintain it.
> > an issue exists with the man pages not being built
still but
> im not
> > sure
> > how the makefile target works for these so they are
excluded
> for now.
> >
> > maybe some other small tweaks are still needed too
since its
> just a
> > (first for me) stripped down and modified upstream
spec file.
> >
> > On 2022-07-20 08:47, Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
> > > On Wed, 20 Jul 2022, Alex Talaran wrote:
> > >
> > >> i ended up with the same error with that change.
> > >
> > > I am sorry my suggestion did not help.
> > > I don't have a Red Hat compatible machine newer
that RHEL6
> > > (I moved to Ubuntu for work-related reasons)
> > > so I am unable to test things myself.
> > >
> > >> is it possible its getting confused because the
dirname
> in the
> > tarball
> > >> is different than the package name and looking in the
> wrong spot?
> > >
[EPEL-devel] Re: [new / help wanted] fence-agents-epel package
i dont need them but wasnt sure if required for epel to keep things
complete and similar to the base package. how did you want me to change
the names? i left it the same as in the original spec file, and named
this one -epel after previous discussion on list
On 2022-08-24 17:13, Troy Dawson wrote:
I'm sure having all the fence agents in one package is nice for you, but
if someone has both Fedora and RHEL based machines, they would
appreciate the packages having the same naming conventions.
This is looking pretty good.
I'll do some poking about for the man pages. How badly do you want the
man pages?
Troy
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 6:40 AM Alex Talaran <mailto:atala...@gmail.com>> wrote:
attached a new spec using 4.10 which should match el9 (desired distro
version) as you noted.
srpm and rpm still seem to build fine without man pages, still not sure
how to generate them.
On 2022-08-08 17:22, Troy Dawson wrote:
> Hi Alex,
> I've been looking into this some.
>
> What distribution do you want this for?
> I haven't seen anywhere in your emails saying if this is for RHEL
8 or
> RHEL 9?
> The spec file you have attached is for fence-agents-4.11, which
is only
> in Fedora, so that doesn't let me know either.
>
> The major problem is that the fence-agents-pve version has to
match the
> fence-agents that is in your version of RHEL.
> So for RHEL8 (or compatible) it needs to be version 4.2.1. For
RHEL 9
> it needs to be 4.10.0
>
> We need to start with the correct version of fence-agents and
work from
> there.
>
> Troy
>
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 10:03 AM Alex Talaran mailto:atala...@gmail.com>
> <mailto:atala...@gmail.com <mailto:atala...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
>
> i was able to get this built and installable if anyone wants
to help
> test or maintain it.
> an issue exists with the man pages not being built still but
im not
> sure
> how the makefile target works for these so they are excluded
for now.
>
> maybe some other small tweaks are still needed too since its
just a
> (first for me) stripped down and modified upstream spec file.
>
> On 2022-07-20 08:47, Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Jul 2022, Alex Talaran wrote:
> >
> >> i ended up with the same error with that change.
> >
> > I am sorry my suggestion did not help.
> > I don't have a Red Hat compatible machine newer that RHEL6
> > (I moved to Ubuntu for work-related reasons)
> > so I am unable to test things myself.
> >
> >> is it possible its getting confused because the dirname
in the
> tarball
> >> is different than the package name and looking in the
wrong spot?
> >
> > The -n fence-agents-%{version} in
> > %prep
> > %setup -q -n fence-agents-%{version}
> > is supposed to resolve that, but that setup line might
need tweaking
> > to match the contents of the tarball.
> >
> > It is old and may be somewhat dated, but my bible for
rewriting
> .spec
> > files was the book
> > Maximum RPM - Taking the Red Hat Package Manager to
the Limit
> > a version of which is available at
> > http://ftp.rpm.org/max-rpm/index.html
<http://ftp.rpm.org/max-rpm/index.html>
> <http://ftp.rpm.org/max-rpm/index.html
<http://ftp.rpm.org/max-rpm/index.html>>
> >
> >> On 2022-07-19 23:32, Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 19 Jul 2022, Alex Talaran wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> per a previous thread i took a shot at cleaning up the
> fence-agents
> >>>> rpm to only include the missing agents and make a new
package.
> i am
> >>>> having some issues with the source url and getting it to
> build. the
> >>>> srpm is ok, but when i try to rebuild it into a proper
rpm i
> get the
> >>>> following (output truncated):
> >>>>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> + py39_byte_compile /usr/bin/python3
> >>>>
>
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence
&g
[EPEL-devel] Re: [new / help wanted] fence-agents-epel package
attached a new spec using 4.10 which should match el9 (desired distro
version) as you noted.
srpm and rpm still seem to build fine without man pages, still not sure
how to generate them.
On 2022-08-08 17:22, Troy Dawson wrote:
Hi Alex,
I've been looking into this some.
What distribution do you want this for?
I haven't seen anywhere in your emails saying if this is for RHEL 8 or
RHEL 9?
The spec file you have attached is for fence-agents-4.11, which is only
in Fedora, so that doesn't let me know either.
The major problem is that the fence-agents-pve version has to match the
fence-agents that is in your version of RHEL.
So for RHEL8 (or compatible) it needs to be version 4.2.1. For RHEL 9
it needs to be 4.10.0
We need to start with the correct version of fence-agents and work from
there.
Troy
On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 10:03 AM Alex Talaran <mailto:atala...@gmail.com>> wrote:
i was able to get this built and installable if anyone wants to help
test or maintain it.
an issue exists with the man pages not being built still but im not
sure
how the makefile target works for these so they are excluded for now.
maybe some other small tweaks are still needed too since its just a
(first for me) stripped down and modified upstream spec file.
On 2022-07-20 08:47, Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2022, Alex Talaran wrote:
>
>> i ended up with the same error with that change.
>
> I am sorry my suggestion did not help.
> I don't have a Red Hat compatible machine newer that RHEL6
> (I moved to Ubuntu for work-related reasons)
> so I am unable to test things myself.
>
>> is it possible its getting confused because the dirname in the
tarball
>> is different than the package name and looking in the wrong spot?
>
> The -n fence-agents-%{version} in
> %prep
> %setup -q -n fence-agents-%{version}
> is supposed to resolve that, but that setup line might need tweaking
> to match the contents of the tarball.
>
> It is old and may be somewhat dated, but my bible for rewriting
.spec
> files was the book
> Maximum RPM - Taking the Red Hat Package Manager to the Limit
> a version of which is available at
> http://ftp.rpm.org/max-rpm/index.html
<http://ftp.rpm.org/max-rpm/index.html>
>
>> On 2022-07-19 23:32, Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
>>> On Tue, 19 Jul 2022, Alex Talaran wrote:
>>>
>>>> per a previous thread i took a shot at cleaning up the
fence-agents
>>>> rpm to only include the missing agents and make a new package.
i am
>>>> having some issues with the source url and getting it to
build. the
>>>> srpm is ok, but when i try to rebuild it into a proper rpm i
get the
>>>> following (output truncated):
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> + py39_byte_compile /usr/bin/python3
>>>>
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence
>>>> + python_binary='env PYTHONHASHSEED=0 /usr/bin/python3'
>>>> +
>>>>
bytecode_compilation_path=/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence
>>>> + env PYTHONHASHSEED=0 /usr/bin/python3 -s -B -m compileall -o
0 -o
>>>> 1 -s
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64
>>>> -p /
>>>>
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence
>>>> Listing
>>>>
'/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence'...
>>>> Can't list
>>>>
'/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence'
>>>> + chmod 0755
>>>>
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence/fence_pve.py
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence/fence_raritan.py
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence/fence_rcd_serial.py
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence/fence_virsh.py
>>>> chmod: cannot access
>>>>
'/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence/fence_pve.py':
No such file or directory
>>>> chmod: cannot access
>>>>
'/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence/fence_raritan.py':
No such file or directory
>>>> chmod: canno
[EPEL-devel] Re: [new / help wanted] fence-agents-epel package
rhel 9 ideally.
i was starting with the fedora spec file as i didn't know about needing
the match. it isnt clear why some of these are not included in the rhel
package but most are. i tried to search on the fence-agents github and
bugzilla. does the pve one for instance need something too new for rhel 9?
i only have use for the pve one at the moment, but conversation with
carl previously here gave the idea just to include them all in case
others can use them. i am happy to test the version on el9 and it would
get consistent use.
On 2022-08-08 17:22, Troy Dawson wrote:
Hi Alex,
I've been looking into this some.
What distribution do you want this for?
I haven't seen anywhere in your emails saying if this is for RHEL 8 or
RHEL 9?
The spec file you have attached is for fence-agents-4.11, which is only
in Fedora, so that doesn't let me know either.
The major problem is that the fence-agents-pve version has to match the
fence-agents that is in your version of RHEL.
So for RHEL8 (or compatible) it needs to be version 4.2.1. For RHEL 9
it needs to be 4.10.0
We need to start with the correct version of fence-agents and work from
there.
Troy
On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 10:03 AM Alex Talaran <mailto:atala...@gmail.com>> wrote:
i was able to get this built and installable if anyone wants to help
test or maintain it.
an issue exists with the man pages not being built still but im not
sure
how the makefile target works for these so they are excluded for now.
maybe some other small tweaks are still needed too since its just a
(first for me) stripped down and modified upstream spec file.
On 2022-07-20 08:47, Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2022, Alex Talaran wrote:
>
>> i ended up with the same error with that change.
>
> I am sorry my suggestion did not help.
> I don't have a Red Hat compatible machine newer that RHEL6
> (I moved to Ubuntu for work-related reasons)
> so I am unable to test things myself.
>
>> is it possible its getting confused because the dirname in the
tarball
>> is different than the package name and looking in the wrong spot?
>
> The -n fence-agents-%{version} in
> %prep
> %setup -q -n fence-agents-%{version}
> is supposed to resolve that, but that setup line might need tweaking
> to match the contents of the tarball.
>
> It is old and may be somewhat dated, but my bible for rewriting
.spec
> files was the book
> Maximum RPM - Taking the Red Hat Package Manager to the Limit
> a version of which is available at
> http://ftp.rpm.org/max-rpm/index.html
<http://ftp.rpm.org/max-rpm/index.html>
>
>> On 2022-07-19 23:32, Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
>>> On Tue, 19 Jul 2022, Alex Talaran wrote:
>>>
>>>> per a previous thread i took a shot at cleaning up the
fence-agents
>>>> rpm to only include the missing agents and make a new package.
i am
>>>> having some issues with the source url and getting it to
build. the
>>>> srpm is ok, but when i try to rebuild it into a proper rpm i
get the
>>>> following (output truncated):
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> + py39_byte_compile /usr/bin/python3
>>>>
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence
>>>> + python_binary='env PYTHONHASHSEED=0 /usr/bin/python3'
>>>> +
>>>>
bytecode_compilation_path=/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence
>>>> + env PYTHONHASHSEED=0 /usr/bin/python3 -s -B -m compileall -o
0 -o
>>>> 1 -s
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64
>>>> -p /
>>>>
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence
>>>> Listing
>>>>
'/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence'...
>>>> Can't list
>>>>
'/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence'
>>>> + chmod 0755
>>>>
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence/fence_pve.py
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence/fence_raritan.py
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence/fence_rcd_serial.py
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence/fence_virsh.py
>>>> chmod: cannot access
>>>>
[EPEL-devel] Re: [new / help wanted] fence-agents-epel package
i was able to get this built and installable if anyone wants to help
test or maintain it.
an issue exists with the man pages not being built still but im not sure
how the makefile target works for these so they are excluded for now.
maybe some other small tweaks are still needed too since its just a
(first for me) stripped down and modified upstream spec file.
On 2022-07-20 08:47, Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2022, Alex Talaran wrote:
i ended up with the same error with that change.
I am sorry my suggestion did not help.
I don't have a Red Hat compatible machine newer that RHEL6
(I moved to Ubuntu for work-related reasons)
so I am unable to test things myself.
is it possible its getting confused because the dirname in the tarball
is different than the package name and looking in the wrong spot?
The -n fence-agents-%{version} in
%prep
%setup -q -n fence-agents-%{version}
is supposed to resolve that, but that setup line might need tweaking
to match the contents of the tarball.
It is old and may be somewhat dated, but my bible for rewriting .spec
files was the book
Maximum RPM - Taking the Red Hat Package Manager to the Limit
a version of which is available at
http://ftp.rpm.org/max-rpm/index.html
On 2022-07-19 23:32, Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2022, Alex Talaran wrote:
per a previous thread i took a shot at cleaning up the fence-agents
rpm to only include the missing agents and make a new package. i am
having some issues with the source url and getting it to build. the
srpm is ok, but when i try to rebuild it into a proper rpm i get the
following (output truncated):
---
+ py39_byte_compile /usr/bin/python3
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence
+ python_binary='env PYTHONHASHSEED=0 /usr/bin/python3'
+
bytecode_compilation_path=/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence
+ env PYTHONHASHSEED=0 /usr/bin/python3 -s -B -m compileall -o 0 -o
1 -s /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64
-p /
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence
Listing
'/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence'...
Can't list
'/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence'
+ chmod 0755
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence/fence_pve.py /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence/fence_raritan.py /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence/fence_rcd_serial.py /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence/fence_virsh.py
chmod: cannot access
'/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence/fence_pve.py': No such file or directory
chmod: cannot access
'/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence/fence_raritan.py': No such file or directory
chmod: cannot access
'/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence/fence_rcd_serial.py': No such file or directory
chmod: cannot access
'/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence/fence_virsh.py': No such file or directory
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.S10L6D (%install)
---
i even tried to comment out the bytecompile lines but got the same
error.
is it possible to get some help sorting this out? i have attached
the WIP spec file.
thank you.
I would try replacing
mkdir -p %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/
with
mkdir -p %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/fence
%global debug_package %{nil}
Name: fence-agents-epel
Summary: Set of unified programs capable of host isolation ("fencing")
Version: 4.11.0
Release: 1%{?dist}
License: GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+
BuildArch: noarch
Group: System Environment/Base
URL: https://github.com/ClusterLabs/fence-agents
Source0: %{url}/archive/refs/tags/v%{version}.tar.gz
%if 0%{?rhel} == 7
%ifarch s390x
%define rhel7_s390x 1
%endif
%endif
%if 0%{?rhel} == 9
%ifarch ppc64le s390x
%define rhel9_ppc64le_s390x 1
%endif
%endif
# Build dependencies
## man pages generating
BuildRequires: libxslt
## Python dependencies
%if 0%{?fedora} || 0%{?centos} > 7 || 0%{?rhel} > 7 || 0%{?suse_version}
BuildRequires: python3-devel
BuildRequires: python3-httplib2 python3-pexpect python3-pycurl python3-requests
%endif
Requires: fence-agents-common = %{version}-%{release}
%if 0%{?fedora} || 0%{?centos} > 7 || 0%{?rhel} > 7 || 0%{?suse_version}
Requires: python3-pycurl
%else
Requires: python-pycurl
%endif
%description
Fence agents for PVE, raritan, rcd_serial, virsh
# turn off the brp-python-bytecompile script
# (for F28+ or equivalent, the latter is the preferred form)
%global __os_install_post %(echo '%{__os_install_post}' | sed -e
's!/usr/lib[^[:space:]]*/brp-python-bytecompilesp
[EPEL-devel] [new / help wanted] fence-agents-epel package
per a previous thread i took a shot at cleaning up the fence-agents rpm
to only include the missing agents and make a new package. i am having
some issues with the source url and getting it to build. the srpm is ok,
but when i try to rebuild it into a proper rpm i get the following
(output truncated):
---
+ py39_byte_compile /usr/bin/python3
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence
+ python_binary='env PYTHONHASHSEED=0 /usr/bin/python3'
+
bytecode_compilation_path=/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence
+ env PYTHONHASHSEED=0 /usr/bin/python3 -s -B -m compileall -o 0 -o 1 -s
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64 -p /
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence
Listing
'/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence'...
Can't list
'/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence'
+ chmod 0755
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence/fence_pve.py
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence/fence_raritan.py
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence/fence_rcd_serial.py
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence/fence_virsh.py
chmod: cannot access
'/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence/fence_pve.py':
No such file or directory
chmod: cannot access
'/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence/fence_raritan.py':
No such file or directory
chmod: cannot access
'/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence/fence_rcd_serial.py':
No such file or directory
chmod: cannot access
'/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fence-agents-epel-4.11.0-1.el9.x86_64/usr/share/fence/fence_virsh.py':
No such file or directory
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.S10L6D (%install)
---
i even tried to comment out the bytecompile lines but got the same error.
is it possible to get some help sorting this out? i have attached the
WIP spec file.
thank you.Name: fence-agents-epel
Summary: Fence agents for pve, raritan, rcd_serial, and virsh
Version: 4.11.0
Release: 1%{?dist}
BuildArch: noarch
License: GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+
Group: System Environment/Base
URL: https://github.com/ClusterLabs/fence-agents
Source0: %{url}/archive/refs/tags/v%{version}.tar.gz
%if 0%{?rhel} == 7
%ifarch s390x
%define rhel7_s390x 1
%endif
%endif
%if 0%{?rhel} == 9
%ifarch ppc64le s390x
%define rhel9_ppc64le_s390x 1
%endif
%endif
%global __os_install_post %(echo '%{__os_install_post}' | sed -e
's!/usr/lib[^[:space:]]*/brp-python-bytecompilespace:.*$!!g')
BuildRequires: autoconf automake libtool make gcc libxslt
%if 0%{?fedora} || 0%{?centos} > 7 || 0%{?rhel} > 7 || 0%{?suse_version}
BuildRequires: python3-devel python3-httplib2 python3-pexpect python3-pycurl
python3-requests
%endif
Requires: fence-agents-common = %{version}-%{release}
%if 0%{?fedora} || 0%{?centos} > 7 || 0%{?rhel} > 7 || 0%{?suse_version}
Requires: python3-pycurl
%else
Requires: python-pycurl
%endif
%prep
%setup -q -n fence-agents-%{version}
%autopatch -p1
%build
%if 0%{?fedora} || 0%{?centos} > 7 || 0%{?rhel} > 7 || 0%{?suse_version}
export PYTHON="%{__python3}"
%endif
%install
rm -rf %{buildroot}
mkdir -p %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/
# bytecompile Python source code in a non-standard location
%if 0%{?fedora} || 0%{?centos} > 7 || 0%{?rhel} > 7
%py_byte_compile %{__python3} %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/fence
%endif
chmod 0755 %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/fence/fence_{pve,raritan,rcd_serial,virsh}.py
%post
ccs_update_schema > /dev/null 2>&1 ||:
# https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Systemd
if [ $1 -eq 1 ] ; then
# Initial installation
/bin/systemctl daemon-reload >/dev/null 2>&1 || :
fi
%description
A collection of executables to handle isolation ("fencing") of possibly
misbehaving hosts by the means of remote power management, blocking
network, storage, or similar. They operate through a unified interface
(calling conventions) devised for the original Red Hat clustering solution.
%files
%{_sbindir}/fence_pve
%{_sbindir}/fence_raritan
%{_sbindir}/fence_rcd_serial
%{_sbindir}/fence_virsh
%{_mandir}/man8/fence_pve.8*
%{_mandir}/man8/fence_raritan.8*
%{_mandir}/man8/fence_rcd_serial.8*
%{_mandir}/man8/fence_virsh.8*
%changelog
* Tue Jul 19 2022 User Example - 4.11.0-1
- Initial build
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
[EPEL-devel] Re: Request for fence-agents-pve package
ive been trying to rebuild their rpm using only the missing agents and
am having trouble getting the sources at a minimum. would someone be
able and interested in helping get these other agents into epel?
i am happy to test and will be a constant user, but not sure i am the
best for long term maintainer of the package.
thanks.
On 2022-06-29 15:02, Carl George wrote:
Correct, a fence-agents-epel package is probably the best choice here.
Are you interested in creating and maintaining that? It's described
in further detail in the EPEL docs [0], although it's lacking
examples.
[0] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-missing-sub-packages/
On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 9:15 AM Alex Talaran wrote:
Carl,
it looks like this will not be included in centos stream per RH. so
looks like option 2 or 3 would be next right? to help the greater
community 3 might be better since other agents are missing too.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2098360
On 2022-06-17 16:28, Carl George wrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 8:31 AM Alex Talaran wrote:
would anyone be willing to package this in epel or help get it in the
existing package please?
i asked on bugzilla [1] but the current maintainer isnt able to help at
the moment. from what i can tell it might just need uncommented in the
spec file [2]. someone else asked about it [1][3] and the ownership is
being thrown back and forth between epel and rhel.
[1]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2029251
[2]
https://github.com/ClusterLabs/fence-agents/blob/main/fence-agents.spec.in#L33
[3]
https://github.com/ClusterLabs/fence-agents/issues/456
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
In Fedora fence-agents-pve is a subpackage of fence-agents.
fence-agents is in RHEL, so the Fedora package cannot be branched
as-is for EPEL. Some possible alternatives:
- Open a CentOS Stream bugzilla and request that fence-agents-pve be
added to the fence-agents spec file. If the maintainer agrees, it
will show up in the next RHEL minor release ("next" being contingent
on timing). This is the ideal solution from a packaging perspective
but has a fair chance of being declined if RHEL doesn't want to
ship/support that subpackage.
- Create a stand-alone fence-agents-pve package, and get it reviewed
as an EPEL-only package. That would be allowed in EPEL because
neither the srpm or rpm name would conflict with RHEL.
- Create a fence-agents-epel package that contains all the subpackages
that are disabled in the RHEL spec file. Similar to the previous
option, this would be EPEL-only and would be allowed because the srpm
and rpm names don't conflict with RHEL.
- Rebuild the Fedora spec file with all subpackages somewhere where
replacing base packages is allowed, such as a copr or a CentOS SIG.
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[EPEL-devel] Re: Request for fence-agents-pve package
i can give it a shot but not sure i am the best for long term
maintainer. happy to test and share diffs if i get to them too. i cant
test more than the pve package for what its worth.
On 2022-06-29 15:02, Carl George wrote:
Correct, a fence-agents-epel package is probably the best choice here.
Are you interested in creating and maintaining that? It's described
in further detail in the EPEL docs [0], although it's lacking
examples.
[0] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-missing-sub-packages/
On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 9:15 AM Alex Talaran wrote:
Carl,
it looks like this will not be included in centos stream per RH. so
looks like option 2 or 3 would be next right? to help the greater
community 3 might be better since other agents are missing too.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2098360
On 2022-06-17 16:28, Carl George wrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 8:31 AM Alex Talaran wrote:
would anyone be willing to package this in epel or help get it in the
existing package please?
i asked on bugzilla [1] but the current maintainer isnt able to help at
the moment. from what i can tell it might just need uncommented in the
spec file [2]. someone else asked about it [1][3] and the ownership is
being thrown back and forth between epel and rhel.
[1]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2029251
[2]
https://github.com/ClusterLabs/fence-agents/blob/main/fence-agents.spec.in#L33
[3]
https://github.com/ClusterLabs/fence-agents/issues/456
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
In Fedora fence-agents-pve is a subpackage of fence-agents.
fence-agents is in RHEL, so the Fedora package cannot be branched
as-is for EPEL. Some possible alternatives:
- Open a CentOS Stream bugzilla and request that fence-agents-pve be
added to the fence-agents spec file. If the maintainer agrees, it
will show up in the next RHEL minor release ("next" being contingent
on timing). This is the ideal solution from a packaging perspective
but has a fair chance of being declined if RHEL doesn't want to
ship/support that subpackage.
- Create a stand-alone fence-agents-pve package, and get it reviewed
as an EPEL-only package. That would be allowed in EPEL because
neither the srpm or rpm name would conflict with RHEL.
- Create a fence-agents-epel package that contains all the subpackages
that are disabled in the RHEL spec file. Similar to the previous
option, this would be EPEL-only and would be allowed because the srpm
and rpm names don't conflict with RHEL.
- Rebuild the Fedora spec file with all subpackages somewhere where
replacing base packages is allowed, such as a copr or a CentOS SIG.
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[EPEL-devel] Re: Request for fence-agents-pve package
Carl,
it looks like this will not be included in centos stream per RH. so
looks like option 2 or 3 would be next right? to help the greater
community 3 might be better since other agents are missing too.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2098360
On 2022-06-17 16:28, Carl George wrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 8:31 AM Alex Talaran wrote:
would anyone be willing to package this in epel or help get it in the
existing package please?
i asked on bugzilla [1] but the current maintainer isnt able to help at
the moment. from what i can tell it might just need uncommented in the
spec file [2]. someone else asked about it [1][3] and the ownership is
being thrown back and forth between epel and rhel.
[1]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2029251
[2]
https://github.com/ClusterLabs/fence-agents/blob/main/fence-agents.spec.in#L33
[3]
https://github.com/ClusterLabs/fence-agents/issues/456
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
In Fedora fence-agents-pve is a subpackage of fence-agents.
fence-agents is in RHEL, so the Fedora package cannot be branched
as-is for EPEL. Some possible alternatives:
- Open a CentOS Stream bugzilla and request that fence-agents-pve be
added to the fence-agents spec file. If the maintainer agrees, it
will show up in the next RHEL minor release ("next" being contingent
on timing). This is the ideal solution from a packaging perspective
but has a fair chance of being declined if RHEL doesn't want to
ship/support that subpackage.
- Create a stand-alone fence-agents-pve package, and get it reviewed
as an EPEL-only package. That would be allowed in EPEL because
neither the srpm or rpm name would conflict with RHEL.
- Create a fence-agents-epel package that contains all the subpackages
that are disabled in the RHEL spec file. Similar to the previous
option, this would be EPEL-only and would be allowed because the srpm
and rpm names don't conflict with RHEL.
- Rebuild the Fedora spec file with all subpackages somewhere where
replacing base packages is allowed, such as a copr or a CentOS SIG.
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[EPEL-devel] Re: Request for fence-agents-pve package
was this the right place to open the bug or can it be moved to the right
spot please?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2098360
On 2022-06-17 16:28, Carl George wrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 8:31 AM Alex Talaran wrote:
would anyone be willing to package this in epel or help get it in the
existing package please?
i asked on bugzilla [1] but the current maintainer isnt able to help at
the moment. from what i can tell it might just need uncommented in the
spec file [2]. someone else asked about it [1][3] and the ownership is
being thrown back and forth between epel and rhel.
[1]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2029251
[2]
https://github.com/ClusterLabs/fence-agents/blob/main/fence-agents.spec.in#L33
[3]
https://github.com/ClusterLabs/fence-agents/issues/456
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
In Fedora fence-agents-pve is a subpackage of fence-agents.
fence-agents is in RHEL, so the Fedora package cannot be branched
as-is for EPEL. Some possible alternatives:
- Open a CentOS Stream bugzilla and request that fence-agents-pve be
added to the fence-agents spec file. If the maintainer agrees, it
will show up in the next RHEL minor release ("next" being contingent
on timing). This is the ideal solution from a packaging perspective
but has a fair chance of being declined if RHEL doesn't want to
ship/support that subpackage.
- Create a stand-alone fence-agents-pve package, and get it reviewed
as an EPEL-only package. That would be allowed in EPEL because
neither the srpm or rpm name would conflict with RHEL.
- Create a fence-agents-epel package that contains all the subpackages
that are disabled in the RHEL spec file. Similar to the previous
option, this would be EPEL-only and would be allowed because the srpm
and rpm names don't conflict with RHEL.
- Rebuild the Fedora spec file with all subpackages somewhere where
replacing base packages is allowed, such as a copr or a CentOS SIG.
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[EPEL-devel] Request for fence-agents-pve package
would anyone be willing to package this in epel or help get it in the existing package please? i asked on bugzilla [1] but the current maintainer isnt able to help at the moment. from what i can tell it might just need uncommented in the spec file [2]. someone else asked about it [1][3] and the ownership is being thrown back and forth between epel and rhel. [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2029251 [2] https://github.com/ClusterLabs/fence-agents/blob/main/fence-agents.spec.in#L33 [3] https://github.com/ClusterLabs/fence-agents/issues/456 ___ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
