On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 14:09:49 -0500 Thomas Dziedzic <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Adam Hani Schakaki <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 13:51:51 -0500 > > Thomas Dziedzic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Adam Hani Schakaki <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 13:28:32 -0500 > >> > Thomas Dziedzic <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Adam Hani Schakaki <[email protected]> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 13:18:01 -0500 > >> >> > Thomas Dziedzic <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Adam Hani Schakaki <[email protected]> > >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> > On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 01:37:33 +0800 > >> >> >> > Ray Rashif <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> On 22 August 2010 00:56, Adam Hani Schakaki <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> >> > I need to find a way to get the md5 hash sums. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> You just need to use makepkg -s to generate them: But of course, > >> >> >> >> you > >> >> >> >> need to verify that your own download is sane, else, you will be > >> >> >> >> distributing the wrong checksums. Not to worry, as long as your > >> >> >> >> download completed fine I would say there is no need to check > >> >> >> >> with an > >> >> >> >> upstream hash file. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> -- > >> >> >> >> GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD > >> >> >> > Sure, this would be the normal way. But I need two different sets > >> >> >> > of hash sums. One for the 32bits files and one for the 64bits > >> >> >> > files. That's the problem. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Excerpt of the current PKGBUILD: > >> >> >> > _source_x86_64=( > >> >> >> > ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm > >> >> >> > ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-base-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm > >> >> >> > ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-binfilter-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm > >> >> >> > ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-calc-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm > >> >> >> > ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-draw-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm > >> >> >> > ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-help-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm > >> >> >> > ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-impress-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm > >> >> >> > ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-math-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm > >> >> >> > ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-res-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm > >> >> >> > ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-writer-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm > >> >> >> > ${_srcurl}_64/3.2.1/openoffice.org3-af-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm > >> >> >> > ) > >> >> >> > _source_x86=( > >> >> >> > ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-${_intver}.i586.rpm > >> >> >> > ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-base-${_intver}.i586.rpm > >> >> >> > ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-binfilter-${_intver}.i586.rpm > >> >> >> > ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-calc-${_intver}.i586.rpm > >> >> >> > ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-draw-${_intver}.i586.rpm > >> >> >> > ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-help-${_intver}.i586.rpm > >> >> >> > ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-impress-${_intver}.i586.rpm > >> >> >> > ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-math-${_intver}.i586.rpm > >> >> >> > ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-res-${_intver}.i586.rpm > >> >> >> > ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-writer-${_intver}.i586.rpm > >> >> >> > ${_srcurl}/3.2.1/openoffice.org3-af-${_intver}.i586.rpm > >> >> >> > ) > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > _md5sums_x86_64=() > >> >> >> > _md5sums_x86=() > >> >> >> > source=(${_source_x...@]}) > >> >> >> > md5sums=(${_md5sums_x...@]}) > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Adam Hani Schakaki > >> >> >> >namcap -i go-openoffice-de-3.2.1-1-*.pkg.tar.xz > >> > go-openoffice-de W: Dependency included and not needed ('go-openoffice') > >> > go-openoffice-de I: Depends as namcap sees them: depends=() > >> > go-openoffice-de W: Dependency included and not needed ('go-openoffice') > >> > go-openoffice-de I: Depends as namcap sees them: depends=() > >> >> >> > >> >> >> What are the differences between the two arch packages? Do they > >> >> >> contain any arch dependent files? > >> >> > It seems like that since the files got different md5 hashes. They > >> >> > also contain binary files. > >> >> > > >> >> > Adam Hani Schakaki > >> >> > > >> >> Not necessarily. > >> >> > >> >> An easy way to check that is namcap. > >> > I don't know how namcap can help to check that. This is the output I get: > >> > > >> > namcap -i go-openoffice-de-3.2.1-1-*.pkg.tar.xz > >> > go-openoffice-de W: Dependency included and not needed ('go-openoffice') > >> > go-openoffice-de I: Depends as namcap sees them: depends=() > >> > go-openoffice-de W: Dependency included and not needed ('go-openoffice') > >> > go-openoffice-de I: Depends as namcap sees them: depends=() > >> > > >> > namcap PKGBUILD > >> > PKGBUILD (go-openoffice-de) E: Missing checksums > >> > > >> > Adam Hani Schakaki > >> > > >> > >> Hmm, I thought it was supposed to give a warning if it was an arch > >> dependent package with no dependent on arch files. > >> Take a look at what openoffice lang packs do (which are 'any') since > >> I'm sure go-openoffice can do the same thing. > > In fact, those are the same language pack, they only go to different > > directories. In openoffice-i18n there is only x86 used for both > > architectures. So I guess I can remove the 64bits packages. > > But why do they create two packages if they both are the same and why have > > the rpms got different hashes? > > This is confuses me. > > > > Adam Hani Schakaki > > > > I don't think rpm packages have an equivalent of 'any' like in archlinux. > So important lesson, know what's in your PKGBUILDs ;) > > Cheers! Thanks for your help and lesson. Everything is in the AUR and works. Adam Hani Schakaki
