Hi Andreas,
On 12/17/2015 03:23 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Hi Franck,
>
> Am 17.12.2015 um 15:05 schrieb Franck Bui:
>> On 12/16/2015 07:34 PM, Marcus Meissner wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 07:01:45PM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
>>>> Today's https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/347433 seems to have
>>>> broken 13.2 builds of Virtualization qemu.
>>>>
>>>> We have the following snippet there:
>>>>
>>>> %if %( echo `rpm -q --queryformat %%{version} udev` ) > 190
>>>> %define _udevrulesdir /usr/lib/udev/rules.d
>>>> %else
>>>> %define _udevrulesdir /lib/udev/rules.d
>>>> %endif
>>>>
>>
>> can't you use '%_udevrulesdir' macro instead ?
>
> Does that work as far back as 13.1 or SLE11? That snippet is obviously
> not my invention, so you tell me.
>
I would say: if it's defined then use it otherwise define it as
'/lib/udev/rules.d': on distribution where it's defined, systemd is used
and udev is >= 210 in this case. Otherwise sysvinit is still used and
udev is old enough to look for its rules files in /lib/udev.
That said it might make sense to introduce %_udevrulesdir in udev
package for SLE11 (and any other supported products using udev).
>>>> From systemd.3661 to systemd.4042 I notice the following change:
>>>> -Version: 210
>>>> +Version: 210.1448627060.53ee915
>>>> which looks _service-generated. Was this intentional? If yes, how are we
>>>> supposed to handle this now?
>>
>> Well, I don't know but I would have expected this solved at the time the
>> _service thing had been introduced.
>
> Well, for me, this was introduced yesterday. ;)
only a couple of weeks to me ;)
> We do not see any problems with Factory so far, is there a similar
> submission in flight?
>
not yet, factory is still getting the source code from a tarball (not
from the git repo).
> Might it be an option to simply drop the automatic set_version service
> and bumping it manually? (I recently played with it for
> hardware/libjaylink and did not find a way to fully customize it beyond
> %ct for the second component.)
Well set_version avoids any human intervention so it's less subject to
mistake. And since it's there, it's supposed to be used and fixed if broken.
BTW which error are you seeing ?
I took a quick look at rpmvercmp() which seems to do the version
comparaison and it should work. I did a quick experiment and extracted
this function and basically did:
rpmvercmp("210.1448627060.53ee915", "190")
and it worked as expected.
Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [email protected]
