Re: Explicit dependency on systemd-rpm-macros now required?
Hi, On Thu, 2022-09-29 at 10:51 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote: > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/clamav/c/35d73944ae2fa9cee3df4729c53a66ba03595d7f > "Add missing dependency on systemd as it's the systemd package itself > that ships systemd.pc, not systemd-devel." > > because clamav runs `pkg-config --variable=systemdsystemunitdir > systemd` which needs /usr/share/pkgconfig/systemd.pc Note 1: It's better to BR: pkgconfig(systemd), as that way one doesn't have to care in which package the .pc file is. Note 2: You can pass --with-systemdsystemunitdir=%_unitdir to configure and avoid the additional dependency altogether. D. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to 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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Explicit dependency on systemd-rpm-macros now required?
On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 10:51:55AM +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Thu, 2022-09-29 at 08:26 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 12:01:13AM +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2022-09-23 at 22:49 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2022-09-23 at 22:39 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 2022-09-19 at 09:08 +0200, Dan Horák wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 13:42:42 +
> > > > > > Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 03:35:29PM +0200, Florian Weimer
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > * Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So… we certainly don't want people having to declare
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > dependency
> > > > > > > > > manually everywhere.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The packaging guidelines seem to say that the manual
> > > > > > > > dependency
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > required, though.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yeah, you need *some* dependency. But opencryptoki has
> > > > > > > BR:systemd-devel, and systemd-devel has R:systemd, which
> > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > Requires(meta) under discussion. So an explicit BR:systemd-
> > > > > > > rpm-
> > > > > > > macros
> > > > > > > should be redundant.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > the BR: systemd-devel in opencryptoki might be just a
> > > > > > historical
> > > > > > relict, because it used to be required to define the various
> > > > > > macros
> > > > > > (IIRC)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Today clamav fails to build on rawhide again, this time because
> > > > > make
> > > > > install on mock doesn't install systemd files !
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > scratch build
> > > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=92286295
> > >
> > >
> > > systemd-devel no longer has systemd dependency on F37+, now we also
> > > need BuildRequires: systemd
> >
> > I don't expect clamav needs systemd to build. It probably needs
> > systemd-devel and systemd-rpm-macros.
> >
> > It is true that systemd-devel used to pull in systemd. It was
> > something
> > of an accident: systemd-devel had an artificial dependency on
> > systemd-pam,
> > which in turn had a dependency on systemd. The artificial dep was
> > added
> > to make system-pam a multiarch package. At some point this was solved
> > properly
> > and and hack was dropped. I don't think we want systemd-devel to
> > R:systemd.
> > systemd-devel is about various headers and libraries, and the systemd
> > runtime is a separate thing.
> >
> > I now pushed a commit to add in systemd-devel:
> >
> > Requires(meta): (%{name}-rpm-macros = %{version}-%{release} if rpm-
> > build)
> >
> > This means we'll get systemd-rpm-macros in rpm buildroot if systemd-
> > devel
> > is installed. We had the same line on systemd itself. This way one
> > doesn't
> > need to explicitly BR:systemd-rpm-macros is either BR:systemd or
> > BR:systemd-devel
> > is specified.
>
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/clamav/c/35d73944ae2fa9cee3df4729c53a66ba03595d7f
> "Add missing dependency on systemd as it's the systemd package itself
> that ships systemd.pc, not systemd-devel."
>
> because clamav runs `pkg-config --variable=systemdsystemunitdir
> systemd` which needs /usr/share/pkgconfig/systemd.pc
Ah, OK. Thanks for the correction. In this case, it's fine for clamav
to BR:systemd.
An alternative approach would be to use rpm macros instead of pkg-config:
%_unitdir gives the same string.
> and /usr/share/pkgconfig/systemd.pc is systemd (core) sub-package ,
> maybe I would suggest move /usr/share/pkgconfig/systemd.pc and
> /usr/share/pkgconfig/udev.pc to devel sub-package
That'd cause too much confusion. systemd-devel has libsystemd.pc already,
and -devel is about libraries. We had the rule that 'pkgconfig(systemd)'
gives you full systemd package, and I think we should not change that.
Zbyszek
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Explicit dependency on systemd-rpm-macros now required?
On Thu, 2022-09-29 at 08:26 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 12:01:13AM +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > On Fri, 2022-09-23 at 22:49 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2022-09-23 at 22:39 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2022-09-19 at 09:08 +0200, Dan Horák wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 13:42:42 +
> > > > > Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 03:35:29PM +0200, Florian Weimer
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > * Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So… we certainly don't want people having to declare
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > dependency
> > > > > > > > manually everywhere.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The packaging guidelines seem to say that the manual
> > > > > > > dependency
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > required, though.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yeah, you need *some* dependency. But opencryptoki has
> > > > > > BR:systemd-devel, and systemd-devel has R:systemd, which
> > > > > > has
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > Requires(meta) under discussion. So an explicit BR:systemd-
> > > > > > rpm-
> > > > > > macros
> > > > > > should be redundant.
> > > > >
> > > > > the BR: systemd-devel in opencryptoki might be just a
> > > > > historical
> > > > > relict, because it used to be required to define the various
> > > > > macros
> > > > > (IIRC)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Dan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Today clamav fails to build on rawhide again, this time because
> > > > make
> > > > install on mock doesn't install systemd files !
> > >
> > >
> > > scratch build
> > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=92286295
> >
> >
> > systemd-devel no longer has systemd dependency on F37+, now we also
> > need BuildRequires: systemd
>
> I don't expect clamav needs systemd to build. It probably needs
> systemd-devel and systemd-rpm-macros.
>
> It is true that systemd-devel used to pull in systemd. It was
> something
> of an accident: systemd-devel had an artificial dependency on
> systemd-pam,
> which in turn had a dependency on systemd. The artificial dep was
> added
> to make system-pam a multiarch package. At some point this was solved
> properly
> and and hack was dropped. I don't think we want systemd-devel to
> R:systemd.
> systemd-devel is about various headers and libraries, and the systemd
> runtime is a separate thing.
>
> I now pushed a commit to add in systemd-devel:
>
> Requires(meta): (%{name}-rpm-macros = %{version}-%{release} if rpm-
> build)
>
> This means we'll get systemd-rpm-macros in rpm buildroot if systemd-
> devel
> is installed. We had the same line on systemd itself. This way one
> doesn't
> need to explicitly BR:systemd-rpm-macros is either BR:systemd or
> BR:systemd-devel
> is specified.
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/clamav/c/35d73944ae2fa9cee3df4729c53a66ba03595d7f
"Add missing dependency on systemd as it's the systemd package itself
that ships systemd.pc, not systemd-devel."
because clamav runs `pkg-config --variable=systemdsystemunitdir
systemd` which needs /usr/share/pkgconfig/systemd.pc
and /usr/share/pkgconfig/systemd.pc is systemd (core) sub-package ,
maybe I would suggest move /usr/share/pkgconfig/systemd.pc and
/usr/share/pkgconfig/udev.pc to devel sub-package
Thanks
> Zbyszek
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to 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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Do not reply to spam, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
--
Sérgio M. B.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Explicit dependency on systemd-rpm-macros now required?
On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 12:01:13AM +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Fri, 2022-09-23 at 22:49 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > On Fri, 2022-09-23 at 22:39 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2022-09-19 at 09:08 +0200, Dan Horák wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 13:42:42 +
> > > > Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 03:35:29PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > > > > * Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > So… we certainly don't want people having to declare the
> > > > > > > dependency
> > > > > > > manually everywhere.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The packaging guidelines seem to say that the manual
> > > > > > dependency
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > required, though.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah, you need *some* dependency. But opencryptoki has
> > > > > BR:systemd-devel, and systemd-devel has R:systemd, which has
> > > > > the
> > > > > Requires(meta) under discussion. So an explicit BR:systemd-rpm-
> > > > > macros
> > > > > should be redundant.
> > > >
> > > > the BR: systemd-devel in opencryptoki might be just a historical
> > > > relict, because it used to be required to define the various
> > > > macros
> > > > (IIRC)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dan
> > >
> > >
> > > Today clamav fails to build on rawhide again, this time because
> > > make
> > > install on mock doesn't install systemd files !
> >
> >
> > scratch build
> > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=92286295
>
>
> systemd-devel no longer has systemd dependency on F37+, now we also
> need BuildRequires: systemd
I don't expect clamav needs systemd to build. It probably needs
systemd-devel and systemd-rpm-macros.
It is true that systemd-devel used to pull in systemd. It was something
of an accident: systemd-devel had an artificial dependency on systemd-pam,
which in turn had a dependency on systemd. The artificial dep was added
to make system-pam a multiarch package. At some point this was solved properly
and and hack was dropped. I don't think we want systemd-devel to R:systemd.
systemd-devel is about various headers and libraries, and the systemd
runtime is a separate thing.
I now pushed a commit to add in systemd-devel:
Requires(meta): (%{name}-rpm-macros = %{version}-%{release} if rpm-build)
This means we'll get systemd-rpm-macros in rpm buildroot if systemd-devel
is installed. We had the same line on systemd itself. This way one doesn't
need to explicitly BR:systemd-rpm-macros is either BR:systemd or
BR:systemd-devel
is specified.
Zbyszek
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Explicit dependency on systemd-rpm-macros now required?
On Fri, 2022-09-23 at 22:49 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote: > On Fri, 2022-09-23 at 22:39 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote: > > On Mon, 2022-09-19 at 09:08 +0200, Dan Horák wrote: > > > On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 13:42:42 + > > > Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 03:35:29PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > > > * Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek: > > > > > > > > > > > So… we certainly don't want people having to declare the > > > > > > dependency > > > > > > manually everywhere. > > > > > > > > > > The packaging guidelines seem to say that the manual > > > > > dependency > > > > > is > > > > > required, though. > > > > > > > > Yeah, you need *some* dependency. But opencryptoki has > > > > BR:systemd-devel, and systemd-devel has R:systemd, which has > > > > the > > > > Requires(meta) under discussion. So an explicit BR:systemd-rpm- > > > > macros > > > > should be redundant. > > > > > > the BR: systemd-devel in opencryptoki might be just a historical > > > relict, because it used to be required to define the various > > > macros > > > (IIRC) > > > > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > Today clamav fails to build on rawhide again, this time because > > make > > install on mock doesn't install systemd files ! > > > scratch build > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=92286295 systemd-devel no longer has systemd dependency on F37+, now we also need BuildRequires: systemd -- Sérgio M. B. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to 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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Explicit dependency on systemd-rpm-macros now required?
On Fri, 2022-09-23 at 22:39 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote: > On Mon, 2022-09-19 at 09:08 +0200, Dan Horák wrote: > > On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 13:42:42 + > > Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 03:35:29PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > > * Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek: > > > > > > > > > So… we certainly don't want people having to declare the > > > > > dependency > > > > > manually everywhere. > > > > > > > > The packaging guidelines seem to say that the manual dependency > > > > is > > > > required, though. > > > > > > Yeah, you need *some* dependency. But opencryptoki has > > > BR:systemd-devel, and systemd-devel has R:systemd, which has the > > > Requires(meta) under discussion. So an explicit BR:systemd-rpm- > > > macros > > > should be redundant. > > > > the BR: systemd-devel in opencryptoki might be just a historical > > relict, because it used to be required to define the various macros > > (IIRC) > > > > > > Dan > > > Today clamav fails to build on rawhide again, this time because make > install on mock doesn't install systemd files ! scratch build https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=92286295 > > > > > > > ___ > > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > > To unsubscribe send an email to 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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > > Do not reply to spam, report it: > > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue > > -- > Sérgio M. B. > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to 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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Do not reply to spam, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue -- Sérgio M. B. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to 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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Explicit dependency on systemd-rpm-macros now required?
On Mon, 2022-09-19 at 09:08 +0200, Dan Horák wrote: > On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 13:42:42 + > Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 03:35:29PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > * Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek: > > > > > > > So… we certainly don't want people having to declare the > > > > dependency > > > > manually everywhere. > > > > > > The packaging guidelines seem to say that the manual dependency > > > is > > > required, though. > > > > Yeah, you need *some* dependency. But opencryptoki has > > BR:systemd-devel, and systemd-devel has R:systemd, which has the > > Requires(meta) under discussion. So an explicit BR:systemd-rpm- > > macros > > should be redundant. > > the BR: systemd-devel in opencryptoki might be just a historical > relict, because it used to be required to define the various macros > (IIRC) > > > Dan Today clamav fails to build on rawhide again, this time because make install on mock doesn't install systemd files ! > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to 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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Do not reply to spam, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue -- Sérgio M. B. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to 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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Explicit dependency on systemd-rpm-macros now required?
On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 13:42:42 + Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 03:35:29PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > > * Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek: > > > > > So… we certainly don't want people having to declare the dependency > > > manually everywhere. > > > > The packaging guidelines seem to say that the manual dependency is > > required, though. > > Yeah, you need *some* dependency. But opencryptoki has > BR:systemd-devel, and systemd-devel has R:systemd, which has the > Requires(meta) under discussion. So an explicit BR:systemd-rpm-macros > should be redundant. the BR: systemd-devel in opencryptoki might be just a historical relict, because it used to be required to define the various macros (IIRC) Dan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to 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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Explicit dependency on systemd-rpm-macros now required?
* Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 03:35:29PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: >> * Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek: >> >> > So… we certainly don't want people having to declare the dependency >> > manually everywhere. >> >> The packaging guidelines seem to say that the manual dependency is >> required, though. > > Yeah, you need *some* dependency. But opencryptoki has > BR:systemd-devel, and systemd-devel has R:systemd, which has the > Requires(meta) under discussion. So an explicit BR:systemd-rpm-macros > should be redundant. That's not how I interpret the guidelines. It mentions systemd-rpm-macros only. Relying on systemd (or some other package that's not closely related to the control of the package being built) is brittle, as we've seen. Thanks, Florian ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to 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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Explicit dependency on systemd-rpm-macros now required?
On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 03:35:29PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek: > > > So… we certainly don't want people having to declare the dependency > > manually everywhere. > > The packaging guidelines seem to say that the manual dependency is > required, though. Yeah, you need *some* dependency. But opencryptoki has BR:systemd-devel, and systemd-devel has R:systemd, which has the Requires(meta) under discussion. So an explicit BR:systemd-rpm-macros should be redundant. Zbyszek ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to 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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Explicit dependency on systemd-rpm-macros now required?
* Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek: > So… we certainly don't want people having to declare the dependency > manually everywhere. The packaging guidelines seem to say that the manual dependency is required, though. Thanks, Florian ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to 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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Explicit dependency on systemd-rpm-macros now required?
On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 09:12:49AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 9:01 AM Panu Matilainen wrote:
> >
> > On 9/16/22 15:22, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 11:02:22AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > >> On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 10:53 AM Smith, Stewart via devel
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > On Sep 14, 2022, at 4:17 AM, Tom Hughes via devel
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On 14/09/2022 12:11, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > I see some new build failures in rawhide related to systemd RPM
> > > macros:
> > >
> > > Processing files: opencryptoki-3.18.0-4.fc38.s390x
> > > error: File must begin with "/": %{_tmpfilesdir}/opencryptoki.conf
> > > error: File must begin with "/": %{_unitdir}/pkcsslotd.service
> > > […]
> > > RPM build errors:
> > > File must begin with "/": %{_tmpfilesdir}/opencryptoki.conf
> > > File must begin with "/": %{_unitdir}/pkcsslotd.service
> > > Child return code was: 1
> > > EXCEPTION: [Error()]
> > >
> > > Is this a package problem (missing dependency on systemd-rpm-macros),
> > > or
> > > is this something that should be fixed at the buildroot level?
> >
> > Guidelines say yes, you do need a BR on that:
> >
> > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Systemd/#packaging
> > >>>
> > >>> I think there was some change “recently” where it needed to start being
> > >>> explicit rather than being brought in by some other dependency
> > >>> (possibly a change to systemd?). I hit the same thing in a package in
> > >>> Amazon Linux the other day, read the packaging guide and wondered how
> > >>> the package had ever built.
> > >>
> > >> It happened because Zbigniew changed the rich dependency from Requires
> > >> to Requires(meta):
> > >> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/systemd/c/c971c5b980dff46fb9d7885f9e26b179a5a4749b
> > >>
> > >> I don't think Requires(meta) works when weak dependencies are turned off.
> > >
> > > Hmm, but that would be a bug in rpm (or whatever figures out the
> > > dependencies in this case). There is no documentation for the
> > > feature, except for the release notes for rpm 4.16.0:
> > >
> > >Add support for meta dependencies (eg Requires(meta): somepkg) that
> > >do not affect install/erase ordering (RhBug:1648721)
> > >
> > > The addition of "(meta)" should only affect ordering, and not the
> > > "strength"
> > > of the dependency.
> >
> > Yes, meta is NOT a weak dependency at all, if something is treating it
> > as such then it's certainly a bug.
> >
>
> I know it's not, and at least DNF doesn't seem to have that problem on
> my F37 system here...
>
> If something has the problem, it'd be libsolv, but I can't reproduce it
> locally.
Thank you both for checking.
So… we certainly don't want people having to declare the dependency
manually everywhere. I can go back to 'Requires' from 'Requires(meta)',
but that'd be just a work-around for an issue that lies somewhere else.
Zbyszek
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Explicit dependency on systemd-rpm-macros now required?
On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 9:01 AM Panu Matilainen wrote:
>
> On 9/16/22 15:22, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 11:02:22AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> >> On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 10:53 AM Smith, Stewart via devel
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> On Sep 14, 2022, at 4:17 AM, Tom Hughes via devel
> wrote:
>
> > On 14/09/2022 12:11, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > I see some new build failures in rawhide related to systemd RPM macros:
> >
> > Processing files: opencryptoki-3.18.0-4.fc38.s390x
> > error: File must begin with "/": %{_tmpfilesdir}/opencryptoki.conf
> > error: File must begin with "/": %{_unitdir}/pkcsslotd.service
> > […]
> > RPM build errors:
> > File must begin with "/": %{_tmpfilesdir}/opencryptoki.conf
> > File must begin with "/": %{_unitdir}/pkcsslotd.service
> > Child return code was: 1
> > EXCEPTION: [Error()]
> >
> > Is this a package problem (missing dependency on systemd-rpm-macros), or
> > is this something that should be fixed at the buildroot level?
>
> Guidelines say yes, you do need a BR on that:
>
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Systemd/#packaging
> >>>
> >>> I think there was some change “recently” where it needed to start being
> >>> explicit rather than being brought in by some other dependency (possibly
> >>> a change to systemd?). I hit the same thing in a package in Amazon Linux
> >>> the other day, read the packaging guide and wondered how the package had
> >>> ever built.
> >>
> >> It happened because Zbigniew changed the rich dependency from Requires
> >> to Requires(meta):
> >> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/systemd/c/c971c5b980dff46fb9d7885f9e26b179a5a4749b
> >>
> >> I don't think Requires(meta) works when weak dependencies are turned off.
> >
> > Hmm, but that would be a bug in rpm (or whatever figures out the
> > dependencies in this case). There is no documentation for the
> > feature, except for the release notes for rpm 4.16.0:
> >
> >Add support for meta dependencies (eg Requires(meta): somepkg) that
> >do not affect install/erase ordering (RhBug:1648721)
> >
> > The addition of "(meta)" should only affect ordering, and not the "strength"
> > of the dependency.
>
> Yes, meta is NOT a weak dependency at all, if something is treating it
> as such then it's certainly a bug.
>
I know it's not, and at least DNF doesn't seem to have that problem on
my F37 system here...
If something has the problem, it'd be libsolv, but I can't reproduce it locally.
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Explicit dependency on systemd-rpm-macros now required?
On 9/16/22 15:22, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 11:02:22AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 10:53 AM Smith, Stewart via devel
wrote:
On Sep 14, 2022, at 4:17 AM, Tom Hughes via devel
wrote:
On 14/09/2022 12:11, Florian Weimer wrote:
I see some new build failures in rawhide related to systemd RPM macros:
Processing files: opencryptoki-3.18.0-4.fc38.s390x
error: File must begin with "/": %{_tmpfilesdir}/opencryptoki.conf
error: File must begin with "/": %{_unitdir}/pkcsslotd.service
[…]
RPM build errors:
File must begin with "/": %{_tmpfilesdir}/opencryptoki.conf
File must begin with "/": %{_unitdir}/pkcsslotd.service
Child return code was: 1
EXCEPTION: [Error()]
Is this a package problem (missing dependency on systemd-rpm-macros), or
is this something that should be fixed at the buildroot level?
Guidelines say yes, you do need a BR on that:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Systemd/#packaging
I think there was some change “recently” where it needed to start being
explicit rather than being brought in by some other dependency (possibly a
change to systemd?). I hit the same thing in a package in Amazon Linux the
other day, read the packaging guide and wondered how the package had ever built.
It happened because Zbigniew changed the rich dependency from Requires
to Requires(meta):
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/systemd/c/c971c5b980dff46fb9d7885f9e26b179a5a4749b
I don't think Requires(meta) works when weak dependencies are turned off.
Hmm, but that would be a bug in rpm (or whatever figures out the
dependencies in this case). There is no documentation for the
feature, except for the release notes for rpm 4.16.0:
Add support for meta dependencies (eg Requires(meta): somepkg) that
do not affect install/erase ordering (RhBug:1648721)
The addition of "(meta)" should only affect ordering, and not the "strength"
of the dependency.
Yes, meta is NOT a weak dependency at all, if something is treating it
as such then it's certainly a bug.
- Panu -
Zbyszek
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Explicit dependency on systemd-rpm-macros now required?
On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 11:02:22AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 10:53 AM Smith, Stewart via devel
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On Sep 14, 2022, at 4:17 AM, Tom Hughes via devel
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 14/09/2022 12:11, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > >> I see some new build failures in rawhide related to systemd RPM macros:
> > >>
> > >> Processing files: opencryptoki-3.18.0-4.fc38.s390x
> > >> error: File must begin with "/": %{_tmpfilesdir}/opencryptoki.conf
> > >> error: File must begin with "/": %{_unitdir}/pkcsslotd.service
> > >> […]
> > >> RPM build errors:
> > >> File must begin with "/": %{_tmpfilesdir}/opencryptoki.conf
> > >> File must begin with "/": %{_unitdir}/pkcsslotd.service
> > >> Child return code was: 1
> > >> EXCEPTION: [Error()]
> > >>
> > >> Is this a package problem (missing dependency on systemd-rpm-macros), or
> > >> is this something that should be fixed at the buildroot level?
> > >
> > > Guidelines say yes, you do need a BR on that:
> > >
> > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Systemd/#packaging
> >
> > I think there was some change “recently” where it needed to start being
> > explicit rather than being brought in by some other dependency (possibly a
> > change to systemd?). I hit the same thing in a package in Amazon Linux the
> > other day, read the packaging guide and wondered how the package had ever
> > built.
>
> It happened because Zbigniew changed the rich dependency from Requires
> to Requires(meta):
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/systemd/c/c971c5b980dff46fb9d7885f9e26b179a5a4749b
>
> I don't think Requires(meta) works when weak dependencies are turned off.
Hmm, but that would be a bug in rpm (or whatever figures out the
dependencies in this case). There is no documentation for the
feature, except for the release notes for rpm 4.16.0:
Add support for meta dependencies (eg Requires(meta): somepkg) that
do not affect install/erase ordering (RhBug:1648721)
The addition of "(meta)" should only affect ordering, and not the "strength"
of the dependency.
Zbyszek
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Explicit dependency on systemd-rpm-macros now required?
On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 10:53 AM Smith, Stewart via devel
wrote:
>
>
> > On Sep 14, 2022, at 4:17 AM, Tom Hughes via devel
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 14/09/2022 12:11, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> I see some new build failures in rawhide related to systemd RPM macros:
> >>
> >> Processing files: opencryptoki-3.18.0-4.fc38.s390x
> >> error: File must begin with "/": %{_tmpfilesdir}/opencryptoki.conf
> >> error: File must begin with "/": %{_unitdir}/pkcsslotd.service
> >> […]
> >> RPM build errors:
> >> File must begin with "/": %{_tmpfilesdir}/opencryptoki.conf
> >> File must begin with "/": %{_unitdir}/pkcsslotd.service
> >> Child return code was: 1
> >> EXCEPTION: [Error()]
> >>
> >> Is this a package problem (missing dependency on systemd-rpm-macros), or
> >> is this something that should be fixed at the buildroot level?
> >
> > Guidelines say yes, you do need a BR on that:
> >
> > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Systemd/#packaging
>
> I think there was some change “recently” where it needed to start being
> explicit rather than being brought in by some other dependency (possibly a
> change to systemd?). I hit the same thing in a package in Amazon Linux the
> other day, read the packaging guide and wondered how the package had ever
> built.
It happened because Zbigniew changed the rich dependency from Requires
to Requires(meta):
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/systemd/c/c971c5b980dff46fb9d7885f9e26b179a5a4749b
I don't think Requires(meta) works when weak dependencies are turned off.
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Explicit dependency on systemd-rpm-macros now required?
> On Sep 14, 2022, at 4:17 AM, Tom Hughes via devel
> wrote:
>
>> On 14/09/2022 12:11, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> I see some new build failures in rawhide related to systemd RPM macros:
>>
>> Processing files: opencryptoki-3.18.0-4.fc38.s390x
>> error: File must begin with "/": %{_tmpfilesdir}/opencryptoki.conf
>> error: File must begin with "/": %{_unitdir}/pkcsslotd.service
>> […]
>> RPM build errors:
>> File must begin with "/": %{_tmpfilesdir}/opencryptoki.conf
>> File must begin with "/": %{_unitdir}/pkcsslotd.service
>> Child return code was: 1
>> EXCEPTION: [Error()]
>>
>> Is this a package problem (missing dependency on systemd-rpm-macros), or
>> is this something that should be fixed at the buildroot level?
>
> Guidelines say yes, you do need a BR on that:
>
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Systemd/#packaging
I think there was some change “recently” where it needed to start being
explicit rather than being brought in by some other dependency (possibly a
change to systemd?). I hit the same thing in a package in Amazon Linux the
other day, read the packaging guide and wondered how the package had ever built.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Explicit dependency on systemd-rpm-macros now required?
* Tom Hughes via devel:
> On 14/09/2022 12:11, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> I see some new build failures in rawhide related to systemd RPM macros:
>> Processing files: opencryptoki-3.18.0-4.fc38.s390x
>> error: File must begin with "/": %{_tmpfilesdir}/opencryptoki.conf
>> error: File must begin with "/": %{_unitdir}/pkcsslotd.service
>> […]
>> RPM build errors:
>> File must begin with "/": %{_tmpfilesdir}/opencryptoki.conf
>> File must begin with "/": %{_unitdir}/pkcsslotd.service
>> Child return code was: 1
>> EXCEPTION: [Error()]
>> Is this a package problem (missing dependency on
>> systemd-rpm-macros), or
>> is this something that should be fixed at the buildroot level?
>
> Guidelines say yes, you do need a BR on that:
>
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Systemd/#packaging
Ah, thanks, missed that. I'll try to fix opencryptoki then.
Florian
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Explicit dependency on systemd-rpm-macros now required?
On 14/09/2022 12:11, Florian Weimer wrote:
I see some new build failures in rawhide related to systemd RPM macros:
Processing files: opencryptoki-3.18.0-4.fc38.s390x
error: File must begin with "/": %{_tmpfilesdir}/opencryptoki.conf
error: File must begin with "/": %{_unitdir}/pkcsslotd.service
[…]
RPM build errors:
File must begin with "/": %{_tmpfilesdir}/opencryptoki.conf
File must begin with "/": %{_unitdir}/pkcsslotd.service
Child return code was: 1
EXCEPTION: [Error()]
Is this a package problem (missing dependency on systemd-rpm-macros), or
is this something that should be fixed at the buildroot level?
Guidelines say yes, you do need a BR on that:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Systemd/#packaging
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
