[indiana-discuss] pkgbuild error: advice sought
I am writing and debugging a spec file and have reached an impasse. Can
someone suggest what might be wrong that would cause the following error
message to be generated?
I am using pkgtool:
/opt/dtbld/bin/pkgtool - --download build-only ploticus.spec
The error is:
pkgbuild: file usr/bin is not under basedir %{ basedir}
My %file section looks like this:
%attr(0755, root, bin) %dir %{_bindir}
%attr(0755, root, bin) %dir %{_mandir}
%attr(0755, root, bin) %dir %{_mandir}/man1
%attr(0755, root, bin) %dir %{_libdir}/%{name}
%attr(0755, root, bin) %dir %{_libdir}/%{name}/prefabs
%{_bindir}/*
%{_libdir}/%{name}/prefabs
%{_mandir}/*/*
___
indiana-discuss mailing list
indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
Re: [indiana-discuss] pkgbuild error: advice sought
I've built the CBE.
The SPECS directory contains default-depend.inc, but not Solaris.inc.
From where does the Solaris.inc file originate?
On Apr 27, 2009, at 6:28 PM, Andras Barna wrote:
http://opensolaris.org/os/community/sw-porters/contributing/specbuild/
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 1:27 AM, Josh Simons joshua.sim...@sun.com
wrote:
I didn't have the %include. Adding it just gives an error that
Solaris.inc
is not found.
On Apr 27, 2009, at 6:19 PM, Andras Barna wrote:
you have
%include Solaris.inc
?
if yes, share with us the whole spec
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Josh Simons
joshua.sim...@sun.com
wrote:
I am writing and debugging a spec file and have reached an
impasse. Can
someone suggest what might be wrong that would cause the
following error
message to be generated?
I am using pkgtool:
/opt/dtbld/bin/pkgtool - --download build-only ploticus.spec
The error is:
pkgbuild: file usr/bin is not under basedir %{ basedir}
My %file section looks like this:
%attr(0755, root, bin) %dir %{_bindir}
%attr(0755, root, bin) %dir %{_mandir}
%attr(0755, root, bin) %dir %{_mandir}/man1
%attr(0755, root, bin) %dir %{_libdir}/%{name}
%attr(0755, root, bin) %dir %{_libdir}/%{name}/prefabs
%{_bindir}/*
%{_libdir}/%{name}/prefabs
%{_mandir}/*/*
___
indiana-discuss mailing list
indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
--
Andy
http://blog.sartek.net
--
Andy
http://blog.sartek.net
___
indiana-discuss mailing list
indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
[indiana-discuss] SourceJuicer
I am trying to use the SourceJuicer guide to writing spec files: http://jucr.opensolaris.org/help/spec_file but the document is missing a lot of details needed to create a spec file. For example, a detailed description of each of the entries in the preamble section and a description of many of the macros used in the examples. Other sections are completely mysterious. I disagree with the statement in summary section on this page which says you have learned the format of an IPS spec file. More than a sample is required to understand the format. Can someone please point me at suitable additional information? ___ indiana-discuss mailing list indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
Re: [indiana-discuss] Oracle buy SUN. The end of OpenSolaris?
On Apr 20, 2009, at 4:08 PM, Tom Georgoulias wrote: dick hoogendijk wrote: Will it be possible to develop / support OpenSolaris any further now SUN's been bought by Oracle? I surely hope this OS will survive. But what are the chances? I highly doubt that anyone who uses and reads this mailing list on a daily basis has any info that could correctly answer this question. I would imagine that many Sun engineers were just as shocked as me when they heard the news, and it will probably be a while before a plan for Opensolaris' future is made public. Some indications are here: http://www.sun.com/aboutsun/media/presskits/2009-0420/sun_oracle_presentation.pdf ___ indiana-discuss mailing list indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
Re: [indiana-discuss] [pkg-discuss] OpenSolaris 2009.06 IPS Documentation posted for review
Comments on the first 28 pages. Page 8 2009.06 is described as offering complete support for developing web applications -- one type of application among many. Why exclude others? Page 15 package will be searched in the preferred publisher's repository catalog first -- package will be searched for in the preferred publisher's repository catalog first (This is also a forward reference to the term repository catalog.) Page 17 ...then it is searched for in the other configured publishers -- ..then it is searched for in the other configured repositories Page 18 Dry-Run section Dry-run various spelled with a regular dash, an em-dash and no dash. Page 19 Remove italics on 'amp' in first pfexec command. (why is this line repeated?) This section would benefit from a brief explanation of the output from the -nv command or a pointer to where that information can be found. Page 20 How does server relate to the concepts of publisher or repository? Example 3-4. Does the '-l' mean 'local'? Would be clearer to mention this as is done in Example 3-5 with '-r'. Example 3-5. pkg example shown does not use '-r' switch Example 3-6. What exactly is searched? In the returned results 'book' is part of a directory name, not a 'description'... Example 3-7. Another mention of 'server' here. Page 23 Section on displaying state and version incorrectly says Use the following command to uninstall existing packages when introducing 'pkg list'. Example 3-10. Does '-a' mean 'even if not installed'? if so, not consistent with pkg info's use of -r. if not, a description of -a would be useful. Page 24 I find this concept of publisher to be very confusing. On page 15, the example FMRI describes 'opensolaris.org' as the publisher, but in the examples here publisher is not a host-like string. I see from the 2nd example that the publisher name can look host-like (opensolaris.org and sunfreeware.com) and in both cases the associated URL includes the publisher name. Is that required? In addition, the concept of 'origin' is introduced here (origin_url and origin as a TYPE) but not defined. It would be very helpful if this could all be described more clearly. The How to Remove a Publisher Config increases the confusion by stating that the argument to -O is a 'repository' rather than an 'origin_url.' Page 25 It also does not help that the output of the 'pkg publisher' command labels (for example) http://pkg.opensolaris.org/release as a URL. It is a repository, yes? Or is it an origin-url? Or are they the same? How to Display Publishers: Says that publishers have associated URLs. Should this be associated repositories? (which may be represented as URLs?) ___ indiana-discuss mailing list indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
Re: [indiana-discuss] 2008.11 rc1b Package Manager question/confusion
On Nov 14, 2008, at 11:55 AM, Jenya Gestrin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Frank Ludolph wrote: Josh Simons wrote: On Nov 13, 2008, at 6:51 PM, Michal Pryc wrote: Michal Pryc wrote: Josh Simons wrote: Why is the Add button on the Manage Repositories pane is greyed out, implying I cannot add a new package source? Is this a permissions issue or something else? There two possibilities: - You didn't selected (check box in the list) any package that can be installed/updated. - You are running packagemanager without sufficient permissions (run with gksu or pfexec on opensolaris) the Package Manager icon is starting application correctly. Hi Josh, Reply to myself. The question was about Manage Repositories not Add/Update, so the possibilities are as follows: - You already have the same name for the repository - You didn't specify correct URL address - Your name for the repository contains incorrect values (spaces for example) best Michal Pryc Michal, My issue is one of usability from a UI design perspective. Since the Add button was greyed out, I assumed the companion fields were not active. It is counterintuitive to me that filling in the fields would then cause the Add button to un-grey. (And only if I specified a correctly formatted response.) I asked a professional UI expert outside of Sun if this type of UI behavior was appropriate and she agreed that it would be confusing to users. Not enabling an add/submit button until the 'form' is completed is a common UI pattern. However, requiring valid field entries before enabling the button is not. There must be more feedback to the user about error conditions than just not enabling the button. I would suggest that the Add button be enabled as soon as both fields have non-blank content and that clicking Add will report, via and alert, both the invalid field and what constitutes a vaild entry. this is pretty much what it says in my annotations: http://xdesign.sfbay.sun.com/projects/solaris/subprojects/package_mngt/UI_specs/ui_spec_phase2/html-mockup/43_repositories_dialog_2.htm but I will rephrase the annotations according to your suggestions, Frank. jenya It still is not clear to me how a user is supposed to know the fields are usable if Add is greyed out by default. When I looked at the dialogue I assumed I did not have privs to add a repository. I didn't even think to try typing in those fields. Josh ___ indiana-discuss mailing list indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
Re: [indiana-discuss] 2008.11 rc1b Package Manager question/confusion
On Nov 13, 2008, at 6:51 PM, Michal Pryc wrote: Michal Pryc wrote: Josh Simons wrote: Why is the Add button on the Manage Repositories pane is greyed out, implying I cannot add a new package source? Is this a permissions issue or something else? There two possibilities: - You didn't selected (check box in the list) any package that can be installed/updated. - You are running packagemanager without sufficient permissions (run with gksu or pfexec on opensolaris) the Package Manager icon is starting application correctly. Hi Josh, Reply to myself. The question was about Manage Repositories not Add/Update, so the possibilities are as follows: - You already have the same name for the repository - You didn't specify correct URL address - Your name for the repository contains incorrect values (spaces for example) best Michal Pryc Michal, My issue is one of usability from a UI design perspective. Since the Add button was greyed out, I assumed the companion fields were not active. It is counterintuitive to me that filling in the fields would then cause the Add button to un-grey. (And only if I specified a correctly formatted response.) I asked a professional UI expert outside of Sun if this type of UI behavior was appropriate and she agreed that it would be confusing to users. Josh ___ indiana-discuss mailing list indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
Re: [indiana-discuss] 2008.11 root login question
I have no issue with the default behavior and am aware of both what RBAC stands for and what it does. I do, however, have an issue with the unclear error message and have filed a bug on that. A good out of box experience is important for broad acceptance of OpenSolaris since small things like this that can alienate a new user. On Nov 8, 2008, at 2:18 AM, Anon Y Mous wrote: There is no need to spam the opensolaris defect list because of this error message because Solaris is behaving the way it was designed to. Root login is intentionally disabled because there is no longer a root user anymore when you use an RBAC based system such as Solaris 10, Trusted Solaris 8, or any other version of Solaris after Solrais 10. RBAC stands for Role Based Access Control and it was designed by the military to increase security by no longer concentrating all of the power in a single root user (which makes it easy for hackers to compromise the system once they can escalate priveleges to get root access). Basically, root login from the console or via ssh is disabled by default because it is a security risk. And there is no longer a root user. Instead root is a role assumed by other users. However, if you really want to, you can create a traditional root user (like what you have in Linux or older Solaris like Solaris 9) and enable logins by that user. This is the link for a good tutorial that explains how to to create a root user and then log in as that root user to install the Azureus bit torrent client: http://www.comp-sos.com/index.php/review/operating-systems/42-unix/80-install-azureus-open-solaris-200805 Click on the small squares to enlarge the pictures and see the screen shots. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ indiana-discuss mailing list indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss ___ indiana-discuss mailing list indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
Re: [indiana-discuss] 2008.11 root login question
On Nov 7, 2008, at 8:46 AM, Adrian Portelli wrote: Josh Simons wrote: When I boot snv_101a_rc1 and try to log in as root, I receive the following error: Roles can only be assumed by authorized users. When I dismiss this erorr, I see: The System Administrator has disabled access to the system temporarily. I am able to su to root correctly when logged into my user account. Why can't I log in as root? By login, I'm assuming you mean console login: http://dlc.sun.com/osol/docs/content/IPS/login.html adrian. Thank you. The error message displayed is not helpful in debugging the problem. Root login is not enabled. would be much clearer. Josh ___ indiana-discuss mailing list indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
[indiana-discuss] 2008.11 rc1b Package Manager question/confusion
Why is the Add button on the Manage Repositories pane is greyed out, implying I cannot add a new package source? Is this a permissions issue or something else? ___ indiana-discuss mailing list indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
[indiana-discuss] 2008.11 confusing warning message
Earlier messages on this alias have noted that the following warning displayed during LiveCD boot: WARNING: pcplusmp: mod_remove_by_name failed 16 should either be improved, removed, or routed to the log file rather than displayed to avoid user confusion. I saw this message again today when booting snv_101a_rc1 within Virtual Box. ___ indiana-discuss mailing list indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
