Re: rpm install and folder creation

[devzero2000]

On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Jeff Johnson  wrote:

>
> On Sep 4, 2011, at 3:33 PM, Belal Salem wrote:
>
> > Thanks! According to all of that, I found the best solution just for now,
> is to rename rpm -> rpm.exec
> > and make a 'rpm' script that executes rpm.exec --noparentdirs $* all the
> time unless I don't want it, I can use rpm.exec itself.
> >
>
> Poifect! Note that I _ALWAYS_ wrap rpm/rpmbuild in ~/bin/*rpm.
>
> (aside)
> You might check the persistence enabled by
> --disable-dirname-and-symlink-deps
> by doing
>rpm --showrc | more
> All that the build options is doing is setting/exposing 2 macros.
> If the macros default value is "opt-out" rather than "opt-in",
> that too would explain what you are seeing (and the AutoFu is
> functional as intended: devzero2000 usually does careful AutoFu
> but building-with-macro-disablers-for-parentdirs isn't
> the same thing as configuring-the-macro-disablers-for-parentdirs-to-off.
>
> Thanks, my memory could be perhaps good, but reading  without glasses is
not so good :=). Best Regards

> That permits me to have multiple versions of RPM installed,
> all configured differently, and to be able to do build-install
> cycles without having to reconfigure the box itself.
>
> hth
> > On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 21:20:33 +0200, devzero2000 
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Jeff Johnson  wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On Jun 4, 2010, at 2:55 AM, Belal Salem wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > Hi there!
> >>> > I issued the same issue before, when installing some packages, the
> RPM
> >>> package manager doesn't create the required folders and ask for the
> folders
> >>> as unresolved dependencies, although those folders are part of the
> package
> >>> being installed.
> >>>
> >>> Its "part of the package" which is confusing.
> >>>
> >>> There are two meanings for "part of the package":
> >>>
> >>> 1) directory components as part of file paths
> >>> 2) directory explicitly listed in "rpm -qpl *.rpm"
> >>>
> >>> If its not explicitly in the file manifest, its not "part of the
> package"
> >>> and you *will* see what you are reporting.
> >>>
> >>> > Recompiling RPM with the options: --disable-dirname-and-symlink-deps
> >>> didn't solve the problem, anyway through that?!
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> I'm not the person to "fix" --disable-dirname-and-symlink-deps.
> >>>
> >>> My fix will be to rip out the "Have it your own way!" functionality
> that
> >>> isn't "working"
> >>> and remove the
> >>>   --disable-dirname-and-symlink-deps
> >>> in order to simplify RPM's build and clarify "supported" functionality.
> I
> >>> see
> >>> no future in carrying around functionality that doesn't work as it
> should
> >>> and is "vendor supported" by others here @rpm5.org.
> >>>
> >>> I will rip out the option if it isn't fixed by someone else @rpm5.org
> >>> this month.
> >>>
> >>> No, it is right that i rip out the option tomorrow. I have introduced
> it,
> >> it is equivalent to "vendor supported" - i am pretty sure -  but
> probably
> >> don't work as it should. But if so there should be a spec with
> >> directory-symlink broken deps that does not work even in Mandriva for
> >> example. I would love to see this spec, possibly for tomorrow. Perhaps
> ark
> >> linux and mandriva could be find useful. Thanks. Best Regards
> >>
> >> PS
> >>
> >> FWIW, this is description of this disabler
> >>
> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/rpm/+spec/rpm-split-vendor-config-in-autofu
> .
> >> <
> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/rpm/+spec/rpm-split-vendor-config-in-autofu
> >
> >>
> >> The idea was to simplify bootstrapping distributions
> that do
> >> not use rpm5 as a package manager or that are broken from a  QA POW
> >> such  as RHEL5:
> >> in short for simplify rpm5 adoption in first place. I am sure someone @
> >> rpm5.org had used patch - not upstream - similar for RHEL5. My memory
> is not
> >> so bad, i have seen this in a mail some year ago. The old dog can have
> good
> >> memory, yes.
> >>
> >> The idea was
> >>
> >>> 73 de Jeff
> >>>
> >>> __
> >>> RPM Package Managerhttp://rpm5.org
> >>> User Communication List rpm-users@rpm5.org
> >>>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> > __
> > RPM Package Managerhttp://rpm5.org
> > User Communication List rpm-users@rpm5.org
>
> __
> RPM Package Managerhttp://rpm5.org
> User Communication List rpm-users@rpm5.org
>

Re: rpm install and folder creation

[Jeff Johnson]

On Sep 4, 2011, at 3:33 PM, Belal Salem wrote:

> Thanks! According to all of that, I found the best solution just for now, is 
> to rename rpm -> rpm.exec
> and make a 'rpm' script that executes rpm.exec --noparentdirs $* all the time 
> unless I don't want it, I can use rpm.exec itself.
> 

Poifect! Note that I _ALWAYS_ wrap rpm/rpmbuild in ~/bin/*rpm.

(aside)
You might check the persistence enabled by
--disable-dirname-and-symlink-deps
by doing
rpm --showrc | more
All that the build options is doing is setting/exposing 2 macros.
If the macros default value is "opt-out" rather than "opt-in",
that too would explain what you are seeing (and the AutoFu is
functional as intended: devzero2000 usually does careful AutoFu
but building-with-macro-disablers-for-parentdirs isn't
the same thing as configuring-the-macro-disablers-for-parentdirs-to-off.

That permits me to have multiple versions of RPM installed,
all configured differently, and to be able to do build-install
cycles without having to reconfigure the box itself.

hth
> On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 21:20:33 +0200, devzero2000  wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Jeff Johnson  wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jun 4, 2010, at 2:55 AM, Belal Salem wrote:
>>> 
>>> > Hi there!
>>> > I issued the same issue before, when installing some packages, the RPM
>>> package manager doesn't create the required folders and ask for the folders
>>> as unresolved dependencies, although those folders are part of the package
>>> being installed.
>>> 
>>> Its "part of the package" which is confusing.
>>> 
>>> There are two meanings for "part of the package":
>>> 
>>> 1) directory components as part of file paths
>>> 2) directory explicitly listed in "rpm -qpl *.rpm"
>>> 
>>> If its not explicitly in the file manifest, its not "part of the package"
>>> and you *will* see what you are reporting.
>>> 
>>> > Recompiling RPM with the options: --disable-dirname-and-symlink-deps
>>> didn't solve the problem, anyway through that?!
>>> >
>>> 
>>> I'm not the person to "fix" --disable-dirname-and-symlink-deps.
>>> 
>>> My fix will be to rip out the "Have it your own way!" functionality that
>>> isn't "working"
>>> and remove the
>>>   --disable-dirname-and-symlink-deps
>>> in order to simplify RPM's build and clarify "supported" functionality. I
>>> see
>>> no future in carrying around functionality that doesn't work as it should
>>> and is "vendor supported" by others here @rpm5.org.
>>> 
>>> I will rip out the option if it isn't fixed by someone else @rpm5.org
>>> this month.
>>> 
>>> No, it is right that i rip out the option tomorrow. I have introduced it,
>> it is equivalent to "vendor supported" - i am pretty sure -  but probably
>> don't work as it should. But if so there should be a spec with
>> directory-symlink broken deps that does not work even in Mandriva for
>> example. I would love to see this spec, possibly for tomorrow. Perhaps ark
>> linux and mandriva could be find useful. Thanks. Best Regards
>> 
>> PS
>> 
>> FWIW, this is description of this disabler
>> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/rpm/+spec/rpm-split-vendor-config-in-autofu.
>> 
>> 
>> The idea was to simplify bootstrapping distributions that do
>> not use rpm5 as a package manager or that are broken from a  QA POW
>> such  as RHEL5:
>> in short for simplify rpm5 adoption in first place. I am sure someone @
>> rpm5.org had used patch - not upstream - similar for RHEL5. My memory is not
>> so bad, i have seen this in a mail some year ago. The old dog can have good
>> memory, yes.
>> 
>> The idea was
>> 
>>> 73 de Jeff
>>> 
>>> __
>>> RPM Package Managerhttp://rpm5.org
>>> User Communication List rpm-users@rpm5.org
>>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> __
> RPM Package Managerhttp://rpm5.org
> User Communication List rpm-users@rpm5.org

__
RPM Package Managerhttp://rpm5.org
User Communication List rpm-users@rpm5.org

Re: rpm install and folder creation

[Belal Salem]

Thanks! According to all of that, I found the best solution just for now,  
is to rename rpm -> rpm.exec
and make a 'rpm' script that executes rpm.exec --noparentdirs $* all the  
time unless I don't want it, I can use rpm.exec itself.


On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 21:20:33 +0200, devzero2000   
wrote:



On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Jeff Johnson  wrote:



On Jun 4, 2010, at 2:55 AM, Belal Salem wrote:

> Hi there!
> I issued the same issue before, when installing some packages, the RPM
package manager doesn't create the required folders and ask for the  
folders
as unresolved dependencies, although those folders are part of the  
package

being installed.

Its "part of the package" which is confusing.

There are two meanings for "part of the package":

1) directory components as part of file paths
2) directory explicitly listed in "rpm -qpl *.rpm"

If its not explicitly in the file manifest, its not "part of the  
package"

and you *will* see what you are reporting.

> Recompiling RPM with the options: --disable-dirname-and-symlink-deps
didn't solve the problem, anyway through that?!
>

I'm not the person to "fix" --disable-dirname-and-symlink-deps.

My fix will be to rip out the "Have it your own way!" functionality that
isn't "working"
and remove the
   --disable-dirname-and-symlink-deps
in order to simplify RPM's build and clarify "supported" functionality.  
I

see
no future in carrying around functionality that doesn't work as it  
should

and is "vendor supported" by others here @rpm5.org.

I will rip out the option if it isn't fixed by someone else @rpm5.org
this month.

No, it is right that i rip out the option tomorrow. I have introduced  
it,

it is equivalent to "vendor supported" - i am pretty sure -  but probably
don't work as it should. But if so there should be a spec with
directory-symlink broken deps that does not work even in Mandriva for
example. I would love to see this spec, possibly for tomorrow. Perhaps  
ark

linux and mandriva could be find useful. Thanks. Best Regards

PS

FWIW, this is description of this disabler
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/rpm/+spec/rpm-split-vendor-config-in-autofu.


The idea was to simplify bootstrapping distributions  
that do

not use rpm5 as a package manager or that are broken from a  QA POW
such  as RHEL5:
in short for simplify rpm5 adoption in first place. I am sure someone @
rpm5.org had used patch - not upstream - similar for RHEL5. My memory is  
not
so bad, i have seen this in a mail some year ago. The old dog can have  
good

memory, yes.

The idea was


73 de Jeff

__
RPM Package Managerhttp://rpm5.org
User Communication List rpm-users@rpm5.org




--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
__
RPM Package Managerhttp://rpm5.org
User Communication List rpm-users@rpm5.org

Re: rpm install and folder creation

[devzero2000]

On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Jeff Johnson  wrote:

>
> On Jun 4, 2010, at 2:55 AM, Belal Salem wrote:
>
> > Hi there!
> > I issued the same issue before, when installing some packages, the RPM
> package manager doesn't create the required folders and ask for the folders
> as unresolved dependencies, although those folders are part of the package
> being installed.
>
> Its "part of the package" which is confusing.
>
> There are two meanings for "part of the package":
>
> 1) directory components as part of file paths
> 2) directory explicitly listed in "rpm -qpl *.rpm"
>
> If its not explicitly in the file manifest, its not "part of the package"
> and you *will* see what you are reporting.
>
> > Recompiling RPM with the options: --disable-dirname-and-symlink-deps
> didn't solve the problem, anyway through that?!
> >
>
> I'm not the person to "fix" --disable-dirname-and-symlink-deps.
>
> My fix will be to rip out the "Have it your own way!" functionality that
> isn't "working"
> and remove the
>--disable-dirname-and-symlink-deps
> in order to simplify RPM's build and clarify "supported" functionality. I
> see
> no future in carrying around functionality that doesn't work as it should
> and is "vendor supported" by others here @rpm5.org.
>
> I will rip out the option if it isn't fixed by someone else @rpm5.org
> this month.
>
> No, it is right that i rip out the option tomorrow. I have introduced it,
it is equivalent to "vendor supported" - i am pretty sure -  but probably
don't work as it should. But if so there should be a spec with
directory-symlink broken deps that does not work even in Mandriva for
example. I would love to see this spec, possibly for tomorrow. Perhaps ark
linux and mandriva could be find useful. Thanks. Best Regards

PS

FWIW, this is description of this disabler
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/rpm/+spec/rpm-split-vendor-config-in-autofu.


The idea was to simplify bootstrapping distributions that do
not use rpm5 as a package manager or that are broken from a  QA POW
such  as RHEL5:
in short for simplify rpm5 adoption in first place. I am sure someone @
rpm5.org had used patch - not upstream - similar for RHEL5. My memory is not
so bad, i have seen this in a mail some year ago. The old dog can have good
memory, yes.

The idea was

> 73 de Jeff
>
> __
> RPM Package Managerhttp://rpm5.org
> User Communication List rpm-users@rpm5.org
>

Re: rpm install and folder creation

[Jeff Johnson]

On Jun 4, 2010, at 12:04 PM, Belal Salem wrote:

> Thanks for explaining that!
> But now, all the RPM packages that I have this issue with are installing 
> correctly with RPM-4.x as that the directory structure are listed when using 
> -qlp, but with RPM-5.3.11, the package manager complain about the directories 
> until I use the --nodeps to workaround it, hence it installs correctly and it 
> does create the needed directories.
> 

Instead of --nodeps, try --noparentdirs/--nolinktos disablers.

Yes. I've described another "recommended" procedure to track
the "orphan" (i.e. not explicitly included in any package) directories
and "dangling" (i.e. the end-point is not in any package) symlinks.

To mask a single directory during development/bootstrapping
until you can correct what is intrinsically a packaging flaw (imho):

mkdir -p /etc/rpm/sysinfo
echo "/some/orphan/directory/" >> /etc/rpm/sysinfo/Dirnames
echo "/some/dangling/symlink: >> /etc/rpm/sysinfo/Filelinktos

You -- in fact -- can satisfy any missing dependency using /etc/rpm/sysinfo:
echo "libmissing.so" >> /etc/rpm/sysinfo/Providename
echo "awol-package = 1:2.3" >> /etc/rpm/sysinfo/Providename

If you don't wish the manual one-by-one setup tedium, then
use --noparentdirs --nolinktos (or --nodeps) while installing into a chroot
(with --root /some/chroot) and then extract *all* of the
parentdir/linkto flaws like
rpm -Va --nofiles | grep '^/' | sort -u > /tmp/Dirnames.new

Compiling the disabler directly into RPM prevents usage. You can do
that as well if you wish: just its "Have it your own way!" supported
(and I am not the person to ask for support of what I believe isn't
a feature).

hth

73 de Jeff
> 
> On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 16:47:38 +0200, Jeff Johnson  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Jun 4, 2010, at 2:55 AM, Belal Salem wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi there!
>>> I issued the same issue before, when installing some packages, the RPM 
>>> package manager doesn't create the required folders and ask for the folders 
>>> as unresolved dependencies, although those folders are part of the package 
>>> being installed.
>> 
>> Its "part of the package" which is confusing.
>> 
>> There are two meanings for "part of the package":
>> 
>> 1) directory components as part of file paths
>> 2) directory explicitly listed in "rpm -qpl *.rpm"
>> 
>> If its not explicitly in the file manifest, its not "part of the package"
>> and you *will* see what you are reporting.
>> 
>>> Recompiling RPM with the options: --disable-dirname-and-symlink-deps didn't 
>>> solve the problem, anyway through that?!
>>> 
>> 
>> I'm not the person to "fix" --disable-dirname-and-symlink-deps.
>> 
>> My fix will be to rip out the "Have it your own way!" functionality that 
>> isn't "working"
>> and remove the
>>  --disable-dirname-and-symlink-deps
>> in order to simplify RPM's build and clarify "supported" functionality. I see
>> no future in carrying around functionality that doesn't work as it should
>> and is "vendor supported" by others here @rpm5.org.
>> 
>> I will rip out the option if it isn't fixed by someone else @rpm5.org
>> this month.
>> 
>> 73 de Jeff
>> 
>> __
>> RPM Package Managerhttp://rpm5.org
>> User Communication List rpm-users@rpm5.org
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> __
> RPM Package Managerhttp://rpm5.org
> User Communication List rpm-users@rpm5.org

__
RPM Package Managerhttp://rpm5.org
User Communication List rpm-users@rpm5.org

Re: rpm install and folder creation

[Belal Salem]

Thanks for explaining that!
But now, all the RPM packages that I have this issue with are installing  
correctly with RPM-4.x as that the directory structure are listed when  
using -qlp, but with RPM-5.3.11, the package manager complain about the  
directories until I use the --nodeps to workaround it, hence it installs  
correctly and it does create the needed directories.



On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 16:47:38 +0200, Jeff Johnson  wrote:



On Jun 4, 2010, at 2:55 AM, Belal Salem wrote:


Hi there!
I issued the same issue before, when installing some packages, the RPM  
package manager doesn't create the required folders and ask for the  
folders as unresolved dependencies, although those folders are part of  
the package being installed.


Its "part of the package" which is confusing.

There are two meanings for "part of the package":

1) directory components as part of file paths
2) directory explicitly listed in "rpm -qpl *.rpm"

If its not explicitly in the file manifest, its not "part of the package"
and you *will* see what you are reporting.

Recompiling RPM with the options: --disable-dirname-and-symlink-deps  
didn't solve the problem, anyway through that?!




I'm not the person to "fix" --disable-dirname-and-symlink-deps.

My fix will be to rip out the "Have it your own way!" functionality that  
isn't "working"

and remove the
--disable-dirname-and-symlink-deps
in order to simplify RPM's build and clarify "supported" functionality.  
I see

no future in carrying around functionality that doesn't work as it should
and is "vendor supported" by others here @rpm5.org.

I will rip out the option if it isn't fixed by someone else @rpm5.org
this month.

73 de Jeff

__
RPM Package Managerhttp://rpm5.org
User Communication List rpm-users@rpm5.org




--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
__
RPM Package Managerhttp://rpm5.org
User Communication List rpm-users@rpm5.org

Re: rpm install and folder creation

[Jeff Johnson]

On Jun 4, 2010, at 2:55 AM, Belal Salem wrote:

> Hi there!
> I issued the same issue before, when installing some packages, the RPM 
> package manager doesn't create the required folders and ask for the folders 
> as unresolved dependencies, although those folders are part of the package 
> being installed.

Its "part of the package" which is confusing.

There are two meanings for "part of the package":

1) directory components as part of file paths
2) directory explicitly listed in "rpm -qpl *.rpm"

If its not explicitly in the file manifest, its not "part of the package"
and you *will* see what you are reporting.

> Recompiling RPM with the options: --disable-dirname-and-symlink-deps didn't 
> solve the problem, anyway through that?!
> 

I'm not the person to "fix" --disable-dirname-and-symlink-deps.

My fix will be to rip out the "Have it your own way!" functionality that isn't 
"working"
and remove the
--disable-dirname-and-symlink-deps
in order to simplify RPM's build and clarify "supported" functionality. I see
no future in carrying around functionality that doesn't work as it should
and is "vendor supported" by others here @rpm5.org.

I will rip out the option if it isn't fixed by someone else @rpm5.org
this month.

73 de Jeff

__
RPM Package Managerhttp://rpm5.org
User Communication List rpm-users@rpm5.org