Re: ~/rpmbuild directory can't be a symlink?

[Franta Hanzlík via users]

On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 22:16:09 +0100
Barry  wrote:

> > On 6 Jul 2023, at 15:08, Franta Hanzlík via users 
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > But sometimes I need to build an RPM package "in the field", at my
> > colleagues/friends/... machines - and I don't use the ~/.rpmmacros  
> 
> Why not put the one line in the .rpmmacros when off site, i am curious?
> It is surely no less a problem then setting synlink.
> 
> Barry

I had no idea the symlink could be a problem until this case, building
RPM packages has worked so far. So making a symlink was easier than
writing a ~/.rpmmacros file.
But my question, simply, is:
- is the use of a symlink for these purposes prohibited?
- if not, it probably makes sense to report it as a bug, right?
---
Thanks, Franta Hanzlik
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: ~/rpmbuild directory can't be a symlink?

[Barry]

> On 6 Jul 2023, at 15:08, Franta Hanzlík via users 
>  wrote:
> 
> But sometimes I need to build an RPM package "in the field", at my
> colleagues/friends/... machines - and I don't use the ~/.rpmmacros

Why not put the one line in the .rpmmacros when off site, i am curious?
It is surely no less a problem then setting synlink.

Barry
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: ~/rpmbuild directory can't be a symlink?

[Franta Hanzlík via users]

On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 09:42:30 -0400
Tom Horsley  wrote:

> On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 05:59:05 +0200
> Franta Hanzlík via users wrote:
> 
> > The problem seems to be somehow caused by ~/rpmbuild being a symlink (  
> 
> If a symlink is the problem, you could always set up a ~/.rpmmacros
> file with the line:
> 
> %_topdir  /path/to/real/rpmbuild
> ___

I already use ~/.rpmmacros on my PC for %_topdir, %_tmppath and other.
But sometimes I need to build an RPM package "in the field", at my
colleagues/friends/... machines - and I don't use the ~/.rpmmacros
file there, and I symlink ~/rpmbuild to another location/partition
quite often.
And I haven't noticed a problem, until now, with this package...
Oh well, I'll remember that a symlink might not be a good idea in this
case...
---
Thanks, Franta Hanzlík
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: ~/rpmbuild directory can't be a symlink?

[Tom Horsley]

On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 05:59:05 +0200
Franta Hanzlík via users wrote:

> The problem seems to be somehow caused by ~/rpmbuild being a symlink (

If a symlink is the problem, you could always set up a ~/.rpmmacros
file with the line:

%_topdir  /path/to/real/rpmbuild
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: rpmbuild perl-PDL-Graphics-PLplot

[Patrick Dupre]

Here is the new error

rpmbuild -bb  perl-PDL-Graphics-PLplot.spec
warning: Macro expanded in comment on line 9: 
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)

setting SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH=1624060800
Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.N0YTFx
+ umask 022
+ cd /home/pdupre/rpmbuild/BUILD
+ cd /home/pdupre/rpmbuild/BUILD
+ rm -rf PDL-Graphics-PLplot-0.74
+ /usr/bin/gzip -dc 
/home/pdupre/rpmbuild/SOURCES/PDL-Graphics-PLplot-0.74.tar.gz
+ /usr/bin/tar -xof -
+ STATUS=0
+ '[' 0 -ne 0 ']'
+ cd PDL-Graphics-PLplot-0.74
+ /usr/bin/chmod -Rf a+rX,u+w,g-w,o-w .
+ RPM_EC=0
++ jobs -p
+ exit 0
Executing(%build): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.tGOSuc
+ umask 022
+ cd /home/pdupre/rpmbuild/BUILD
+ cd PDL-Graphics-PLplot-0.74
+ /usr/bin/perl Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor 'OPTIMIZE=-O2 -flto=auto 
-ffat-lto-objects -fexceptions -g -grecord-gcc-switches -pipe -Wall 
-Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS 
-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -fstack-protector-strong 
-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1  -m64  -mtune=generic 
-fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection -fcf-protection'
PDL is installed
Bad value support required!  (Turn on WITH_BADVAL in perldl.conf)
  Not building PDL::Graphics::PLplot


Bad value support required!  (Turn on WITH_BADVAL in perldl.conf)  Not 
building PDL::Graphics::PLplot
Checking if your kit is complete...
Looks good
+ /usr/bin/make -O -j4 V=1 VERBOSE=1
make: Nothing to be done for 'all'.
+ RPM_EC=0
++ jobs -p
+ exit 0
Executing(%install): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.PqxSJM
+ umask 022
+ cd /home/pdupre/rpmbuild/BUILD
+ '[' 
/home/pdupre/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/perl-PDL-Graphics-PLplot-0.74-1.fc34.x86_64 
'!=' / ']'
+ rm -rf 
/home/pdupre/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/perl-PDL-Graphics-PLplot-0.74-1.fc34.x86_64
++ dirname 
/home/pdupre/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/perl-PDL-Graphics-PLplot-0.74-1.fc34.x86_64
+ mkdir -p /home/pdupre/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT
+ mkdir 
/home/pdupre/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/perl-PDL-Graphics-PLplot-0.74-1.fc34.x86_64
+ cd PDL-Graphics-PLplot-0.74
+ make pure_install 
PERL_INSTALL_ROOT=/home/pdupre/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/perl-PDL-Graphics-PLplot-0.74-1.fc34.x86_64
make: *** No rule to make target 'pure_install'.  Stop.
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.PqxSJM (%install)


RPM build errors:
Macro expanded in comment on line 9: 
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)

Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.PqxSJM (%install)


and the spec file

Name:   perl-PDL-Graphics-PLplot
Version:0.74
Release:1%{?dist}
Summary:PDL::Graphics::PLplot Perl module
License:CHECK(Distributable)
Group:  Development/Libraries
URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/PDL-Graphics-PLplot/
Source0:
http://www.cpan.org/modules/by-module/PDL/PDL-Graphics-PLplot-%{version}.tar.gz
##BuildRoot:  %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
BuildRequires:  perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
BuildRequires:  perl(PDL)
#Requires:   perl(PDL)
Requires:   perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`"; echo 
$version))

%description
The interface consists of two levels.  A low level interface which maps
closely to the PLplot C interface, and a high level, object-oriented
interface which is easier to use.

%prep
%setup -q -n PDL-Graphics-PLplot-%{version}

%build
%{__perl} Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor OPTIMIZE="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS"
#make %{?_smp_mflags}
%make_build

%install
#rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

make pure_install PERL_INSTALL_ROOT=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT

find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -name .packlist -exec rm -f {} \;
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -name '*.bs' -size 0 -exec rm -f {} \;
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} 2>/dev/null \;

%{_fixperms} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/*

%check
make test

#%clean
#rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

%files
#%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc Changes META.json plplot.pd README
%{perl_vendorarch}/auto/*
%{perl_vendorarch}/PDL*
%{_mandir}/man3/*

%changelog
* Sat Jun 19 2021 Patrick Dupre  0.74-1
- Specfile autogenerated by cpanspec 1.78.




> Subject: Re: rpmbuild perl-PDL-Graphics-PLplot
>
> On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 9:00 AM Patrick Dupre  wrote:
> > This spec file provide the an error.
> > Can you help me to fix it?
>
> You didn't show the compiler flags in use, so this is just a guess, but ...
>
> > cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
>
> ... this message suggests that -Werror is included.  Remove that and
> see what happens.
>
> > BuildRoot:  %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} 
> > -n)
>
> Remove the BuildRoot line.  That hasn't been needed for years.
>
> > Requires:   perl(PDL)
>
> This Requires *should* be autogenerated.  Try removing it and see if
> the binary package include

Re: rpmbuild perl-PDL-Graphics-PLplot

[Jerry James]

On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 9:00 AM Patrick Dupre  wrote:
> This spec file provide the an error.
> Can you help me to fix it?

You didn't show the compiler flags in use, so this is just a guess, but ...

> cc1: some warnings being treated as errors

... this message suggests that -Werror is included.  Remove that and
see what happens.

> BuildRoot:  %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)

Remove the BuildRoot line.  That hasn't been needed for years.

> Requires:   perl(PDL)

This Requires *should* be autogenerated.  Try removing it and see if
the binary package includes an equivalent Requires.

> make %{?_smp_mflags}

Use %make_build instead.

> %install
> rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

Remove the second line above.  It is unnecessary and occasionally dangerous.

> %clean
> rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

Remove the entire %clean section.  RPM already does this for you.

> %defattr(-,root,root,-)

Remove the %defattr line.  RPM already does this for you.
-- 
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: rpmbuild

[Samuel Sieb]

On 6/15/19 1:10 PM, Patrick Dupre wrote:

Another question
How could I get
%{_bindir}/*
added in the %files section
without having to edit the generated .spec file (i.e. when I run cpanspec)?


You would have to modify cpanspec to substitute that.
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[Patrick Dupre]

OK,
Thank Michael and Gordon.

The package perl-generators was not installed.
Now it makes more sense.

Another question
How could I get 
%{_bindir}/*
added in the %files section
without having to edit the generated .spec file (i.e. when I run cpanspec)?

Thank

===
 Patrick DUPRÉ | | email: pdu...@gmx.com
 Laboratoire interdisciplinaire Carnot de Bourgogne
 9 Avenue Alain Savary, BP 47870, 21078 DIJON Cedex FRANCE
 Tel: +33 (0)380395988
===


> Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 5:41 PM
> From: "Michael Schwendt" 
> To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Subject: Re: rpmbuild
>
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 23:38:56 +0200, Patrick Dupre wrote:
> 
> > perl-Tk-JBrowseEntry-5.22-1.fc30.noarch
> 
> > The solutions that I found are:
> > 1) add Provides: perl(Tk::JBrowseEntry) = %{version}-%{release}
> > in perl-Tk-JBrowseEntry.spec
> > or
> > 2) remove 
> > BuildRequires:  perl(Tk::JBrowseEntry) >= 4.63
> > in
> > perl-Tk-JFileDialog.spec
> 
> These two steps contradict eachother.
> 
> The package created by step 1 meets the build requirements of the package
> you want to build. 5.22 >= 4.63, so it is not necessary to remove the
> BuildRequires tag in step 2.
> 
> In step 1, prefer "BuildRequires: perl-generators" instead of adding
> the "Provides" tag manually. A Perl Module package may include more
> than a single module.
> 
> > In my opinion, I should not have to edit the .spec files
> 
> If the output from cpanspec were perfect *and* would meet Fedora's
> Packaging Guidelines, too, you would not need to.
> ___
> users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: 
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[Michael Schwendt]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 23:38:56 +0200, Patrick Dupre wrote:

> perl-Tk-JBrowseEntry-5.22-1.fc30.noarch

> The solutions that I found are:
> 1) add Provides: perl(Tk::JBrowseEntry) = %{version}-%{release}
> in perl-Tk-JBrowseEntry.spec
> or
> 2) remove 
> BuildRequires:  perl(Tk::JBrowseEntry) >= 4.63
> in
> perl-Tk-JFileDialog.spec

These two steps contradict eachother.

The package created by step 1 meets the build requirements of the package
you want to build. 5.22 >= 4.63, so it is not necessary to remove the
BuildRequires tag in step 2.

In step 1, prefer "BuildRequires: perl-generators" instead of adding
the "Provides" tag manually. A Perl Module package may include more
than a single module.

> In my opinion, I should not have to edit the .spec files

If the output from cpanspec were perfect *and* would meet Fedora's
Packaging Guidelines, too, you would not need to.
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[Gordon Messmer]

On 6/14/19 2:38 PM, Patrick Dupre wrote:

1) I expect that I would have to edit the .spec file



That's right.  You do.  And that's expected. 
http://cpanspec.sourceforge.net/ indicates: "It is assumed that 
maintainers will need to do some (hopefully small) amount of work to 
clean up the generated spec file to make the package build and to verify 
that all of the information contained in the spec file is correct. "


cpanspec was never expected to be a 100% solution.  It's a tool that 
assists packagers, but packagers still need to do some work.




2) After that I install the package
perl-Tk-JBrowseEntry-5.22-1.fc30.noarch
I generate a
perl-Tk-JFileDialog.spec
which contains:
BuildRequires:  perl(Tk::JBrowseEntry) >= 4.63

Why that?



cpanspec reads the META.json file provided by Tk-JFileDialog, which 
indicates that it needs Tk::JBrowseEntry >= 4.63, and then translates 
that information into the spec so that rpm will also know about that 
requirement.




Error:  Problem: conflicting requests
   - nothing provides perl(Tk::JBrowseEntry) >= 4.63 needed by 
perl-Tk-JFileDialog-2.20-1.fc30.noarch

The solutions that I found are:
1) add Provides: perl(Tk::JBrowseEntry) = %{version}-%{release} in 
perl-Tk-JBrowseEntry.spec or
2) remove BuildRequires:  perl(Tk::JBrowseEntry) >= 4.63 in 
perl-Tk-JFileDialog.spec



There is a third solution: Add "BuildRequires: perl-generators" in 
perl-Tk-JBrowseEntry.spec (or use the "--add-buildrequires 
perl-generators" argument to cpanspec).  That will automatically 
generate the "provides" so that you don't have to do #1 yourself.




In my opinion, I should not have to edit the .spec files



cpanspec appears to be unmaintained, and Fedora guidelines have changed 
since 2013.  I outlined a number of improvements that should be made in 
order to conform to current guidelines, but only two stand out as being 
strictly necessary: adding the missing installed files to the %files 
section, and adding a buildrequires for perl-generators.


I'd encourage you to remember that Free Software is built on a culture 
of participation.  I understand that the tool you are using isn't 
perfect, but no one here is the maintainer of that tool.  Complaining 
about it will not solve the problem, but participating might.  If you 
think the tool needs to be improved, please create a fork and improve 
the tool.


___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[Patrick Dupre]

Thank you for these details.
However
1) I expect that I would have to edit the .spec file
2) After that I install the package
perl-Tk-JBrowseEntry-5.22-1.fc30.noarch
I generate a 
perl-Tk-JFileDialog.spec
which contains:
BuildRequires:  perl(Tk::JBrowseEntry) >= 4.63

Why that?
When I want to install
perl-Tk-JFileDialog-2.20-1.fc30.noarch.rpm

I get
Error: 
 Problem: conflicting requests
  - nothing provides perl(Tk::JBrowseEntry) >= 4.63 needed by 
perl-Tk-JFileDialog-2.20-1.fc30.noarch
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)

The solutions that I found are:
1) add Provides: perl(Tk::JBrowseEntry) = %{version}-%{release}
in perl-Tk-JBrowseEntry.spec
or
2) remove 
BuildRequires:  perl(Tk::JBrowseEntry) >= 4.63
in
perl-Tk-JFileDialog.spec

In my opinion, I should not have to edit the .spec files

===
 Patrick DUPRÉ | | email: pdu...@gmx.com
 Laboratoire interdisciplinaire Carnot de Bourgogne
 9 Avenue Alain Savary, BP 47870, 21078 DIJON Cedex FRANCE
 Tel: +33 (0)380395988
===


> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 at 7:06 PM
> From: "Gordon Messmer" 
> To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Subject: Re: rpmbuild
>
> On 6/12/19 1:43 PM, Patrick Dupre wrote:
> > cpanspec --add-buildrequires perl-generators Tk-JBrowseEntry-5.22.tar.gz
> >
> > only add:
> > BuildRequires:  perl-generators
> > in the .spec file
> >
> > which does not help.
> 
> 
> Sure, it does.  The purpose of the "perl-generators" package is to 
> include information about what a perl package "provides" and "requires" 
> automaticaly, so that you don't have to.  If I build Tk-JBrowseEntry 
> with BuildRequires: perl-generators, then I get this on the resulting 
> package:
> 
> # rpm -q --provides perl-Tk-JBrowseEntry-5.22-1.fc30.noarch
> perl(Tk::JBrowseEntry) = 5.22
> perl-Tk-JBrowseEntry = 5.22-1.fc30
> 
> If I run the command you included above, there are several changes we'd 
> want to make to the spec to bring it more in line with Fedora's 
> packaging guidelines.  "Group" and "BuildRoot" aren't used in Fedora, so 
> those lines can be removed.  The "make" command can be replaced with 
> "%{make_build}".  The %install section should not remove the build 
> root.  The %clean section should be removed.  We need to add 
> "PERL5LIB=%{buildroot}%{perl_vendorlib}" to the "make test" command in 
> order for it to find the modules it installed in the build root 
> (although some tests don't work without an X11 connection).  "%defattr" 
> isn't required in Fedora.  Finally, we need to add "%{_bindir}/*" or 
> "%{_bindir}/JBrowseTest.pl" to the %files section (or, alternatively, 
> remove that file in the %install section if it should not be included in 
> the package).  A patch is attached with those changes, for a more 
> literal specification of the changes.
> 
> I can use that modified spec to build a package, and move on to building 
> the other package you mentioned, perl-Tk-JFileDialog. That package 
> requires very similar changes, with the exception that "make test" 
> actually fails, so I removed that rather than resolve the issue because 
> I'm not working on pushing this through formal review.  :)
> 
> After making the same changes to perl-Tk-JFileDialog, and building the 
> package, both packages can be installed:
> 
> # rpm -q perl-Tk-JFileDialog perl-Tk-JBrowseEntry
> perl-Tk-JFileDialog-2.20-1.fc30.noarch
> perl-Tk-JBrowseEntry-5.22-1.fc30.noarch
> 
> 
> On 6/10/19 1:10 AM, Patrick Dupre wrote:
> > Same issue with Tk-JFileDialog.spec
> > In addition, I get:
> > rpmbuild -bb perl-Tk-JFileDialog.spec
> > error: Failed build dependencies:
> > perl(Tk::JBrowseEntry) >= 4.63 is needed by 
> > perl-Tk-JFileDialog-2.20-1.fc30.noarch
> >
> > while the installed version is 5.22
> 
> 
> I believe you got this because your build environment did not include 
> the perl-generator package.  Once you add that to your BuildRequires, 
> then the perl-Tk-JBrowseEntry package will automatically provide 
> "perl(Tk::JBrowseEntry)", and resolve the dependency reported in this 
> error message.
> 
> ___
> users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: 
> https

Re: rpmbuild

[Gordon Messmer]

On 6/12/19 1:43 PM, Patrick Dupre wrote:

cpanspec --add-buildrequires perl-generators Tk-JBrowseEntry-5.22.tar.gz

only add:
BuildRequires:  perl-generators
in the .spec file

which does not help.



Sure, it does.  The purpose of the "perl-generators" package is to 
include information about what a perl package "provides" and "requires" 
automaticaly, so that you don't have to.  If I build Tk-JBrowseEntry 
with BuildRequires: perl-generators, then I get this on the resulting 
package:


# rpm -q --provides perl-Tk-JBrowseEntry-5.22-1.fc30.noarch
perl(Tk::JBrowseEntry) = 5.22
perl-Tk-JBrowseEntry = 5.22-1.fc30

If I run the command you included above, there are several changes we'd 
want to make to the spec to bring it more in line with Fedora's 
packaging guidelines.  "Group" and "BuildRoot" aren't used in Fedora, so 
those lines can be removed.  The "make" command can be replaced with 
"%{make_build}".  The %install section should not remove the build 
root.  The %clean section should be removed.  We need to add 
"PERL5LIB=%{buildroot}%{perl_vendorlib}" to the "make test" command in 
order for it to find the modules it installed in the build root 
(although some tests don't work without an X11 connection).  "%defattr" 
isn't required in Fedora.  Finally, we need to add "%{_bindir}/*" or 
"%{_bindir}/JBrowseTest.pl" to the %files section (or, alternatively, 
remove that file in the %install section if it should not be included in 
the package).  A patch is attached with those changes, for a more 
literal specification of the changes.


I can use that modified spec to build a package, and move on to building 
the other package you mentioned, perl-Tk-JFileDialog. That package 
requires very similar changes, with the exception that "make test" 
actually fails, so I removed that rather than resolve the issue because 
I'm not working on pushing this through formal review.  :)


After making the same changes to perl-Tk-JFileDialog, and building the 
package, both packages can be installed:


# rpm -q perl-Tk-JFileDialog perl-Tk-JBrowseEntry
perl-Tk-JFileDialog-2.20-1.fc30.noarch
perl-Tk-JBrowseEntry-5.22-1.fc30.noarch


On 6/10/19 1:10 AM, Patrick Dupre wrote:

Same issue with Tk-JFileDialog.spec
In addition, I get:
rpmbuild -bb perl-Tk-JFileDialog.spec
error: Failed build dependencies:
perl(Tk::JBrowseEntry) >= 4.63 is needed by 
perl-Tk-JFileDialog-2.20-1.fc30.noarch

while the installed version is 5.22



I believe you got this because your build environment did not include 
the perl-generator package.  Once you add that to your BuildRequires, 
then the perl-Tk-JBrowseEntry package will automatically provide 
"perl(Tk::JBrowseEntry)", and resolve the dependency reported in this 
error message.


--- /root/perl-Tk-JBrowseEntry.spec.2	2019-06-14 15:41:06.202279307 +
+++ perl-Tk-JBrowseEntry.spec	2019-06-14 16:03:23.610542942 +
@@ -3,10 +3,8 @@
 Release:1%{?dist}
 Summary:Full-featured "Combo-box" (Text-entry combined with drop-down listbox) derived from Tk::BrowseEntry with many additional features and options
 License:GPL+ or Artistic
-Group:  Development/Libraries
 URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/Tk-JBrowseEntry/
 Source0:http://www.cpan.org/modules/by-module/Tk/Tk-JBrowseEntry-%{version}.tar.gz
-BuildRoot:  %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
 BuildArch:  noarch
 BuildRequires:  perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
 BuildRequires:  perl(Tk)
@@ -29,11 +27,9 @@
 
 %build
 %{__perl} Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor
-make %{?_smp_mflags}
+%{make_build}
 
 %install
-rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
-
 make pure_install PERL_INSTALL_ROOT=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
 
 find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -name .packlist -exec rm -f {} \;
@@ -42,16 +38,14 @@
 %{_fixperms} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/*
 
 %check
-make test
-
-%clean
-rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+PERL5LIB=%{buildroot}%{perl_vendorlib} \
+  make test
 
 %files
-%defattr(-,root,root,-)
 %doc Changes META.json README
 %{perl_vendorlib}/*
 %{_mandir}/man3/*
+%{_bindir}/*
 
 %changelog
 * Fri Jun 14 2019 Gordon Messmer  5.22-1

___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[Michael Schwendt]

On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 23:09:58 +0200, Patrick Dupre wrote:

> Maybe, however, some perl packages require packages with a version
> number higher than a certain value.
> Thus, if the Provides/Requires instructions are not set properly,
> all the packages requiring other packages fail, either at the build or
> installation step.

That doesn't make any sense at all.

The Provides/Requires dependencies are set automatically at build-time.
One package _provides_ exactly what is found within in.
Another package _requires_ exactly what it uses in its code.
These automatic dependencies are correct at build-time, if and only if
none of the providing packages is taken away or replaced with something
incompatible (such as failing to satisfy >= requirements due to API changes
or runtime behaviour changes).

If a Perl Module included in an RPM package is version X.Y, the package
must not be used, if a package requires a version higher than X.Y. The
package metadata must only provide exactly the version of the Perl Module
that is included. That is why perl-generators is used to create these
dependencies at build-time. If a newer version of the Perl Module is
needed, an update to the package collection may be needed.

If you hack a spec file with manually added "Provides:" for a higher
version, you are working against the entire system of package dependencies.

> In my opinion, all the perl packages need to be checked
> to go through the distribution without requiring to use
> capnspec by the final user.

That is entirely unrelated to this mailing-list thread. It could be that
there are perl-* RPM packages included in Fedora's package collection,
which are missing the perl-generators build requirement and which are
missing "perl(A::B) = version" provides. If that is the case, file a bug
report. Or step up as co-maintainer, if you depend on such packages.
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[Patrick Dupre]

> On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 22:43:24 +0200, Patrick Dupre wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Again, I am not sure to understand:
> >
> > cpanspec --add-buildrequires perl-generators Tk-JBrowseEntry-5.22.tar.gz
> >
> > only add:
> > BuildRequires:  perl-generators
> > in the .spec file
> >
> > which does not help.
>
> It helps with automatic creation of Perl Module dependency metadata in
> the built packages. It does not add any Provides/Requires to the spec file,
> because that would be the wrong thing to do.
Maybe, however, some perl packages require packages with a version
number higher than a certain value.
Thus, if the Provides/Requires instructions are not set properly,
all the packages requiring other packages fail, either at the build or
installation step.
In my opinion, all the perl packages need to be checked
to go through the distribution without requiring to use
capnspec by the final user.

> ___
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[Michael Schwendt]

On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 22:43:24 +0200, Patrick Dupre wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> Again, I am not sure to understand:
> 
> cpanspec --add-buildrequires perl-generators Tk-JBrowseEntry-5.22.tar.gz
> 
> only add:
> BuildRequires:  perl-generators
> in the .spec file
>
> which does not help.

It helps with automatic creation of Perl Module dependency metadata in
the built packages. It does not add any Provides/Requires to the spec file,
because that would be the wrong thing to do.
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[Patrick Dupre]

Of course, I fixed the 2 or 3 issues manually.

===
 Patrick DUPRÉ | | email: pdu...@gmx.com
 Laboratoire interdisciplinaire Carnot de Bourgogne
 9 Avenue Alain Savary, BP 47870, 21078 DIJON Cedex FRANCE
 Tel: +33 (0)380395988
===


> Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 4:50 AM
> From: "Samuel Sieb" 
> To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Subject: Re: rpmbuild
>
> On 6/12/19 1:43 PM, Patrick Dupre wrote:
> > Again, I am not sure to understand:
> > 
> > cpanspec --add-buildrequires perl-generators Tk-JBrowseEntry-5.22.tar.gz
> > 
> > only add:
> > BuildRequires:  perl-generators
> > in the .spec file
> > 
> > which does not help.
> 
> The spec file you get from cpanspec will need to be modified by you 
> before it will work.  You will need that %files entry as well.  What is 
> still not working for you?
> ___
> users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: 
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[Samuel Sieb]

On 6/12/19 1:43 PM, Patrick Dupre wrote:

Again, I am not sure to understand:

cpanspec --add-buildrequires perl-generators Tk-JBrowseEntry-5.22.tar.gz

only add:
BuildRequires:  perl-generators
in the .spec file

which does not help.


The spec file you get from cpanspec will need to be modified by you 
before it will work.  You will need that %files entry as well.  What is 
still not working for you?

___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[Patrick Dupre]

Hello,

Again, I am not sure to understand:

cpanspec --add-buildrequires perl-generators Tk-JBrowseEntry-5.22.tar.gz

only add:
BuildRequires:  perl-generators
in the .spec file

which does not help.

===
 Patrick DUPRÉ | | email: pdu...@gmx.com
 Laboratoire interdisciplinaire Carnot de Bourgogne
 9 Avenue Alain Savary, BP 47870, 21078 DIJON Cedex FRANCE
 Tel: +33 (0)380395988
===


> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 at 2:26 PM
> From: "Michael Schwendt" 
> To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Subject: Re: rpmbuild
>
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 21:13:10 +0200, Patrick Dupre wrote:
> 
> > I am not sure to take the point:
> 
> You focus on something else.
> 
> > I can run
> > cpanspec --add-buildrequires perl-generators Tk-JBrowseEntry-5.22.tar.gz 
> > --add-provide "perl(Tk::JBrowseEntry)  %{version}-%{release}"
> > 
> > If it is correct.
> 
> It isn't. You are not supposed to add those Provides yourself.
> BuildRequires perl-generators would do it inside the built packages.
> Adding both makes no sense.
> 
> > Why is it not automatic?
> 
> Other have answered that. I only tell you what needs to be present within
> the spec file for the built package dependencies to be added on-the-fly.
> 
> Instead, you expect the cpanspec generated file to be perfect, which is
> a different issue.
> ___
> users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: 
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[Michael Schwendt]

On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 21:13:10 +0200, Patrick Dupre wrote:

> I am not sure to take the point:

You focus on something else.

> I can run
> cpanspec --add-buildrequires perl-generators Tk-JBrowseEntry-5.22.tar.gz 
> --add-provide "perl(Tk::JBrowseEntry)  %{version}-%{release}"
> 
> If it is correct.

It isn't. You are not supposed to add those Provides yourself.
BuildRequires perl-generators would do it inside the built packages.
Adding both makes no sense.

> Why is it not automatic?

Other have answered that. I only tell you what needs to be present within
the spec file for the built package dependencies to be added on-the-fly.

Instead, you expect the cpanspec generated file to be perfect, which is
a different issue.
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[Todd Zullinger]

Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 6/11/19 12:13 PM, Patrick Dupre wrote:
>> Again, why the generation of the .spec is not automatic?
> 
> Because the script isn't perfect and it's a difficult problem to solve.
> cpanspec appears to be pretty dead upstream.  You could try filing a bug in
> Fedora bugzilla.

FWIW, this issue is already noted here (nearly 2.5 years
ago):

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/671445#c9

I suspect this won't be fixed anytime soon, unless someone
steps up to provide a patch.  Even that might not be enough,
based on the fact that ticket still has an unapplied patch
for other issues.  :)

-- 
Todd


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[Samuel Sieb]

On 6/11/19 12:13 PM, Patrick Dupre wrote:

Again, why the generation of the .spec is not automatic?


Because the script isn't perfect and it's a difficult problem to solve. 
cpanspec appears to be pretty dead upstream.  You could try filing a bug 
in Fedora bugzilla.

___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[Patrick Dupre]

Hello,

I am not sure to take the point:

I can run
cpanspec --add-buildrequires perl-generators Tk-JBrowseEntry-5.22.tar.gz 
but
that does not fill 
Provides: perl(Tk::JBrowseEntry) = %{version}-%{release}
I can run
cpanspec --add-buildrequires perl-generators Tk-JBrowseEntry-5.22.tar.gz 
--add-provide "perl(Tk::JBrowseEntry)  %{version}-%{release}"

If it is correct. Why is it not automatic?


Anyway,
%{_bindir}/JBrowseTest.pl

is still missing in
%files

Again, why the generation of the .spec is not automatic?

===
 Patrick DUPRÉ | | email: pdu...@gmx.com
 Laboratoire interdisciplinaire Carnot de Bourgogne
 9 Avenue Alain Savary, BP 47870, 21078 DIJON Cedex FRANCE
 Tel: +33 (0)380395988
===


> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 12:46 PM
> From: "Michael Schwendt" 
> To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Subject: Re: rpmbuild
>
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 17:45:23 +0200, Patrick Dupre wrote:
> 
> > Sorry, when I run
> > cpanspec Tk-JBrowseEntry-5.22.tar.gz 
> 
> I referred to _build time_ creation of inter-package dependencies.
> The step when rpmbuild adds Requires/Provides to the built packages.
> You are not supposed to hack a spec file as to add them manually for
> Perl Modules installed in Perl's paths for modules.
> 
> > Is there something in my .spec generation?
> > 
> > Anyway, addition:
> > Provides: perl(Tk::JBrowseEntry) = %{version}-%{release}
> > 
> > fixes this issue
> 
> Instead, use "BuildRequires: perl-generators" at build-time.
> ___
> users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: 
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[Michael Schwendt]

On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 17:45:23 +0200, Patrick Dupre wrote:

> Sorry, when I run
> cpanspec Tk-JBrowseEntry-5.22.tar.gz 

I referred to _build time_ creation of inter-package dependencies.
The step when rpmbuild adds Requires/Provides to the built packages.
You are not supposed to hack a spec file as to add them manually for
Perl Modules installed in Perl's paths for modules.

> Is there something in my .spec generation?
> 
> Anyway, addition:
> Provides: perl(Tk::JBrowseEntry) = %{version}-%{release}
> 
> fixes this issue

Instead, use "BuildRequires: perl-generators" at build-time.
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[Patrick Dupre]

Sorry, when I run
cpanspec Tk-JBrowseEntry-5.22.tar.gz 

I get:
Name:   perl-Tk-JBrowseEntry
Version:5.22
Release:1%{?dist}
Summary:Full-featured "Combo-box" (Text-entry combined with drop-down 
listbox) derived from Tk::BrowseEntry with many additional features and options
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group:  Development/Libraries
URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/Tk-JBrowseEntry/
Source0:
http://www.cpan.org/modules/by-module/Tk/Tk-JBrowseEntry-%{version}.tar.gz
BuildRoot:  %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
BuildArch:  noarch
BuildRequires:  perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
BuildRequires:  perl(Tk)
Requires:   perl(Tk)
Requires:   perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`"; echo 
$version))

%description
Tk::JBrowseEntry is a derived widget from Tk::BrowseEntry, but adds
numerous features and options. Among them are hash lists (one set of values
is displayed for the user, but another is used as data), ability to disable
either the text entry widget or the listbox, ability to allow user to
delete items from the list, additional keyboard bindings, ability to have
the drop-down list "fixed" (always displayed, ability to use Tk::HListbox,
ie. to include thumbnail icons in the list), customized key bindings and
behaviour, and much more!

%prep
%setup -q -n Tk-JBrowseEntry-%{version}

%build
%{__perl} Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor
make %{?_smp_mflags}

%install
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

make pure_install PERL_INSTALL_ROOT=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT

find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -name .packlist -exec rm -f {} \;
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} 2>/dev/null \;

%{_fixperms} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/*

%check
make test

%clean
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc Changes META.json README
%{perl_vendorlib}/*
%{_mandir}/man3/*

%changelog
* Mon Jun 10 2019 Patrick Dupre  5.22-1
- Specfile autogenerated by cpanspec 1.78.

---
Is there something in my .spec generation?

Anyway, addition:
Provides: perl(Tk::JBrowseEntry) = %{version}-%{release}

fixes this issue

===
 Patrick DUPRÉ | | email: pdu...@gmx.com
 Laboratoire interdisciplinaire Carnot de Bourgogne
 9 Avenue Alain Savary, BP 47870, 21078 DIJON Cedex FRANCE
 Tel: +33 (0)380395988
===


> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 at 5:22 PM
> From: "Michael Schwendt" 
> To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Subject: Re: rpmbuild
>
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 15:35:22 +0200, Patrick Dupre wrote:
> 
> > Provides: perl(Tk::JBrowseEntry) = %{version}-%{release}
> > 
> > seems missing in the .spec file
> 
> No. These are automatically created Provides/Requires for Perl Modules.
> You need to work with a package that _really_ includes and "Provides"
> the Tk:JBrowseEntry module with a sufficient version. If such a package
> is installed in the build environment, but doesn't contain the "Provides"
> tag, you will need to take a closer look at that package.
> ___
> users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: 
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[Michael Schwendt]

On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 15:35:22 +0200, Patrick Dupre wrote:

> Provides: perl(Tk::JBrowseEntry) = %{version}-%{release}
> 
> seems missing in the .spec file

No. These are automatically created Provides/Requires for Perl Modules.
You need to work with a package that _really_ includes and "Provides"
the Tk:JBrowseEntry module with a sufficient version. If such a package
is installed in the build environment, but doesn't contain the "Provides"
tag, you will need to take a closer look at that package.
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[Patrick Dupre]

Provides: perl(Tk::JBrowseEntry) = %{version}-%{release}

seems missing in the .spec file

===
 Patrick DUPRÉ | | email: pdu...@gmx.com
 Laboratoire interdisciplinaire Carnot de Bourgogne
 9 Avenue Alain Savary, BP 47870, 21078 DIJON Cedex FRANCE
 Tel: +33 (0)380395988
===



> > Same issue with Tk-JFileDialog.spec
> > In addition, I get:
> > rpmbuild -bb perl-Tk-JFileDialog.spec 
> > error: Failed build dependencies:
> > perl(Tk::JBrowseEntry) >= 4.63 is needed by
> > perl-Tk-JFileDialog-2.20-1.fc30.noarch
> > 
> > while the installed version is 5.22
> > 
> > Could you tell me what is wrong?
> 
> It will be almost impossible to tell what is wrong without the build
> output.  When you run rpmbuild add the following at the end of it.
> That will put the regular output in out.msg and the error output in
> out.ror.  Then you have files of the output to analyze.  Or post /
> paste (fedora has a facility called fpaste for this) for other people to
> analyze if you can't. You can view them with less out*
> 
> > out.msg 2> out.ror
> 
> From the information you provide, it seems unlikely that this is the
> actual issue causing the build abort.  Computers don't get things like
> a simple >= wrong.
> ___
> users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: 
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[stan via users]

On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 10:10:54 +0200
"Patrick Dupre"  wrote:

> Same issue with Tk-JFileDialog.spec
> In addition, I get:
> rpmbuild -bb perl-Tk-JFileDialog.spec 
> error: Failed build dependencies:
>   perl(Tk::JBrowseEntry) >= 4.63 is needed by
> perl-Tk-JFileDialog-2.20-1.fc30.noarch
> 
> while the installed version is 5.22
> 
> Could you tell me what is wrong?

It will be almost impossible to tell what is wrong without the build
output.  When you run rpmbuild add the following at the end of it.
That will put the regular output in out.msg and the error output in
out.ror.  Then you have files of the output to analyze.  Or post /
paste (fedora has a facility called fpaste for this) for other people to
analyze if you can't. You can view them with less out*

> out.msg 2> out.ror

From the information you provide, it seems unlikely that this is the
actual issue causing the build abort.  Computers don't get things like
a simple >= wrong.
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[Patrick Dupre]

Thank.

Same issue with Tk-JFileDialog.spec
In addition, I get:
rpmbuild -bb perl-Tk-JFileDialog.spec 
error: Failed build dependencies:
perl(Tk::JBrowseEntry) >= 4.63 is needed by 
perl-Tk-JFileDialog-2.20-1.fc30.noarch

while the installed version is 5.22

Could you tell me what is wrong?

Thank

===
 Patrick DUPRÉ | | email: pdu...@gmx.com
 Laboratoire interdisciplinaire Carnot de Bourgogne
 9 Avenue Alain Savary, BP 47870, 21078 DIJON Cedex FRANCE
 Tel: +33 (0)380395988
===


> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 at 2:11 AM
> From: "Gordon Messmer" 
> To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Subject: Re: rpmbuild
>
> On 6/9/19 2:27 PM, Patrick Dupre wrote:
> > RPM build errors:
> >  Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
> > /usr/bin/JBrowseTest.pl
> 
> 
> Add that path to the %files section of the spec.  If you're maintaining 
> this for redistribution, you might want to list the path as 
> "%{_bindir}/JBrowseTest.pl"
> ___
> users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: 
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[Gordon Messmer]

On 6/9/19 2:27 PM, Patrick Dupre wrote:

RPM build errors:
 Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
/usr/bin/JBrowseTest.pl



Add that path to the %files section of the spec.  If you're maintaining 
this for redistribution, you might want to list the path as 
"%{_bindir}/JBrowseTest.pl"

___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[Michael Schwendt]

On Sun, 9 Jun 2019 08:38:05 -0700, Gordon Messmer wrote:

> On 6/9/19 7:29 AM, Patrick Dupre wrote:
> > How can I make a rpmbuild and keep the compiled files?  
> 
> 
> Have you tried "rpmbuild --noclean"?

Alternatively, end the building after the %build stage:

  rpmbuild -bc foo.spec

And you will find the compiled files in the build dir. If you want
to keep the installed files, use:

  rpmbuild -bi foo.spec

Then find that the buildroot directory has been installed to.

Also notice the --short-circuit commands covered in the manual page
in case you want to modify individual spec file sections and test
the changes quickly.
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[Gordon Messmer]

On 6/9/19 7:29 AM, Patrick Dupre wrote:

How can I make a rpmbuild and keep the compiled files?



Have you tried "rpmbuild --noclean"?
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild error

[Ranjan Maitra]

Hi,

Thanks again! The spec file compiles fine but also does without libtool. Why do 
we need it?

What more info would you like? I don't know what a desktop file does exactly, 
and I don't know why there is a file such as that in /etc/wbar.d, sorry.

Many thanks and best wishes,
Ranjan

On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 14:55:04 -0500 Richard Shaw  wrote:

> I played around a bit and built it in mock and found several dependencies
> you didn't have in the spec file. You didn't provide the desktop file so I
> commented it out but I noticed it puts one in /etc/wbar.d so I'm not sure
> what it's for...
> 
> I can fix it up a bit more if you can provide more info.
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/oh87uhv422z6kl3/wbar-2.3.4-1.fc28.src.rpm
> 
> Thanks,
> Richard


-- 
Important Notice: This mailbox is ignored: e-mails are set to be deleted on 
receipt. Please respond to the mailing list if appropriate. For those needing 
to send personal or professional e-mail, please use appropriate addresses.
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild error

[Sam Varshavchik]

Ranjan Maitra writes:



RPM build errors:
Macro expanded in comment on line 11: %{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2

Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.Am2P0X (%build)



I wonder: what is causing these errors? Line 11 of the file seems to be  
something else.


Line 11 has nothing to do with the actual build failure.

The rpm attempts to build this code with the -Werror compilation flag. The  
compilation produces warnings, and -Werror results in all warnings being  
treated as errors, aborting the build.





pgpTQGuEDqZf9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild error

[Richard Shaw]

I played around a bit and built it in mock and found several dependencies
you didn't have in the spec file. You didn't provide the desktop file so I
commented it out but I noticed it puts one in /etc/wbar.d so I'm not sure
what it's for...

I can fix it up a bit more if you can provide more info.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/oh87uhv422z6kl3/wbar-2.3.4-1.fc28.src.rpm

Thanks,
Richard
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild error

[Richard Shaw]

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 9:47 PM Ranjan Maitra  wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 07:52:46 -0500 Richard Shaw 
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 10:07 PM Ranjan Maitra  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I have not done this for a while, and I was trying to build a small rpm
> > > using a previously written .spec file which I had created some time
> ago and
> > > which compiled without incident till F27.
> >
> >
> > Over time gcc gets more pedantic about syntax and warnings turn to errors
> > and I believer "-Werror" turns all warnings to errors. You could remove
> > that flag or I think adding "-Wno-error=parentheses" might work.
>
> Thanks! How do I remove this flag? Or add the no-error flag, for that
> matter? I tried:
>
> make %{?_smp_mflags} "-Wno-error=parentheses"
>

No it needs to be set at or before the configure step. I used the
environment variable method (CXXFLAGS). Take a look at the spec file in the
SRPM I linked in my other email.

I didn't check thoroughly but I believe the SRPM I made is mostly Fedora
guidelines compliant. I would still need to understand the purpose of the
extra desktop file and why one it installed to /etc/wbar.d.

Thanks,
Richard
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild error

[Ranjan Maitra]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 07:52:46 -0500 Richard Shaw  wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 10:07 PM Ranjan Maitra  wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have not done this for a while, and I was trying to build a small rpm
> > using a previously written .spec file which I had created some time ago and
> > which compiled without incident till F27.
> 
> 
> Over time gcc gets more pedantic about syntax and warnings turn to errors
> and I believer "-Werror" turns all warnings to errors. You could remove
> that flag or I think adding "-Wno-error=parentheses" might work.

Thanks! How do I remove this flag? Or add the no-error flag, for that matter? I 
tried:

make %{?_smp_mflags} "-Wno-error=parentheses"

but got to the same place (i.e. errors) as before.

> Curiosity got the better of me and I'm working on updating your specfile to
> something more current with the guidelines.

Thanks very much for any advice! As I said, I would like this to got into the 
Fedora repos. So this would be very helpful.

Best wishes,
Ranjan


-- 
Important Notice: This mailbox is ignored: e-mails are set to be deleted on 
receipt. Please respond to the mailing list if appropriate. For those needing 
to send personal or professional e-mail, please use appropriate addresses.
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild error

[Richard Shaw]

On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 10:07 PM Ranjan Maitra  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have not done this for a while, and I was trying to build a small rpm
> using a previously written .spec file which I had created some time ago and
> which compiled without incident till F27.


Over time gcc gets more pedantic about syntax and warnings turn to errors
and I believer "-Werror" turns all warnings to errors. You could remove
that flag or I think adding "-Wno-error=parentheses" might work.

Curiosity got the better of me and I'm working on updating your specfile to
something more current with the guidelines.

Thanks,
Richard
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild --define - some rpm sorcerer around?

[Todd Zullinger]

lejeczek via users wrote:
> It actually might be working. What I was doing I was looking for a
> confirmation like this:
> 
> $ ps -FC rpmbuild --cols 
> UIDPID  PPID  CSZ   RSS PSR STIME TTY  TIME CMD
> appmgr   24855 24835  0 44512  6772  16 17:33 pts/000:00:00 rpmbuild
> --define "_MKL 1" --define "_mic 1"
> 
> waiting to see those quotation marks(single or double) in there, but.. it
> turns out that it works actually when ps is not showing them, like:
> 
> $ ps -FC rpmbuild --cols 
> UIDPID  PPID  CSZ   RSS PSR STIME TTY  TIME CMD
> appmgr   24855 24835  0 44512  6772  16 17:33 pts/000:00:00 rpmbuild
> --define _MKL 1 --define _mic 1

Ahh, yes.  There's a level of quoting needed by the shell,
which is removed when the command is executed and shows up
in ps.

> and then vars(in a bash script, all in such a script) are simply declared:
> ...
> export _definition1='_MKL 1'
> rpmbuild --define "${_definition1}" --define "${_definition2}"
> 
> without! any escaping of quotes.

It's not clear how you're using these macros, but if you're
toggling settings, the %bcond_with and %bcond_without
options may be useful.  Then you can enable/disable using
--with and --without on the rpmbuild command line.

http://rpm.org/user_doc/conditional_builds.html

-- 
Todd
~~
Experience is the worst teacher: it gives the test before presenting
the lesson.
-- Vernon Law



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/EH6U5X4K6BLR335NF7U3HIT2OB3XIVFU/

Re: rpmbuild --define - some rpm sorcerer around?

[lejeczek via users]

On 11/06/18 17:07, lejeczek via users wrote:

I'm sorry, I do not get it.. was I so hard to read?

$ _def1="_me 1"
$ rpmbuild --define \'"${_def1}"\'

and no matter how I quote, how I escape bash's var, rpmbuild does not 
"react" to it. I run it from a bash script.

I should mention I'm on Centos 7.5. RPM version 4.11.3

many thanks, L.
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/5NFU3JXRKRGBHTVJFX4JMYCNO7UCEZ22/ 



It actually might be working. What I was doing I was looking for a 
confirmation like this:


$ ps -FC rpmbuild --cols 
UIDPID  PPID  CSZ   RSS PSR STIME TTY  TIME CMD
appmgr   24855 24835  0 44512  6772  16 17:33 pts/000:00:00 rpmbuild 
--define "_MKL 1" --define "_mic 1"


waiting to see those quotation marks(single or double) in there, but.. 
it turns out that it works actually when ps is not showing them, like:


$ ps -FC rpmbuild --cols 
UIDPID  PPID  CSZ   RSS PSR STIME TTY  TIME CMD
appmgr   24855 24835  0 44512  6772  16 17:33 pts/000:00:00 rpmbuild 
--define _MKL 1 --define _mic 1


and then vars(in a bash script, all in such a script) are simply declared:
...
export _definition1='_MKL 1'
rpmbuild --define "${_definition1}" --define "${_definition2}"

without! any escaping of quotes.
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/MSJKBBTDFOTHCMOA36CRBP37QRBMHTWP/

Re: rpmbuild --define - some rpm sorcerer around?

[Todd Zullinger]

lejeczek via users wrote:
> I'm sorry, I do not get it.. was I so hard to read?
> 
> $ _def1="_me 1"
> $ rpmbuild --define \'"${_def1}"\'
> 
> and no matter how I quote, how I escape bash's var, rpmbuild does not
> "react" to it. I run it from a bash script.
> I should mention I'm on Centos 7.5. RPM version 4.11.3

Yes, it's good to know that you're on CentOS which uses an
older version of rpm.  That's not likely the issue here, but
it's sometimes the details which make all the difference.

More importantly, things we are still missing include:

- an example spec file (or at least the parts where you
  define the macro and use them)

- the output you get (including the commands you run to
  get them)

- how that differs from the output you expect.

I included a simplified spec file and commands which showed
the output when run.  How does your spec file differ from
that example in the usage of the macros and %if statements?

We can help, but we need more information in order to do so.

I suspect that your issue is in how you're trying to create
and call the rpmbuild command from your shell script, which
is why you're showing so many levels of quoting.

But we shouldn't have to guess at this, you should provide
clear steps to demonstrate the issue, what the actual output
is, and what you expect it to be.

-- 
Todd
~~
If quizzes are quizzical, what are tests?



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/XXCOM5NFT6GUYCGZCLOKEH4OSMMRR5SV/

Re: rpmbuild --define - some rpm sorcerer around?

[lejeczek via users]

I'm sorry, I do not get it.. was I so hard to read?

$ _def1="_me 1"
$ rpmbuild --define \'"${_def1}"\'

and no matter how I quote, how I escape bash's var, rpmbuild does not 
"react" to it. I run it from a bash script.

I should mention I'm on Centos 7.5. RPM version 4.11.3

many thanks, L.
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/5NFU3JXRKRGBHTVJFX4JMYCNO7UCEZ22/

Re: rpmbuild --define - some rpm sorcerer around?

[Ulf Volmer]

On 09.06.2018 00:50, Rick Stevens wrote:
> On 06/08/2018 03:24 PM, Ulf Volmer wrote:
>> On 08.06.2018 23:58, lejeczek via users wrote:
>>
>>> $ _def1="_me 1"
>>> $ rpmbuild --define=${_def1}
>>
>> Try double quotes around your macro:
>>
>> $ rpmbuild --define "${_def1}"
> 
> The man page specifies:

Yes, that's why i recommend the line above. please keep in mind that
double quotes are needed for the OP to resolve the variable. And the
equal sign is not a hard reqiurement in this case.

best regards
Ulf
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/DXMVLMANYXNJCC6GP4TZUW7PBHT3CZ5X/

Re: rpmbuild --define - some rpm sorcerer around?

[Rick Stevens]

On 06/08/2018 03:24 PM, Ulf Volmer wrote:
> On 08.06.2018 23:58, lejeczek via users wrote:
> 
>> $ _def1="_me 1"
>> $ rpmbuild --define=${_def1}
> 
> Try double quotes around your macro:
> 
> $ rpmbuild --define "${_def1}"

The man page specifies:

--define='MACRO EXPR'

Meaning that the macro "%{MACRO}" in your script would be replaced with
the text "EXPR" (in this example case). Something like:

--define='_my_macro `uname -r`'

means that "%{_my_macro}" in the script would be replaced with the
result of the "uname -r" command (the backticks around the uname command
are so the command is executed...just like in the shell).

In other words, the argument to the "--define=" flag consists of two
items: the macro name itself and its definition. The macro name and its
definition must be separated by a space. Because they must be separated
by a space, the whole bit after the "=" must be quoted somehow so the
shell doesn't consume them as two separate items.
--
- Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigitalri...@alldigital.com -
- AIM/Skype: therps2ICQ: 226437340   Yahoo: origrps2 -
--
-He who laughs last thinks slowest.  -
--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/QQKIARPONU23CVC2WHTBTXSH4O7XSQU5/

Re: rpmbuild --define - some rpm sorcerer around?

[Todd Zullinger]

lejeczek via users wrote:
> On 08/06/18 16:39, Todd Zullinger wrote:
>> lejeczek via users wrote:
>>> how do you pass vars to rpmbuild for definition? eg
>>> 
>>> rpmbuild --define \'"${_definition2}"\'
>>> 
>>> I've been fiddling with ways to escape, but none is fricking working..
>>> I mean, rpmbuild rushes to work(no errors nor failure) so if you try just
>>> command line do not believe it, because later as it executes %if you will
>>> see process does not see these definitions.
>> The format would be --define '_definition2 value'.  The you
>> would use %{_definition2} in your spec file, (which I'm
>> presuming you already have, it's just not being defined).
>> 
>> The man page explains is this way:
>> 
>>  -D, --define='MACRO EXPR'
>>  Defines MACRO with value EXPR.
>> 
>> 
> 
> Try to pass bash var to rpmbuild, eg:
> 
> $ _def1="_me 1"
> $ rpmbuild --define=${_def1}
> 
> %if does not seem to catch/see these definitions. Like I said rpmbuild will
> run but you should see it is not there as .spec gets digested & processed.

It's hard to guess what error you get since you have not
included the output or a more complete example.  But my
guess is that you've not quoted the variable you're passing
to --define.  Here's an example spec and some example
output:

$ cat test.spec
Name:   test
Version:1.0
Release:1%{?dist}
Summary:Test spec
License:MIT

%description
%{summary}.

%prep
%if 0%{?_me}
echo "_me == %{_me}"
%else
echo "_me != 1"
%endif

#
# Running without --define shows the %else clause is reached
#
$ rpmbuild -bp test.spec 
Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /home/tmz/src/packages/tmp/rpm-tmp.po8R74
+ umask 022
+ cd /home/tmz/src/packages/test
+ echo '_me != 1'
_me != 1
+ exit 0

#
# Running with --define unquoted shows a failure
#
$ (_def1="_me 1"; rpmbuild -bp --define=$_def1 test.spec)
error: Macro %_me has empty body

#
# Running with --define quoted shows the %if clause is reached
#
$ (_def1="_me 1"; rpmbuild -bp --define="$_def1" test.spec)
Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /home/tmz/src/packages/tmp/rpm-tmp.jcPyKb
+ umask 022
+ cd /home/tmz/src/packages/test
+ echo '_me == 1'
_me == 1
+ exit 0

If you're experiencing some other sort of failure, it would
be useful if you included a shortened spec file and the
rpmbuild commands and output.

-- 
Todd
~~
Honesty may be the best policy, but it's important to remember that
apparently, by elimination, dishonesty is the second-best policy.
-- George Carlin



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/RKWZW3FVMUSCBUS5URLV44FKTUF2KAWJ/

Re: rpmbuild --define - some rpm sorcerer around?

[Ulf Volmer]

On 08.06.2018 23:58, lejeczek via users wrote:

> $ _def1="_me 1"
> $ rpmbuild --define=${_def1}

Try double quotes around your macro:

$ rpmbuild --define "${_def1}"

best regards
Ulf
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/3W3Y7JL7AZITMW5MO4JM4BT5KHLWXJW4/

Re: rpmbuild --define - some rpm sorcerer around?

[lejeczek via users]

On 08/06/18 16:39, Todd Zullinger wrote:

Hi,

lejeczek via users wrote:

how do you pass vars to rpmbuild for definition? eg

rpmbuild --define \'"${_definition2}"\'

I've been fiddling with ways to escape, but none is fricking working..
I mean, rpmbuild rushes to work(no errors nor failure) so if you try just
command line do not believe it, because later as it executes %if you will
see process does not see these definitions.

The format would be --define '_definition2 value'.  The you
would use %{_definition2} in your spec file, (which I'm
presuming you already have, it's just not being defined).

The man page explains is this way:

 -D, --define='MACRO EXPR'
 Defines MACRO with value EXPR.




Try to pass bash var to rpmbuild, eg:

$ _def1="_me 1"
$ rpmbuild --define=${_def1}

%if does not seem to catch/see these definitions. Like I 
said rpmbuild will run but you should see it is not there as 
.spec gets digested & processed.




___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/DTIIF332XVZNYJMB2PQT4BGMEFYMD3BV/

___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/LEVG6FW3PR4MC6SKUXQGMHAO6KCJH662/

Re: rpmbuild --define - some rpm sorcerer around?

[Todd Zullinger]

Hi,

lejeczek via users wrote:
> how do you pass vars to rpmbuild for definition? eg
> 
> rpmbuild --define \'"${_definition2}"\'
> 
> I've been fiddling with ways to escape, but none is fricking working..
> I mean, rpmbuild rushes to work(no errors nor failure) so if you try just
> command line do not believe it, because later as it executes %if you will
> see process does not see these definitions.

The format would be --define '_definition2 value'.  The you
would use %{_definition2} in your spec file, (which I'm
presuming you already have, it's just not being defined).

The man page explains is this way:

-D, --define='MACRO EXPR'
Defines MACRO with value EXPR.

-- 
Todd
~~
It's not denial. I'm just very selective about what I accept as
reality.
-- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes")



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/DTIIF332XVZNYJMB2PQT4BGMEFYMD3BV/

Re: rpmbuild

[Todd Zullinger]

Hi,

Patrick Dupre wrote:
> I am trying to create a rpm file from a tgz package.
> Could you help me?
> 
> I have been here
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_a_GNU_Hello_RPM_package
> I run
> rpmbuild -ba textext.spec 
> 
> Here is my file:
> 
> Name:   textext
> Version:0.4
> Release:1%{?dist}
> Summary:The textext for inkscape
> 
> License:GPLv3+
> URL:https://pav.iki.fi/software/textext/
> Source0:https://pav.iki.fi/_downloads/textext-0.4.tar.gz
> #BuildRequires:  
> #Requires:   
> 
> %description
> 
> 
> %prep
> %autosetup
> 
> 
> %build
> %configure
> %make_build
> 
> 
> %install
> rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

Remove this rm -rf line.  It is not needed or desirable.

> %make_install
> 
> 
> %files
> %license add-license-file-here

Unless the package actually has a file named
add-license-file-here, you should remove this line.  You'll
get a build error otherwise (once you fix the current
error).

> %doc add-docs-here

Same as above.

> %changelog
> * Fri Feb  9 2018 Patrick Dupre 
> - 

Fill in a changelog entry as well.  It might be as simple as
'- Initial package'

> But I get an error:
> 
> rpmbuild -ba textext.spec 
> Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.0cm1Uq
> + umask 022
> + cd /home/pdupre/rpmbuild/BUILD
> + cd /home/pdupre/rpmbuild/BUILD
> + rm -rf textext-0.4
> + /usr/bin/gzip -dc /home/pdupre/rpmbuild/SOURCES/textext-0.4.tar.gz
> + /usr/bin/tar -xof -
> + STATUS=0
> + '[' 0 -ne 0 ']'
> + cd textext-0.4
> /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.0cm1Uq: line 38: cd: textext-0.4: No such file or directory
> error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.0cm1Uq (%prep)

If you look at the textext-0.4.tar.gz, you'll see that it
does not place the files in a directory:

$ tar -tvf textext-0.4.tar.gz 
-rwxr-x--- pauli/pauli   27225 2008-04-22 17:14 textext.py
-rw--- pauli/pauli 415 2008-01-12 10:48 textext.inx

You'll need to have the %autosetup macro create the
directory for you before it unpacks the tarball.  That is
done with the -c option, so your %autosetup line above
should be:

%autosetup -c

Your next errors will be that this tool has no configure or
Makefile, so %configure, %make_build, and %make_install are
all going to fail.  You will need to replace them with the
actual steps to build/install the textext package.

I suspect that there is nothing to build, so the %build
section can likely be dropped entirely.

Then in the %install section you'll have to create the
needed directory structure and install the files.  And
finally you'll have to list them in the %files section.

You'll really want to read more of the rpm packaging guides
to learn how to do all of those things.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package
might be a good place to start.

-- 
Todd
~~
Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand.



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[Patrick Dupre]

> Den 2018-02-09 kl. 15:45, skrev Patrick Dupre:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > I am trying to create a rpm file from a tgz package.
> > Could you help me?
> > 
> > I have been here
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_a_GNU_Hello_RPM_package
> > I run
> > rpmbuild -ba textext.spec 
> > 
> > Here is my file:
> > 
> > Name:   textext
> > Version:0.4
> > Release:1%{?dist}
> > Summary:The textext for inkscape
> > 
> > License:GPLv3+
> > URL:https://pav.iki.fi/software/textext/
> > Source0:https://pav.iki.fi/_downloads/textext-0.4.tar.gz
> > #BuildRequires:  
> > #Requires:   
> > 
> > %description
> > 
> > 
> > %prep
> > %autosetup
> > 
> > 
> > %build
> > %configure
> > %make_build
> > 
> > 
> > %install
> > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> > %make_install
> > 
> > 
> > %files
> > %license add-license-file-here
> > %doc add-docs-here
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > %changelog
> > * Fri Feb  9 2018 Patrick Dupre 
> > - 
> > +
> > 
> > But I get an error:
> > 
> > rpmbuild -ba textext.spec 
> > Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.0cm1Uq
> > + umask 022
> > + cd /home/pdupre/rpmbuild/BUILD
> > + cd /home/pdupre/rpmbuild/BUILD
> > + rm -rf textext-0.4
> > + /usr/bin/gzip -dc /home/pdupre/rpmbuild/SOURCES/textext-0.4.tar.gz
> > + /usr/bin/tar -xof -
> > + STATUS=0
> > + '[' 0 -ne 0 ']'
> > + cd textext-0.4
> > /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.0cm1Uq: line 38: cd: textext-0.4: No such file or directory
> > error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.0cm1Uq (%prep)
> 
> This is telling you that directory "textext-0.4" don't exist.
> If you list the testes-0.4.tar.gz with tar (like this):
> 
> tar -tvf textext-0.4.tar.gz
> 
> what does it say?

tar -tzf textext-0.4.tar.gz 
textext.py
textext.inx

> 
> > 
> > 
> > RPM build errors:
> > Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.0cm1Uq (%prep)
> > 
> > 
> > ===
> >  Patrick DUPRÉ | | email: pdu...@gmx.com
> >  Laboratoire de Physico-Chimie de l'Atmosphère | |
> >  Université du Littoral-Côte d'Opale   | |
> >  Tel.  (33)-(0)3 28 23 76 12   | | Fax: 03 28 65 82 44
> >  189A, avenue Maurice Schumann | | 59140 Dunkerque, France
> > ===
> > ___
> > users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Regards
> 
> Jon Ingason
> ___
> users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[Jon Ingason]

Den 2018-02-09 kl. 15:45, skrev Patrick Dupre:
> Hello,
> 
> I am trying to create a rpm file from a tgz package.
> Could you help me?
> 
> I have been here
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_a_GNU_Hello_RPM_package
> I run
> rpmbuild -ba textext.spec 
> 
> Here is my file:
> 
> Name:   textext
> Version:0.4
> Release:1%{?dist}
> Summary:The textext for inkscape
> 
> License:GPLv3+
> URL:https://pav.iki.fi/software/textext/
> Source0:https://pav.iki.fi/_downloads/textext-0.4.tar.gz
> #BuildRequires:  
> #Requires:   
> 
> %description
> 
> 
> %prep
> %autosetup
> 
> 
> %build
> %configure
> %make_build
> 
> 
> %install
> rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> %make_install
> 
> 
> %files
> %license add-license-file-here
> %doc add-docs-here
> 
> 
> 
> %changelog
> * Fri Feb  9 2018 Patrick Dupre 
> - 
> +
> 
> But I get an error:
> 
> rpmbuild -ba textext.spec 
> Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.0cm1Uq
> + umask 022
> + cd /home/pdupre/rpmbuild/BUILD
> + cd /home/pdupre/rpmbuild/BUILD
> + rm -rf textext-0.4
> + /usr/bin/gzip -dc /home/pdupre/rpmbuild/SOURCES/textext-0.4.tar.gz
> + /usr/bin/tar -xof -
> + STATUS=0
> + '[' 0 -ne 0 ']'
> + cd textext-0.4
> /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.0cm1Uq: line 38: cd: textext-0.4: No such file or directory
> error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.0cm1Uq (%prep)

This is telling you that directory "textext-0.4" don't exist.
If you list the testes-0.4.tar.gz with tar (like this):

tar -tvf textext-0.4.tar.gz

what does it say?


> 
> 
> RPM build errors:
> Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.0cm1Uq (%prep)
> 
> 
> ===
>  Patrick DUPRÉ | | email: pdu...@gmx.com
>  Laboratoire de Physico-Chimie de l'Atmosphère | |
>  Université du Littoral-Côte d'Opale   | |
>  Tel.  (33)-(0)3 28 23 76 12   | | Fax: 03 28 65 82 44
>  189A, avenue Maurice Schumann | | 59140 Dunkerque, France
> ===
> ___
> users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> 


-- 
Regards

Jon Ingason
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[Richard W.M. Jones]

On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 09:48:26PM +0200, Patrick Dupre wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Can somebody tell me whatis wrong in the spec file

In addition to the other reply, some stylistic points ...

> Group:  Development/Libraries

This is not needed.

> BuildRoot:  %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)

This is not needed.

> BuildRequires:  perl(Data::Visitor::Callback) >= 0.30
> BuildRequires:  perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
> BuildRequires:  perl(Forest) >= 0.06
> BuildRequires:  perl(Geometry::Primitive) >= 0.16
> BuildRequires:  perl(Graphics::Color) >= 0.20
> BuildRequires:  perl(JSON::Any) >= 1.22
> BuildRequires:  perl(Moose) >= 0.90
> BuildRequires:  perl(MooseX::Clone) >= 0.04
> BuildRequires:  perl(MooseX::Storage) >= 0.17
> BuildRequires:  perl(Test::More)

You'll likely want to add:

  BuildRequires: perl-interpreter
  BuildRequires: perl-devel
  BuildRequires: perl-generators

However this has changed recently, so check the Perl packaging
guidelines against your version of Fedora.

> Requires:   perl(Data::Visitor::Callback) >= 0.30
> Requires:   perl(Forest) >= 0.06
> Requires:   perl(Geometry::Primitive) >= 0.16
> Requires:   perl(Graphics::Color) >= 0.20
> Requires:   perl(JSON::Any) >= 1.22
> Requires:   perl(Moose) >= 0.90
> Requires:   perl(MooseX::Clone) >= 0.04
> Requires:   perl(MooseX::Storage) >= 0.17

These should be generated automatically, although if you really need
to specify minimum version numbers then I suppose you do need them.

> %{__perl} Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor

I usually ignore the ‘__perl’ macro and similar ones.  Plain old
‘perl’ should work and is less obtuse.  However it's a matter of
style.

> %install
> rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

You don't need the rm command here.

> find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -name .packlist -exec rm -f {} \;

‘-delete’ is simpler and better than ‘-exec rm -f {} \;’

> %clean
> rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

You can completely delete the ‘%clean’ section.  It is not needed.

> %files
> %defattr(-,root,root,-)

You can delete all ‘%defattr’ lines.  They are not needed in almost
all circumstances.

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
libguestfs lets you edit virtual machines.  Supports shell scripting,
bindings from many languages.  http://libguestfs.org
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[Michael Schwendt]

On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 23:31:50 +0200, Patrick Dupre wrote:

> If you go on rpmfind.net
> 
> perl-Forest 
> is supposed to provides
> perl-Forest
> perl(Forest)
> 
> Since fedora does not offer perl-Forest, I have to build it from the tar file 
> Forest-0.10
> There is probably an issue with the spec? because it does not say that it 
> will provide
> perl(Forest)

Those are _automatic_ Provides adding during rpmbuild. Whether or not those
automatic Provides are added depends on the build environment contents. And
sometimes it can happen that the automatic dependencies are lost due to
bugs or missing BuildRequires. In this case it could be due to missing
"BuildRequires: perl-generators" before building those Fedora Perl packages.

> Actually it would be good if somedoby decided to generate the perl for the 
> fedora distribution.
> I generate the file by myself but there are plenty of issues with the 
> dependences. It is not
> professional.

Install the "perl-generators" package, then try rebuilding the Fedora
src.rpm packages. If that fixes them, somebody may need to file bug reports
about those packages or sign up as co-maintainer and contribute updates
to fix the packages.
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[Patrick Dupre]

> Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 10:49 PM
> From: "Michael Schwendt" <mschwe...@gmail.com>
> To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Subject: Re: rpmbuild
>
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 22:42:47 +0200, Patrick Dupre wrote:
> 
> > > > Can somebody tell me whatis wrong in the spec file  
> > >   
> > > > I get:
> > > > rpmbuild -bb perl-Graphics-Primitive.spec 
> > > > error: Failed build dependencies:
> > > > perl(Forest) >= 0.06 is needed by 
> > > > perl-Graphics-Primitive-0.67-1.fc26.noarch
> > > > perl(Geometry::Primitive) >= 0.16 is needed by 
> > > > perl-Graphics-Primitive-0.67-1.fc26.noarch
> > > > perl(Graphics::Color) >= 0.20 is needed by 
> > > > perl-Graphics-Primitive-0.67-1.fc26.noarch
> > > > 
> > > > while
> > > > rpm -q perl-Forest
> > > > perl-Forest-0.10-1.fc26.noarch
> > > > rpm -q perl-Geometry-Primitive
> > > > perl-Geometry-Primitive-0.24-1.fc26.noarch
> > > > rpm -q perl-Graphics-Color
> > > > perl-Graphics-Color-0.31-1.fc26.noarch  
> > > 
> > > Your query is insufficient. Query what the installed packages provide,
> > > so you can check that they provide what's needed to satisfy the
> > > BuildRequires in the spec file. You can use the --whatprovides option
> > > to test against the local RPM DB. Or you can list a package's full
> > > Provides like
> > > 
> > >   rpm -q --provides perl-Forest
> > > 
> > > and if "perl(Forest)" is not in the output, the perl-Forest package does
> > > not provide what's needed.  
> > 
> > It seems to me that every thing is provided:
> > 
> > rpm -q --provides perl-Forest
> > perl-Forest = 0.10-1.fc26
> > 
> > rpm -q --provides perl-Geometry-Primitive
> > perl-Geometry-Primitive = 0.24-1.fc26
> > 
> > rpm -q --provides perl-Graphics-Color
> > perl-Graphics-Color = 0.31-1.fc26
> 
> Read the error message more carefully. Pay attention to the spelling of
> what's needed. Your query does not show what's needed. Where do you
> see 'perl(Forest)' in the output, for example?

If you go on rpmfind.net

perl-Forest 
is supposed to provides
perl-Forest
perl(Forest)

Since fedora does not offer perl-Forest, I have to build it from the tar file 
Forest-0.10
There is probably an issue with the spec? because it does not say that it will 
provide
perl(Forest)

Actually it would be good if somedoby decided to generate the perl for the 
fedora distribution.
I generate the file by myself but there are plenty of issues with the 
dependences. It is not
professional.

> ___
> users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> 
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[Michael Schwendt]

On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 22:42:47 +0200, Patrick Dupre wrote:

> > > Can somebody tell me whatis wrong in the spec file  
> >   
> > > I get:
> > > rpmbuild -bb perl-Graphics-Primitive.spec 
> > > error: Failed build dependencies:
> > >   perl(Forest) >= 0.06 is needed by 
> > > perl-Graphics-Primitive-0.67-1.fc26.noarch
> > >   perl(Geometry::Primitive) >= 0.16 is needed by 
> > > perl-Graphics-Primitive-0.67-1.fc26.noarch
> > >   perl(Graphics::Color) >= 0.20 is needed by 
> > > perl-Graphics-Primitive-0.67-1.fc26.noarch
> > > 
> > > while
> > > rpm -q perl-Forest
> > > perl-Forest-0.10-1.fc26.noarch
> > > rpm -q perl-Geometry-Primitive
> > > perl-Geometry-Primitive-0.24-1.fc26.noarch
> > > rpm -q perl-Graphics-Color
> > > perl-Graphics-Color-0.31-1.fc26.noarch  
> > 
> > Your query is insufficient. Query what the installed packages provide,
> > so you can check that they provide what's needed to satisfy the
> > BuildRequires in the spec file. You can use the --whatprovides option
> > to test against the local RPM DB. Or you can list a package's full
> > Provides like
> > 
> >   rpm -q --provides perl-Forest
> > 
> > and if "perl(Forest)" is not in the output, the perl-Forest package does
> > not provide what's needed.  
> 
> It seems to me that every thing is provided:
> 
> rpm -q --provides perl-Forest
> perl-Forest = 0.10-1.fc26
> 
> rpm -q --provides perl-Geometry-Primitive
> perl-Geometry-Primitive = 0.24-1.fc26
> 
> rpm -q --provides perl-Graphics-Color
> perl-Graphics-Color = 0.31-1.fc26

Read the error message more carefully. Pay attention to the spelling of
what's needed. Your query does not show what's needed. Where do you
see 'perl(Forest)' in the output, for example?
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[Patrick Dupre]

> Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 10:14 PM
> From: "Michael Schwendt" <mschwe...@gmail.com>
> To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Subject: Re: rpmbuild
>
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 21:48:26 +0200, Patrick Dupre wrote:
> 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > Can somebody tell me whatis wrong in the spec file
> 
> > I get:
> > rpmbuild -bb perl-Graphics-Primitive.spec 
> > error: Failed build dependencies:
> > perl(Forest) >= 0.06 is needed by 
> > perl-Graphics-Primitive-0.67-1.fc26.noarch
> > perl(Geometry::Primitive) >= 0.16 is needed by 
> > perl-Graphics-Primitive-0.67-1.fc26.noarch
> > perl(Graphics::Color) >= 0.20 is needed by 
> > perl-Graphics-Primitive-0.67-1.fc26.noarch
> > 
> > while
> > rpm -q perl-Forest
> > perl-Forest-0.10-1.fc26.noarch
> > rpm -q perl-Geometry-Primitive
> > perl-Geometry-Primitive-0.24-1.fc26.noarch
> > rpm -q perl-Graphics-Color
> > perl-Graphics-Color-0.31-1.fc26.noarch
> 
> Your query is insufficient. Query what the installed packages provide,
> so you can check that they provide what's needed to satisfy the
> BuildRequires in the spec file. You can use the --whatprovides option
> to test against the local RPM DB. Or you can list a package's full
> Provides like
> 
>   rpm -q --provides perl-Forest
> 
> and if "perl(Forest)" is not in the output, the perl-Forest package does
> not provide what's needed.

It seems to me that every thing is provided:

rpm -q --provides perl-Forest
perl-Forest = 0.10-1.fc26

rpm -q --provides perl-Geometry-Primitive
perl-Geometry-Primitive = 0.24-1.fc26

rpm -q --provides perl-Graphics-Color
perl-Graphics-Color = 0.31-1.fc26

___
> users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[Michael Schwendt]

On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 21:48:26 +0200, Patrick Dupre wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> Can somebody tell me whatis wrong in the spec file

> I get:
> rpmbuild -bb perl-Graphics-Primitive.spec 
> error: Failed build dependencies:
>   perl(Forest) >= 0.06 is needed by 
> perl-Graphics-Primitive-0.67-1.fc26.noarch
>   perl(Geometry::Primitive) >= 0.16 is needed by 
> perl-Graphics-Primitive-0.67-1.fc26.noarch
>   perl(Graphics::Color) >= 0.20 is needed by 
> perl-Graphics-Primitive-0.67-1.fc26.noarch
> 
> while
> rpm -q perl-Forest
> perl-Forest-0.10-1.fc26.noarch
> rpm -q perl-Geometry-Primitive
> perl-Geometry-Primitive-0.24-1.fc26.noarch
> rpm -q perl-Graphics-Color
> perl-Graphics-Color-0.31-1.fc26.noarch

Your query is insufficient. Query what the installed packages provide,
so you can check that they provide what's needed to satisfy the
BuildRequires in the spec file. You can use the --whatprovides option
to test against the local RPM DB. Or you can list a package's full
Provides like

  rpm -q --provides perl-Forest

and if "perl(Forest)" is not in the output, the perl-Forest package does
not provide what's needed.
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild --rebuiild with config options

[Gordon Messmer]

On 08/18/2017 09:47 AM, Rick Stevens wrote:

Thanks for the link. Looking at that, the spec file would need to be
modified:

%configure --with-dbus --with-gif --with-jpeg --with-png \
   --with-rsvg --with-tiff --with-xft --with-xpm \
   --with-x-toolkit=gtk3 --with-gpm=no --with-xwidgets \
   --with-modules %{?_with_all}

and rpmbuild invoked as:

rpmbuild ... --with all ...

(note the space between "with" and "all"). I think that's what's needed.



I'm mostly sure you also need to add a "bcond" statement, and you'll 
*probably* spend some time massaging the file lists.


http://rpm.org/user_doc/conditional_builds.html

If you need to remove some of the flags currently passed to configure, 
you'd need to keep the existing configure command inside a conditional 
statement, and your minimal configure command in its "else" clause.


If this is your first foray into spec files, you're probably better off 
just making the changes you want, directly.

___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild --rebuiild with config options

[Rick Stevens]

On 08/17/2017 07:14 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Amadeus W.M.  wrote:
>> I'm trying to put together a minimal emacs rpm and I'm trying this, with
>> the ensuing error:
>>
>> rpmbuild --rebuild emacs-25.2-3.fc25.src.rpm --without-all
>> rpmbuild: --without-all: unknown option
> 
> 
> Looking at the emacs spec (available at
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/emacs/tree/master), I don't see any
> "with" options defined for this package, so there's no way to specify
> such options, nor any way to pass options to ./configure.

Thanks for the link. Looking at that, the spec file would need to be
modified:

%configure --with-dbus --with-gif --with-jpeg --with-png \
   --with-rsvg --with-tiff --with-xft --with-xpm \
   --with-x-toolkit=gtk3 --with-gpm=no --with-xwidgets \
   --with-modules %{?_with_all}

and rpmbuild invoked as:

rpmbuild ... --with all ...

(note the space between "with" and "all"). I think that's what's needed.

I don't know it's necessary as the "--with-modules" looks like it'd
build pretty much everything, but I don't use emacs often and wouldn't
use any of its "sophisticated" features. I administer a LOT of machines
and I can generally rely on having vi/vim installed. Emacs...not so
much.
--
- Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigitalri...@alldigital.com -
- AIM/Skype: therps2ICQ: 226437340   Yahoo: origrps2 -
--
-   "The bogosity meter just pegged."-
--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild --rebuiild with config options

[Gordon Messmer]

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Amadeus W.M.  wrote:
> I'm trying to put together a minimal emacs rpm and I'm trying this, with
> the ensuing error:
>
> rpmbuild --rebuild emacs-25.2-3.fc25.src.rpm --without-all
> rpmbuild: --without-all: unknown option


Looking at the emacs spec (available at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/emacs/tree/master), I don't see any
"with" options defined for this package, so there's no way to specify
such options, nor any way to pass options to ./configure.

The normal build produces a "nox" version.  If that's not what you
mean by minimal, then you can install (rpm -i) the src.rpm and then
edit the spec.  Locate the "./configure" line and make the changes you
require, there.  Build the package as normal, but anticipate that you
might need to adjust the %files section if rpm tells you that files
are missing, and rebuild again.
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild --rebuiild with config options

[Rick Stevens]

On 08/17/2017 06:10 PM, Amadeus W.M. wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 09:30:11 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> 
>> On 08/17/2017 09:22 AM, Amadeus W.M. wrote:
>>> Actually I compiled, out of curiosity, the tar file that came with the
>>> srpm, with
>>>
>>> ./configure --without-all --with-x-toolkit=no --without-x
>>>
>>> and worked very well. So these are valid options. Don't know why
>>> rpmbuild doesn't like those. It would have been nice to have an rpm but
>>> I'll take what I can.
>>
>>
>> I don't think I was very clear.
>>
>> Yes, the options are valid for "configure" and you need to pass those
>> options in the rpmbuild command.
>>
>> BUT, the option is preceded by the options of rpmbuild and they are
>>
>> rpmbuild-options
>> [--buildroot DIRECTORY] [--clean] [--nobuild]
>> [--rmsource] [--rmspec] [--short-circuit] [--build-in-place]
>> [--noprep] [--noclean] [--nocheck]
>> [--target PLATFORM]
>> [--with OPTION] [--without OPTION]
>>
>>
>> Soo...you probably need something like this...
>>
>> rpmbuild --rebuild emacs-25.2-3.fc25.src.rpm --without (a space goes
>> here!!!) without-all
> 
> 
> I tried rpmbuild --rebuild both --with without-all and also --without 
> without-all and it didn't work. I think that would be equivalent to 
> 
> ./configure --with without-all or
> ./configure --without without-all
> 
> respectively. Neither one is valid for configure. I think there's nothing 
> that can be done here.

You have to bugger the spec file to accommodate conditionals. Using the

rpmbuild ... --with fnork

(note the space between "with" and "fnork) will cause an rpmbuild macro,
"_with_fnork" to be created with the value "--with-fnork". To use this
macro, you have to modify your spec file to something like:

./configure \
%{?_with_fnork} \
--with-somethingelse \
...

With that change in place in the spec file, had you done

rpmbuild ... --with fnork

then the configure would have been run as:

./configure \
--with-fnork \
--with-somethingelse \
...

And if you had NOT included "--with fnork" on the rpmbuild command:

./configure \
--with-somethingelse \
...

The construct "%{?_with_fnork}" in the spec file means "if the macro
'_with_fnork' is defined (via "--with fnork" on the command line), use
its value. Otherwise use null."

There is a parallel using "--without fnork" (creating a "_without_fnork"
macro with the value "--without-fnork"). Yes, it's a bit obtuse. For
the gory details:

http://rpm5.org/docs/api/conditionalbuilds.html

Hope that helps. rpmbuild and spec files often make my brain bleed--
especially the "%files" section. I'm getting queasy just thinking of it!
--
- Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigitalri...@alldigital.com -
- AIM/Skype: therps2ICQ: 226437340   Yahoo: origrps2 -
--
-  "Microsoft is a cross between The Borg and the Ferengi.   -
-  Unfortunately they use Borg to do their marketing and Ferengi to  -
-   do their programming."  -- Simon Slavin  -
--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild --rebuiild with config options

[Amadeus W.M.]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 09:30:11 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:

> On 08/17/2017 09:22 AM, Amadeus W.M. wrote:
>> Actually I compiled, out of curiosity, the tar file that came with the
>> srpm, with
>>
>> ./configure --without-all --with-x-toolkit=no --without-x
>>
>> and worked very well. So these are valid options. Don't know why
>> rpmbuild doesn't like those. It would have been nice to have an rpm but
>> I'll take what I can.
> 
> 
> I don't think I was very clear.
> 
> Yes, the options are valid for "configure" and you need to pass those
> options in the rpmbuild command.
> 
> BUT, the option is preceded by the options of rpmbuild and they are
> 
> rpmbuild-options
> [--buildroot DIRECTORY] [--clean] [--nobuild]
> [--rmsource] [--rmspec] [--short-circuit] [--build-in-place]
> [--noprep] [--noclean] [--nocheck]
> [--target PLATFORM]
> [--with OPTION] [--without OPTION]
> 
> 
> Soo...you probably need something like this...
> 
> rpmbuild --rebuild emacs-25.2-3.fc25.src.rpm --without (a space goes
> here!!!) without-all


I tried rpmbuild --rebuild both --with without-all and also --without 
without-all and it didn't work. I think that would be equivalent to 

./configure --with without-all or
./configure --without without-all

respectively. Neither one is valid for configure. I think there's nothing 
that can be done here.


___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild --rebuiild with config options

[Todd Zullinger]

Amadeus W.M. wrote:
Actually I compiled, out of curiosity, the tar file that came with the 
srpm, with


./configure --without-all --with-x-toolkit=no --without-x

and worked very well. So these are valid options. Don't know why rpmbuild 
doesn't like those. It would have been nice to have an rpm but I'll take 
what I can.


So far as I know (and I could always be wrong or unaware), the 
--with/--without options to rpmbuild set macros in the spec file.  
Those are not automatically passed to the %configure macro which is 
often used to build GNU software which uses ./configure.


If you want to pass configure options you'll need to edit the emacs 
spec file to set them.  You could modify the spec so that the 
--with/--without options do get passed into ./configure, as noted 
here:


   http://rpm.org/user_doc/conditional_builds.html

If you're just looking to quickly rebuild emacs it might well be 
simpler to just add/remove the option in the %configure section than 
it would be to add support for passing it in via rpmbuild.


--
Todd
~~
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves for they shall never
cease to be amused.



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild --rebuiild with config options

[Ed Greshko]

On 08/17/2017 09:22 AM, Amadeus W.M. wrote:
> Actually I compiled, out of curiosity, the tar file that came with the 
> srpm, with 
>
> ./configure --without-all --with-x-toolkit=no --without-x
>
> and worked very well. So these are valid options. Don't know why rpmbuild 
> doesn't like those. It would have been nice to have an rpm but I'll take 
> what I can. 


I don't think I was very clear.

Yes, the options are valid for "configure" and you need to pass those options 
in the
rpmbuild command.

BUT, the option is preceded by the options of rpmbuild and they are

rpmbuild-options
[--buildroot DIRECTORY] [--clean] [--nobuild]
[--rmsource] [--rmspec] [--short-circuit] [--build-in-place]
[--noprep] [--noclean] [--nocheck]
[--target PLATFORM]
[--with OPTION] [--without OPTION]


Soo...you probably need something like this...

rpmbuild --rebuild emacs-25.2-3.fc25.src.rpm --without (a space goes here!!!) 
without-all


-- 
Fedora Users List - The place to go to speculate endlessly



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild --rebuiild with config options

[Amadeus W.M.]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 08:04:16 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:

> On 08/17/2017 07:50 AM, Amadeus W.M. wrote:
>> I'm trying to put together a minimal emacs rpm and I'm trying this,
>> with the ensuing error:
>>
>> rpmbuild --rebuild emacs-25.2-3.fc25.src.rpm --without-all rpmbuild:
>> --without-all: unknown option
>>
>> I untarred the emacs source code and ran ./configure --help and
>> --without-
>> all is an option. I tried a few other config options - rpmbuild doesn't
>> seem to recognize any of them.
>>
>>
>> In the past I used
>>
>> rpmbuild --rebuild system-config-network-*.src.rpm --with gui
>>
>> and it worked. What am I doing wrong now?
>>
>>
> I don't know exactly the format for the emacs options  But looking
> at the man page for rpmbuild and your examples these 2 would work.
> 
> rpmbuild --rebuild system-config-network-*.src.rpm --with gui rpmbuild
> --rebuild system-config-network-*.src.rpm --without gui
> 
> The "gui" is the option going with or without.   Soyou probably
> want.
> 
> 
> rpmbuild --rebuild emacs-25.2-3.fc25.src.rpm --without without-all  ? 
> or maybe "--with without-all"
> 
> either way the keywords acceptable for the rpmbuild-options is either
> --with or --without followed by a space and then the actual option.


Actually I compiled, out of curiosity, the tar file that came with the 
srpm, with 

./configure --without-all --with-x-toolkit=no --without-x

and worked very well. So these are valid options. Don't know why rpmbuild 
doesn't like those. It would have been nice to have an rpm but I'll take 
what I can. 

___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild --rebuiild with config options

[Ed Greshko]

On 08/17/2017 07:50 AM, Amadeus W.M. wrote:
> I'm trying to put together a minimal emacs rpm and I'm trying this, with 
> the ensuing error:
>
> rpmbuild --rebuild emacs-25.2-3.fc25.src.rpm --without-all
> rpmbuild: --without-all: unknown option
>
> I untarred the emacs source code and ran ./configure --help and --without-
> all is an option. I tried a few other config options - rpmbuild doesn't 
> seem to recognize any of them.
>
>
> In the past I used 
>
> rpmbuild --rebuild system-config-network-*.src.rpm --with gui
>
> and it worked. What am I doing wrong now? 
>

I don't know exactly the format for the emacs options  But looking at the 
man
page for rpmbuild and your examples these 2 would work.

rpmbuild --rebuild system-config-network-*.src.rpm --with gui
rpmbuild --rebuild system-config-network-*.src.rpm --without gui

The "gui" is the option going with or without.   Soyou probably want.

 
rpmbuild --rebuild emacs-25.2-3.fc25.src.rpm --without without-all  ?  or maybe
"--with without-all"

either way the keywords acceptable for the rpmbuild-options is either --with or
--without followed by a space and then the actual option.


-- 
Fedora Users List - The place to go to speculate endlessly



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[Matthew Miller]

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 12:50:50AM -0400, Bill Shirley wrote:
> I just recently build a spec file for ndppd (NDP Proxy Daemon) and found out
> you can't comment out by using a single # in a spec file if it is a % command.
> It has to be like this:
> #%%configure

Yeah, this is because macros are expanded even in comments. It works
okay for single-line macros, but fails badly for multiple-line ones,
since then only the first line ends up commented out.



-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[Bill Shirley]

I just recently build a spec file for ndppd (NDP Proxy Daemon) and found out
you can't comment out by using a single # in a spec file if it is a % command.
It has to be like this:
#%%configure

ndppd: https://github.com/DanielAdolfsson/ndppd

Do not build rpm's as root.  Set up a build tree using a non-root uid.  My 
notes::
as root:
yum/dnf install @development-tools
yum/dnf install fedora-packager

add bill to mock group in /etc/group

as bill:
rpmdev-setuptree
rpmdev-newspec ndp-proxy

I used 'rpmdev-newspec' because ndppd doesn't have a .spec file.

Bill


On 7/18/2017 12:07 PM, Patrick Dupre wrote:

Hello,

I am trying to patch gnuplot with
https://sourceforge.net/p/gnuplot/patches/694/

However, it fails for several reasons,
The first one is that the patch does not apply to last version
of tabulate.c (maybe to a previous one).
Then a fixed directly the tabulate.c file

How can generate the package directly from the SOURCES?
with rpmbuild
I try to modify the .spc file by removing the
#%patch0 -p1 -b .refto
#%patch1 -p1 -b .font
#%patch3 -p1 -b .plot-sigsegv
#%patch4 -p1 -b .isinglethread
#%patch5 -p1 -b .checkint
#%patch6 -p1 -b .tabulate   # This fails

But it does not work.
because I guess that it does not compile my new sources but the old ones.

Actually, %patch6 -p1 -b .tabulate
would fails
patch -p0 gnuplot-5.0.6a-tabulate.patch (manually)
would be OK, but it fails from the .spec file

Thank for your help.

===
  Patrick DUPRÉ | | email: pdu...@gmx.com
  Laboratoire de Physico-Chimie de l'Atmosphère | |
  Université du Littoral-Côte d'Opale   | |
  Tel.  (33)-(0)3 28 23 76 12   | | Fax: 03 28 65 82 44
  189A, avenue Maurice Schumann | | 59140 Dunkerque, France
===
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org


___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[John Pilkington]

On 18/07/17 18:07, John Pilkington wrote:

On 18/07/17 17:07, Patrick Dupre wrote:

Hello,

I am trying to patch gnuplot with
https://sourceforge.net/p/gnuplot/patches/694/

However, it fails for several reasons,
The first one is that the patch does not apply to last version
of tabulate.c (maybe to a previous one).
Then a fixed directly the tabulate.c file

How can generate the package directly from the SOURCES?
with rpmbuild
I try to modify the .spc file by removing the
#%patch0 -p1 -b .refto
#%patch1 -p1 -b .font
#%patch3 -p1 -b .plot-sigsegv
#%patch4 -p1 -b .isinglethread
#%patch5 -p1 -b .checkint
#%patch6 -p1 -b .tabulate   # This fails

But it does not work.
because I guess that it does not compile my new sources but the old ones.

Actually, %patch6 -p1 -b .tabulate
would fails
patch -p0 gnuplot-5.0.6a-tabulate.patch (manually)
would be OK, but it fails from the .spec file

Thank for your help.


I suggest you start from the gnuplot srpm
# put package in ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/foo.src.rpm

$  rpm -ihv foo.src.rpm
$  rpmbuild --nodeps -bp /where/the/spec/files/land/foo.spec

$[wherever SPECS]$ rpmbuild --nodeps -bp  foo.spec

# and look for the patched source in ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/

Put your patch in SOURCES

Then add to the .spec file

Patch7:  tabulate.patch

and

%patch7 -p1 -b .tabulate

and update the changelog

and build, preferably using mock.  First the new srpm, then the rpm.



This was a tentative reply that got sent 'by accident.'  Something like 
it has worked for me (with other packages) in the past.


John P
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[Todd Zullinger]

Patrick Dupre wrote:
I am trying to patch gnuplot with 
https://sourceforge.net/p/gnuplot/patches/694/


However, it fails for several reasons, 
The first one is that the patch does not apply to last version 
of tabulate.c (maybe to a previous one). 
Then a fixed directly the tabulate.c file


How can generate the package directly from the SOURCES? 
with rpmbuild 
I try to modify the .spc file by removing the 
#%patch0 -p1 -b .refto 
#%patch1 -p1 -b .font 
#%patch3 -p1 -b .plot-sigsegv 
#%patch4 -p1 -b .isinglethread 
#%patch5 -p1 -b .checkint 
#%patch6 -p1 -b .tabulate   # This fails


But it does not work. 
because I guess that it does not compile my new sources but the old ones.


Actually, %patch6 -p1 -b .tabulate would fails 


-p1 is used here

patch -p0 gnuplot-5.0.6a-tabulate.patch (manually) 
would be OK, but it fails from the .spec file


And -p0 is used here.

The argument to -p is the number of leading directories to strip off 
the paths in the patch.  It's fairly important to use the right value.


Whether that's the main issue or not isn't clear, as you didn't 
include any of the rpmbuild output from the failure.


--
Todd
~~
So its hurry! Hurry! Step right up, it's a matter of life or death
The sun is going down and the moon is just holding its breath.



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[John Pilkington]

On 18/07/17 17:07, Patrick Dupre wrote:

Hello,

I am trying to patch gnuplot with
https://sourceforge.net/p/gnuplot/patches/694/

However, it fails for several reasons,
The first one is that the patch does not apply to last version
of tabulate.c (maybe to a previous one).
Then a fixed directly the tabulate.c file

How can generate the package directly from the SOURCES?
with rpmbuild
I try to modify the .spc file by removing the
#%patch0 -p1 -b .refto
#%patch1 -p1 -b .font
#%patch3 -p1 -b .plot-sigsegv
#%patch4 -p1 -b .isinglethread
#%patch5 -p1 -b .checkint
#%patch6 -p1 -b .tabulate   # This fails

But it does not work.
because I guess that it does not compile my new sources but the old ones.

Actually, %patch6 -p1 -b .tabulate
would fails
patch -p0 gnuplot-5.0.6a-tabulate.patch (manually)
would be OK, but it fails from the .spec file

Thank for your help.


I suggest you start from the gnuplot srpm
# put package in ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/foo.src.rpm

$  rpm -ihv foo.src.rpm
$  rpmbuild --nodeps -bp /where/the/spec/files/land/foo.spec

$[wherever SPECS]$ rpmbuild --nodeps -bp  foo.spec

# and look for the patched source in ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/

Put your patch in SOURCES

Then add to the .spec file

Patch7:  tabulate.patch

and

%patch7 -p1 -b .tabulate

and update the changelog

and build, preferably using mock.  First the new srpm, then the rpm.



___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[Rick Stevens]

On 07/18/2017 09:07 AM, Patrick Dupre wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I am trying to patch gnuplot with
> https://sourceforge.net/p/gnuplot/patches/694/
> 
> However, it fails for several reasons,
> The first one is that the patch does not apply to last version 
> of tabulate.c (maybe to a previous one).
> Then a fixed directly the tabulate.c file
> 
> How can generate the package directly from the SOURCES?
> with rpmbuild
> I try to modify the .spc file by removing the 
> #%patch0 -p1 -b .refto
> #%patch1 -p1 -b .font
> #%patch3 -p1 -b .plot-sigsegv
> #%patch4 -p1 -b .isinglethread
> #%patch5 -p1 -b .checkint
> #%patch6 -p1 -b .tabulate   # This fails
> 
> But it does not work.
> because I guess that it does not compile my new sources but the old ones.
> 
> Actually, %patch6 -p1 -b .tabulate
> would fails
> patch -p0 gnuplot-5.0.6a-tabulate.patch (manually)
> would be OK, but it fails from the .spec file

Patrick, it's very difficult to troubleshoot many of your issues as you
(and many others) rarely provide basic information other than "such-
and-such fails". This is somewhat like taking your car to a mechanic,
saying "the car is broken" and then walking away. How is it broken? What
doesn't work? Sorta hard on the mechanic.

In this case, you simply say "this patch fails" but do not include the
error messages involved in the failure. I'm not trying to point you out
specifically, but this really goes for anyone requesting help here on
the list...we need the context around the problem (error messages, log
entries, etc.). Otherwise we're trying to troubleshoot in a vacuum which
rarely ends in a viable solution.

In a nutshell, patch files are generally quite specific. They direct
"patch" to look for a pattern to match starting at a specific line in
the original file. If the original file you're trying to patch doesn't
correspond (fairly) closely to the one the patch was created for (e.g.
extra lines, punctuation changes such as tabs, etc.), yes the patch will
likely fail. We need the output of the patch command to tell you why
it's failing. As to how to fix it, you may have to manually patch the
file. If you do that, you can create a new patchfile for that patch on
that file by running "diff" on the pre-patched file and the patched
file. I'm sure the package maintainers would like to have it.
--
- Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigitalri...@alldigital.com -
- AIM/Skype: therps2ICQ: 226437340   Yahoo: origrps2 -
--
-Huked on foniks reely wurked for me!-
--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[Patrick Dupre]

Thank,

Maybe an issue with vendorarch, vs. vendorlib ?

However, I fixed the issue by installing

perl-PAR-Packer-1.035-1.fc25.src.rpm

The spec file was correct.


===
 Patrick DUPRÉ | | email: pdu...@gmx.com
 Laboratoire de Physico-Chimie de l'Atmosphère | |
 Université du Littoral-Côte d'Opale   | |
 Tel.  (33)-(0)3 28 23 76 12   | | Fax: 03 28 65 82 44
 189A, avenue Maurice Schumann | | 59140 Dunkerque, France
===


> Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2016 at 1:48 PM
> From: "Michael Schwendt" <mschwe...@gmail.com>
> To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Subject: Re: rpmbuild
>
> On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:58:53 +0100, Patrick Dupre wrote:
> 
> > rpmbuild -bb
> > and I got the following error message:
> > RPM build errors:
> > File not found: 
> > /home/pdupre/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/perl-PAR-Packer-1.035-1.fc24.x86_64/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/*
> > File not found: 
> > /home/pdupre/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/perl-PAR-Packer-1.035-1.fc24.x86_64/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/PAR*
> > 
> 
> That means that the files found in the buildroot tree don't match what is
> listed in the %files section within the spec file:
> 
> > %files
> > %defattr(-,root,root,-)
> > %doc AUTHORS Changes README
> > %{perl_vendorarch}/auto/*
> > %{perl_vendorarch}/PAR*
> > %{_mandir}/man3/*
> 
> You need to read the build output carefully, watch out for errors, not
> limited to verifying that the %install section works and fills the
> buildroot with files. What do you find in the buildroot? Files with
> expected paths? No files or missing files? Incorrect paths?
> ___
> users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[Michael Schwendt]

On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:58:53 +0100, Patrick Dupre wrote:

> rpmbuild -bb
> and I got the following error message:
> RPM build errors:
> File not found: 
> /home/pdupre/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/perl-PAR-Packer-1.035-1.fc24.x86_64/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/*
> File not found: 
> /home/pdupre/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/perl-PAR-Packer-1.035-1.fc24.x86_64/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/PAR*
> 

That means that the files found in the buildroot tree don't match what is
listed in the %files section within the spec file:

> %files
> %defattr(-,root,root,-)
> %doc AUTHORS Changes README
> %{perl_vendorarch}/auto/*
> %{perl_vendorarch}/PAR*
> %{_mandir}/man3/*

You need to read the build output carefully, watch out for errors, not
limited to verifying that the %install section works and fills the
buildroot with files. What do you find in the buildroot? Files with
expected paths? No files or missing files? Incorrect paths?
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild: compiles without error but does not install

[Ranjan Maitra]

On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 20:24:05 +0200 Ahmad Samir  wrote:

> On 3 October 2016 at 15:38, Ranjan Maitra  wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have had issues with batti for quite a while, and I came across battray 
> > as a replacement (and it works). So, I was trying to put it together as a 
> > rpm and perhaps and get it approved for Fedora.
> >
> > I have created the following spec file available here:
> >
> > https://paste.fedoraproject.org/442597/50173214
> >
> > It compiles without error. However, when I try to install the rpm using
> >
> > $sudo dnf install ../RPMS/noarch/battray-2.2-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
> >
> > I get:
> >
> > Last metadata expiration check: 0:15:05 ago on Mon Oct  3 08:21:04 2016.
> > Error: nothing provides /bin/python3 needed by battray-2.2-1.fc24.noarch
> > (try to add '--allowerasing' to command line to replace conflicting 
> > packages)
> >
> > The addition of '--allowerasing' does not change anything other than to 
> > remove the suggestion.
> >
> > Any suggestions as to what is wrong with my spec file?
> >
> 
> Try:
> %install
> %{_python3} setup.py install --prefix=%{_prefix} --root=%{buildroot}
> 
> %{_python3} expands to /usr/bin/python3; I think on your system
> python3 in "python3 setup.py" resolves to /bin/python3 which
> explains the wrong requires added to the package.
> 
> Try examining your $PATH env var, maybe /bin/ is precedes /usr/bin/ on
> your system?

Ahmad,

Thank you for this. This was it.

best wishes,
Ranjan
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild: compiles without error but does not install

[Ahmad Samir]

On 3 October 2016 at 15:38, Ranjan Maitra  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have had issues with batti for quite a while, and I came across battray as 
> a replacement (and it works). So, I was trying to put it together as a rpm 
> and perhaps and get it approved for Fedora.
>
> I have created the following spec file available here:
>
> https://paste.fedoraproject.org/442597/50173214
>
> It compiles without error. However, when I try to install the rpm using
>
> $sudo dnf install ../RPMS/noarch/battray-2.2-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
>
> I get:
>
> Last metadata expiration check: 0:15:05 ago on Mon Oct  3 08:21:04 2016.
> Error: nothing provides /bin/python3 needed by battray-2.2-1.fc24.noarch
> (try to add '--allowerasing' to command line to replace conflicting packages)
>
> The addition of '--allowerasing' does not change anything other than to 
> remove the suggestion.
>
> Any suggestions as to what is wrong with my spec file?
>

Try:
%install
%{_python3} setup.py install --prefix=%{_prefix} --root=%{buildroot}

%{_python3} expands to /usr/bin/python3; I think on your system
python3 in "python3 setup.py" resolves to /bin/python3 which
explains the wrong requires added to the package.

Try examining your $PATH env var, maybe /bin/ is precedes /usr/bin/ on
your system?

--
Ahmad Samir
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild: compiles without error but does not install

[Rick Stevens]

On 10/03/2016 10:04 AM, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 09:34:39 -0700 stan  wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 08:38:01 -0500
>> Ranjan Maitra  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have had issues with batti for quite a while, and I came across
>>> battray as a replacement (and it works). So, I was trying to put it
>>> together as a rpm and perhaps and get it approved for Fedora.
>>>
>>> I have created the following spec file available here:
>>>
>>> https://paste.fedoraproject.org/442597/50173214
>>>
>>> It compiles without error. However, when I try to install the rpm
>>> using 
>>>
>>> $sudo dnf install ../RPMS/noarch/battray-2.2-1.fc24.noarch.rpm 
>>>
>>> I get:
>>>
>>> Last metadata expiration check: 0:15:05 ago on Mon Oct  3 08:21:04
>>> 2016. Error: nothing provides /bin/python3 needed by
>>> battray-2.2-1.fc24.noarch (try to add '--allowerasing' to command
>>> line to replace conflicting packages)
>>>
>>> The addition of '--allowerasing' does not change anything other than
>>> to remove the suggestion.
>>>
>>> Any suggestions as to what is wrong with my spec file?
>>
>> Can this be correct?
>> Provides:   python3-staplelib = %{version}-%{release}
> 
> Sorry, here is the corrected 
> 
> $ fpaste battray.spec
> Uploading (1.6KiB)...
> http://paste.fedoraproject.org/442684/51425714/ -> 
> https://paste.fedoraproject.org/442684/51425714

Looking at that, I'm wondering if your line 31 in the "%install"
section should read:

/bin/python3 setup.py install --prefix=%{_prefix} --root=%{buildroot}

As it is now, it's depending on a relative path that gets expanded to
/bin/python3, but if it's in a chroot (and I can't recall if rpm does
a chroot to a working directory) then the chroot probably WON'T have
a /bin/python3 in it. A literal leading slash overrides that, I think.

Try the install again using "rpm -i --test -vv" (NOT dnf) and look at
the output. You might see something.
--
- Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigitalri...@alldigital.com -
- AIM/Skype: therps2ICQ: 226437340   Yahoo: origrps2 -
--
--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild: compiles without error but does not install

[Ranjan Maitra]

On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 10:44:41 -0700 stan  wrote:

> On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 12:04:31 -0500
> Ranjan Maitra  wrote:
> 
> > Sorry, here is the corrected 
> > 
> > $ fpaste battray.spec
> > Uploading (1.6KiB)...
> > http://paste.fedoraproject.org/442684/51425714/ ->
> > https://paste.fedoraproject.org/442684/51425714
> 
> I think this is still wrong.  It might not be the problem, but I doubt
> it is the right formula.
> Provides:   %{_bindir}/bin/%{version}-%{release}
> 
> I think it should be 
> Provides:   %{_bindir}/%{name}.%{version}-%{release}
> 

Yes, you are right, sorry.

> I have no more ideas as to the cause.  Maybe you should ask on devel?

Yes, I guess I should ask there, though I was not sure that this qualified as a 
devel question so I thought that I would ask here.
Maybe someone may still have ideas so I will post the corrected spec here:

$ fpaste battray.specUploading (1.6KiB)...
http://paste.fedoraproject.org/442704/55183281/ -> 
https://paste.fedoraproject.org/442704/55183281

Thanks,
Ranjan

> ___
> users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org


-- 
Important Notice: This mailbox is ignored: e-mails are set to be deleted on 
receipt. Please respond to the mailing list if appropriate. For those needing 
to send personal or professional e-mail, please use appropriate addresses.
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild: compiles without error but does not install

[stan]

On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 12:04:31 -0500
Ranjan Maitra  wrote:

> Sorry, here is the corrected 
> 
> $ fpaste battray.spec
> Uploading (1.6KiB)...
> http://paste.fedoraproject.org/442684/51425714/ ->
> https://paste.fedoraproject.org/442684/51425714

I think this is still wrong.  It might not be the problem, but I doubt
it is the right formula.
Provides:   %{_bindir}/bin/%{version}-%{release}

I think it should be 
Provides:   %{_bindir}/%{name}.%{version}-%{release}

I have no more ideas as to the cause.  Maybe you should ask on devel?
Or check bugzilla to see if there is a known bug doing this?
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild: compiles without error but does not install

[Ranjan Maitra]

On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 09:34:39 -0700 stan  wrote:

> On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 08:38:01 -0500
> Ranjan Maitra  wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I have had issues with batti for quite a while, and I came across
> > battray as a replacement (and it works). So, I was trying to put it
> > together as a rpm and perhaps and get it approved for Fedora.
> > 
> > I have created the following spec file available here:
> > 
> > https://paste.fedoraproject.org/442597/50173214
> > 
> > It compiles without error. However, when I try to install the rpm
> > using 
> > 
> > $sudo dnf install ../RPMS/noarch/battray-2.2-1.fc24.noarch.rpm 
> > 
> > I get:
> > 
> > Last metadata expiration check: 0:15:05 ago on Mon Oct  3 08:21:04
> > 2016. Error: nothing provides /bin/python3 needed by
> > battray-2.2-1.fc24.noarch (try to add '--allowerasing' to command
> > line to replace conflicting packages)
> > 
> > The addition of '--allowerasing' does not change anything other than
> > to remove the suggestion.
> > 
> > Any suggestions as to what is wrong with my spec file?
> 
> Can this be correct?
> Provides:   python3-staplelib = %{version}-%{release}

Sorry, here is the corrected 

$ fpaste battray.spec
Uploading (1.6KiB)...
http://paste.fedoraproject.org/442684/51425714/ -> 
https://paste.fedoraproject.org/442684/51425714

> ___
> users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org


-- 
Important Notice: This mailbox is ignored: e-mails are set to be deleted on 
receipt. Please respond to the mailing list if appropriate. For those needing 
to send personal or professional e-mail, please use appropriate addresses.
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild: compiles without error but does not install

[Ranjan Maitra]

On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 09:30:44 -0700 Rick Stevens  wrote:

> On 10/03/2016 06:38 AM, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I have had issues with batti for quite a while, and I came across battray 
> > as a replacement (and it works). So, I was trying to put it together as a 
> > rpm and perhaps and get it approved for Fedora.
> > 
> > I have created the following spec file available here:
> > 
> > https://paste.fedoraproject.org/442597/50173214
> > 
> > It compiles without error. However, when I try to install the rpm using 
> > 
> > $sudo dnf install ../RPMS/noarch/battray-2.2-1.fc24.noarch.rpm 
> > 
> > I get:
> > 
> > Last metadata expiration check: 0:15:05 ago on Mon Oct  3 08:21:04 2016.
> > Error: nothing provides /bin/python3 needed by battray-2.2-1.fc24.noarch
> > (try to add '--allowerasing' to command line to replace conflicting 
> > packages)
> > 
> > The addition of '--allowerasing' does not change anything other than to 
> > remove the suggestion.
> > 
> > Any suggestions as to what is wrong with my spec file?
> 
> It looks like you have an install dependency on /bin/python3 but it's
> not installed (check "ls /bin/python3"). That file is provided by the
> python3-3.5.1-17.fc24.x86_64 RPM (on my updated machine).

Rick,

Thanks! But I have a 

Requires: python3

Is that not enough?

Besides, python3 and python3-devel is also installed and updated on my machine.

Ranjan


> 
> --
> - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigitalri...@alldigital.com -
> - AIM/Skype: therps2ICQ: 226437340   Yahoo: origrps2 -
> --
> -  Diplomacy: The art of saying "Nice doggy!" until you can find a   -
> -big enough rock.-
> --
> ___
> users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org


-- 
Important Notice: This mailbox is ignored: e-mails are set to be deleted on 
receipt. Please respond to the mailing list if appropriate. For those needing 
to send personal or professional e-mail, please use appropriate addresses.
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild: compiles without error but does not install

[Ranjan Maitra]

On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 09:34:39 -0700 stan  wrote:

> On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 08:38:01 -0500
> Ranjan Maitra  wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I have had issues with batti for quite a while, and I came across
> > battray as a replacement (and it works). So, I was trying to put it
> > together as a rpm and perhaps and get it approved for Fedora.
> > 
> > I have created the following spec file available here:
> > 
> > https://paste.fedoraproject.org/442597/50173214
> > 
> > It compiles without error. However, when I try to install the rpm
> > using 
> > 
> > $sudo dnf install ../RPMS/noarch/battray-2.2-1.fc24.noarch.rpm 
> > 
> > I get:
> > 
> > Last metadata expiration check: 0:15:05 ago on Mon Oct  3 08:21:04
> > 2016. Error: nothing provides /bin/python3 needed by
> > battray-2.2-1.fc24.noarch (try to add '--allowerasing' to command
> > line to replace conflicting packages)
> > 
> > The addition of '--allowerasing' does not change anything other than
> > to remove the suggestion.
> > 
> > Any suggestions as to what is wrong with my spec file?
> 
> Can this be correct?
> Provides:   python3-staplelib = %{version}-%{release}

Sorry, this is an error which I found after I posted (and still went on 
looking).

But it does not resolve the problem. I still get the same error.

Here is the modified specfile:

$ fpaste battray.spec 
Uploading (1.6KiB)...
http://paste.fedoraproject.org/442681/51382314/ -> 
https://paste.fedoraproject.org/442681/51382314


Thanks!
Ranjan

> ___
> users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org


-- 
Important Notice: This mailbox is ignored: e-mails are set to be deleted on 
receipt. Please respond to the mailing list if appropriate. For those needing 
to send personal or professional e-mail, please use appropriate addresses.
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild: compiles without error but does not install

[stan]

On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 08:38:01 -0500
Ranjan Maitra  wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I have had issues with batti for quite a while, and I came across
> battray as a replacement (and it works). So, I was trying to put it
> together as a rpm and perhaps and get it approved for Fedora.
> 
> I have created the following spec file available here:
> 
> https://paste.fedoraproject.org/442597/50173214
> 
> It compiles without error. However, when I try to install the rpm
> using 
> 
> $sudo dnf install ../RPMS/noarch/battray-2.2-1.fc24.noarch.rpm 
> 
> I get:
> 
> Last metadata expiration check: 0:15:05 ago on Mon Oct  3 08:21:04
> 2016. Error: nothing provides /bin/python3 needed by
> battray-2.2-1.fc24.noarch (try to add '--allowerasing' to command
> line to replace conflicting packages)
> 
> The addition of '--allowerasing' does not change anything other than
> to remove the suggestion.
> 
> Any suggestions as to what is wrong with my spec file?

Can this be correct?
Provides:   python3-staplelib = %{version}-%{release}
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild: compiles without error but does not install

[Rick Stevens]

On 10/03/2016 06:38 AM, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I have had issues with batti for quite a while, and I came across battray as 
> a replacement (and it works). So, I was trying to put it together as a rpm 
> and perhaps and get it approved for Fedora.
> 
> I have created the following spec file available here:
> 
> https://paste.fedoraproject.org/442597/50173214
> 
> It compiles without error. However, when I try to install the rpm using 
> 
> $sudo dnf install ../RPMS/noarch/battray-2.2-1.fc24.noarch.rpm 
> 
> I get:
> 
> Last metadata expiration check: 0:15:05 ago on Mon Oct  3 08:21:04 2016.
> Error: nothing provides /bin/python3 needed by battray-2.2-1.fc24.noarch
> (try to add '--allowerasing' to command line to replace conflicting packages)
> 
> The addition of '--allowerasing' does not change anything other than to 
> remove the suggestion.
> 
> Any suggestions as to what is wrong with my spec file?

It looks like you have an install dependency on /bin/python3 but it's
not installed (check "ls /bin/python3"). That file is provided by the
python3-3.5.1-17.fc24.x86_64 RPM (on my updated machine).

--
- Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigitalri...@alldigital.com -
- AIM/Skype: therps2ICQ: 226437340   Yahoo: origrps2 -
--
-  Diplomacy: The art of saying "Nice doggy!" until you can find a   -
-big enough rock.-
--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild for cmake project error :: Found 'build_dir' in installed files

[stan]

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 16:33:08 +0300
Adrian Sevcenco  wrote:

> Hi! I have a head scratching problem with a project (clhep) that i
> try to package. It is cmake based and the spec file can be seen here:
> https://github.com/adriansev/SPECS/blob/master/clhep.spec
> 
> the error that i get is :
> Found '/home/adrian/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/clhep-2.3.3.2-1.x86_64' in
> installed files; aborting error: Bad exit status
> from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.tOmNW2 (%install)
> 
> i imagine that it is a problem of setting the buildroot but  have no
> idea how this translate to cmake settings ..
> 
> What is the proper way for packaging cmake projects?
> 
> Thank you!
> Adrian
> 
> 
I think you want the development list.
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/de...@lists.fedoraproject.org/

You can also find it at gmane.org as gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild error (wbar) on F24

[stan]

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 10:56:52 -0500
Ranjan Maitra  wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 23:35:39 +0200 Michael Schwendt
>  wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 12:44:59 -0500, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
> >   
> > > > Revisit the build output and look for a real error message from
> > > > the compiler, not these that Make prints.
> > > 
> > > Where is this build output? I get the following complete output
> > > when I use:   
> > 
> > Here:
> >   
> > > ../src/core/Main.cc:84:35: error: invalid suffix on literal;
> > > C++11 requires a space between literal and string macro
> > > [-Werror=literal-suffix] command = PACKAGE_NAME" "DEFAULT_ARGV;  
> > 
> > And the line above that is the full invocation of the compiler.  
> 
> I don't get an error when I try compiling on the commandline.
> 
> Here is what I try (as per the INSTALL file):
> 
> ./configure
> make
> make check
> 
> All of them pass (absolutely no errors or warnings!). So, is there
> something wrong with my spec file which gets me the above error?
> 
> I have uploaded my SPEC file here (again):
> 
> http://paste.fedoraproject.org/385559/46704294

The error is very clear.  The C++ standard that rpmbuild uses as its
default  (C++ 11?), detects an error in the file main.c at line 84,
character 35.

When you use the command line, you are probably defaulting to an
earlier standard that accepted this.  IIRC, a new standard also came
out last year or the year before.  C++ 14 or 15.

I don't use c++ a lot, but I recall that there is an option you can set
to specify the version to use.  If you use info gcc (or the friendlier
pinfo gcc), you can track it down, and then put it into your spec file
as part of the gcc options.  I *think* that is called C++-OPTIONS in
spec files.

Or, you can create a patch to fix the main file by adding the space it
is asking for, add it to the spec file, and also send it upstream.

Since the fix appears trivial, the second is probably the better path to
follow, as it future proofs the code.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild error (wbar) on F24

[Ranjan Maitra]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 23:35:39 +0200 Michael Schwendt  wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 12:44:59 -0500, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
> 
> > > Revisit the build output and look for a real error message from the
> > > compiler, not these that Make prints.  
> > 
> > Where is this build output? I get the following complete output when I use: 
> 
> Here:
> 
> > ../src/core/Main.cc:84:35: error: invalid suffix on literal; C++11 requires 
> > a space between literal and string macro [-Werror=literal-suffix]
> >  command = PACKAGE_NAME" "DEFAULT_ARGV;
> 
> And the line above that is the full invocation of the compiler.

I don't get an error when I try compiling on the commandline.

Here is what I try (as per the INSTALL file):

./configure
make
make check

All of them pass (absolutely no errors or warnings!). So, is there something 
wrong with my spec file which gets me the above error?

I have uploaded my SPEC file here (again):

http://paste.fedoraproject.org/385559/46704294


Many thanks and best wishes,
Ranjan


FREE 3D EARTH SCREENSAVER - Watch the Earth right on your desktop!
Check it out at http://www.inbox.com/earth

--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild error (wbar) on F24

[Link Dupont]

On Sun, 2016-06-26 at 18:09 -0500, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
> 
> So, how should I fix this? Is this something that has to be taken
> care of, upstream?

The normal procedure, as a package maintainer, would be for you to fix
it by writing a patch, applying the patch to your spec file, and submit
the patch for inclusion upstream.

~link

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild error (wbar) on F24

[Ranjan Maitra]

Michael,

Thanks!

> Here:
> 
> > ../src/core/Main.cc:84:35: error: invalid suffix on literal; C++11 requires 
> > a space between literal and string macro [-Werror=literal-suffix]
> >  command = PACKAGE_NAME" "DEFAULT_ARGV;
> 
> And the line above that is the full invocation of the compiler.

So, how should I fix this? Is this something that has to be taken care of, 
upstream?

Many thanks again!

Best wishes,
Ranjan


Can't remember your password? Do you need a strong and secure password?
Use Password manager! It stores your passwords & protects your account.
Check it out at http://mysecurelogon.com/manager

--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild error (wbar) on F24

[Michael Schwendt]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 12:44:59 -0500, Ranjan Maitra wrote:

> > Revisit the build output and look for a real error message from the
> > compiler, not these that Make prints.  
> 
> Where is this build output? I get the following complete output when I use: 

Here:

> ../src/core/Main.cc:84:35: error: invalid suffix on literal; C++11 requires a 
> space between literal and string macro [-Werror=literal-suffix]
>  command = PACKAGE_NAME" "DEFAULT_ARGV;

And the line above that is the full invocation of the compiler.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild error (wbar) on F24

[Ranjan Maitra]

Michael,

Thanks!

On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 16:44:39 +0200 Michael Schwendt  wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 09:26:29 -0500, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I have a local rpm that I have created using wbar. The spec file is here:
> > 
> > https://paste.fedoraproject.org/384973/14669508
> > 
> > I have successfully created this rpm up to Fedora 23. But have been unable 
> > to do so this time around in F24.
> > 
> > I get the following errors:
> > 
> > 
> > cc1plus: all warnings being treated as errors
> > Makefile:551: recipe for target 'wbar-Main.o' failed
> > make[2]: *** [wbar-Main.o] Error 1
> > make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs
> > make[2]: Leaving directory '/home/maitra/rpmbuild/BUILD/wbar-2.3.4/src'
> > Makefile:404: recipe for target 'all-recursive' failed
> > make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
> > make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/maitra/rpmbuild/BUILD/wbar-2.3.4'
> > Makefile:345: recipe for target 'all' failed
> > make: *** [all] Error 2
> > error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.qtyTEY (%build)
> > 
> > I was wondering what is going wrong here.
> 
> Revisit the build output and look for a real error message from the
> compiler, not these that Make prints.

Where is this build output? I get the following complete output when I use: 

$ rpmbuild -bb wbar.spec 
Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.vazhVP
+ umask 022
+ cd /home/maitra/rpmbuild/BUILD
+ cd /home/maitra/rpmbuild/BUILD
+ rm -rf wbar-2.3.4
+ /usr/bin/gzip -dc /home/maitra/rpmbuild/SOURCES/wbar-2.3.4.tgz
+ /usr/bin/tar -xof -
+ STATUS=0
+ '[' 0 -ne 0 ']'
+ cd wbar-2.3.4
+ /usr/bin/chmod -Rf a+rX,u+w,g-w,o-w .
+ exit 0
Executing(%build): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.YMyuP9
+ umask 022
+ cd /home/maitra/rpmbuild/BUILD
+ cd wbar-2.3.4
+ autoreconf -if
aclocal: warning: couldn't open directory 'm4': No such file or directory
configure.ac:11: installing './compile'
src/Makefile.am:18: warning: source file '$(top_srcdir)/src/core/Bar.cc' is in 
a subdirectory,
src/Makefile.am:18: but option 'subdir-objects' is disabled
automake: warning: possible forward-incompatibility.
automake: At least a source file is in a subdirectory, but the 'subdir-objects'
automake: automake option hasn't been enabled.  For now, the corresponding 
output
automake: object file(s) will be placed in the top-level directory.  However,
automake: this behaviour will change in future Automake versions: they will
automake: unconditionally cause object files to be placed in the same 
subdirectory
automake: of the corresponding sources.
automake: You are advised to start using 'subdir-objects' option throughout your
automake: project, to avoid future incompatibilities.
src/Makefile.am:18: warning: source file '$(top_srcdir)/src/core/Icon.cc' is in 
a subdirectory,
src/Makefile.am:18: but option 'subdir-objects' is disabled
src/Makefile.am:18: warning: source file '$(top_srcdir)/src/core/Main.cc' is in 
a subdirectory,
src/Makefile.am:18: but option 'subdir-objects' is disabled
src/Makefile.am:18: warning: source file '$(top_srcdir)/src/core/SuperBar.cc' 
is in a subdirectory,
src/Makefile.am:18: but option 'subdir-objects' is disabled
src/Makefile.am:18: warning: source file '$(top_srcdir)/src/core/SuperIcon.cc' 
is in a subdirectory,
src/Makefile.am:18: but option 'subdir-objects' is disabled
src/Makefile.am:18: warning: source file '$(top_srcdir)/src/core/XWin.cc' is in 
a subdirectory,
src/Makefile.am:18: but option 'subdir-objects' is disabled
src/Makefile.am:43: warning: source file '$(top_srcdir)/src/utils/App.cc' is in 
a subdirectory,
src/Makefile.am:43: but option 'subdir-objects' is disabled
src/Makefile.am:43: warning: source file '$(top_srcdir)/src/utils/Config.cc' is 
in a subdirectory,
src/Makefile.am:43: but option 'subdir-objects' is disabled
src/Makefile.am:43: warning: source file '$(top_srcdir)/src/utils/Utils.cc' is 
in a subdirectory,
src/Makefile.am:43: but option 'subdir-objects' is disabled
src/Makefile.am:43: warning: source file '$(top_srcdir)/src/utils/OptParser.cc' 
is in a subdirectory,
src/Makefile.am:43: but option 'subdir-objects' is disabled
src/Makefile.am:34: warning: source file '$(top_srcdir)/src/config/Run.cc' is 
in a subdirectory,
src/Makefile.am:34: but option 'subdir-objects' is disabled
src/Makefile.am:34: warning: source file 
'$(top_srcdir)/src/config/Functions.cc' is in a subdirectory,
src/Makefile.am:34: but option 'subdir-objects' is disabled
src/Makefile.am:34: warning: source file 
'$(top_srcdir)/src/config/MainConfig.cc' is in a subdirectory,
src/Makefile.am:34: but option 'subdir-objects' is disabled
+ CFLAGS='-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 
-fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 
-grecord-gcc-switches -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -m64 
-mtune=generic'
+ export CFLAGS
+ CXXFLAGS='-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 
-fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong 

Re: rpmbuild error (wbar) on F24

[Michael Schwendt]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 09:26:29 -0500, Ranjan Maitra wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I have a local rpm that I have created using wbar. The spec file is here:
> 
> https://paste.fedoraproject.org/384973/14669508
> 
> I have successfully created this rpm up to Fedora 23. But have been unable to 
> do so this time around in F24.
> 
> I get the following errors:
> 
> 
> cc1plus: all warnings being treated as errors
> Makefile:551: recipe for target 'wbar-Main.o' failed
> make[2]: *** [wbar-Main.o] Error 1
> make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs
> make[2]: Leaving directory '/home/maitra/rpmbuild/BUILD/wbar-2.3.4/src'
> Makefile:404: recipe for target 'all-recursive' failed
> make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
> make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/maitra/rpmbuild/BUILD/wbar-2.3.4'
> Makefile:345: recipe for target 'all' failed
> make: *** [all] Error 2
> error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.qtyTEY (%build)
> 
> I was wondering what is going wrong here.

Revisit the build output and look for a real error message from the
compiler, not these that Make prints.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[Tim]

Allegedly, on or about 05 June 2016, Kevin Cummings sent:
> (Sorry, I can't remember where I got them from.  "yum list all
> cnijfilter\*"  won't tell me anything other than installed, therefore
> I probably got them directly from Canon.) 

If you installed and RPM without using YUM, you ought to be able to:
  rpm -qa cnijfilter\*

Is there anything that trawls through non-user file (i.e. system and
applications), that could single out files that weren't installed via
RPM, YUM, DNF, etc?

A comparison between yum database and locate database?

-- 
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp
Linux 3.9.10-100.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP Sun Jul 14 01:31:27 UTC 2013 x86_64

Boilerplate:  All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is
no point trying to privately email me, I only get to see the messages
posted to the mailing list.

Evolution keeps on telling me that it's refreshing, but I still want to
go and get a drink.


--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[Ed Greshko]

On 06/06/16 03:13, Kevin Cummings wrote:
> On 06/05/16 06:06, John Pilkington wrote:
>> You don't say why you need to compile;  I have an MG4250 scanner/printer
>> which works for me in SL7 with cnijfilter-mg4200series-3.80-1-rpm
>>
>> There appear to be two similar sets of *.rpm.tar.gz packages (v2.20 and
>> v4.00) for the mg5500 series here:
>>
>> http://www.canonprinter-drivers.com/2016/04/canon-pixma-mg5500-drivers-download-win.html
> I must concur with John.  Last December I installed
> cnijfilter-mg5500series and cnijfilter-common, and I was able to print
> to a wireless MG5520 a friend had just purchased.  I played a lot that
> day trying to get it to work (wirelessly and on USB cable).  I initially
> tried letting CUPS do the work, and that didn't quite work.  But
> following the instructions on the Canon site got me to these two RPMs,
> and things worked quite nicely after installing them.  Nothing to build
> locally.  (Sorry, I can't remember where I got them from.  "yum list all
> cnijfilter\*"  won't tell me anything other than installed, therefore I
> probably got them directly from Canon.)
>

You probably got the rpm from here

http://support-th.canon-asia.com/contents/TH/EN/0100466702.htmlor similar 
Canon site.

-- 
You're Welcome Zachary Quinto
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[Kevin Cummings]

On 06/05/16 06:06, John Pilkington wrote:
> You don't say why you need to compile;  I have an MG4250 scanner/printer
> which works for me in SL7 with cnijfilter-mg4200series-3.80-1-rpm
> 
> There appear to be two similar sets of *.rpm.tar.gz packages (v2.20 and
> v4.00) for the mg5500 series here:
> 
> http://www.canonprinter-drivers.com/2016/04/canon-pixma-mg5500-drivers-download-win.html

I must concur with John.  Last December I installed
cnijfilter-mg5500series and cnijfilter-common, and I was able to print
to a wireless MG5520 a friend had just purchased.  I played a lot that
day trying to get it to work (wirelessly and on USB cable).  I initially
tried letting CUPS do the work, and that didn't quite work.  But
following the instructions on the Canon site got me to these two RPMs,
and things worked quite nicely after installing them.  Nothing to build
locally.  (Sorry, I can't remember where I got them from.  "yum list all
cnijfilter\*"  won't tell me anything other than installed, therefore I
probably got them directly from Canon.)

-- 
Kevin J. Cummings
kjch...@verizon.net
cummi...@kjchome.homeip.net
cummi...@kjc386.framingham.ma.us
Registered Linux User #1232 (http://www.linuxcounter.net/)
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[John Pilkington]

On 05/06/16 10:14, Timothy Murphy wrote:

Ed Greshko wrote:


I'm trying to compile Canon's Linux driver for my Canon MG5550 printer,
and the instructions tell me to run "rpmbuild".



Isn't it as simply as

[egreshko@f24b ~]$ dnf whatprovides *bin/rpmbuild
Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:33 ago on Sat Jun  4 21:50:19 2016.
rpm-build-4.13.0-0.rc1.27.fc24.x86_64 : Scripts and executable programs
used to
   : build packages

Followed by the install of "rpm-build"?


Thank you, Ed.
You are (as usual) quite right.
I think all that was required to get the program rpmbuild
was to dnf-install rpm-build.

Sadly, even with this in place, I cannot compile Canon's official driver,
which is enormous.
The 2000-line process log ends with
   **Error**: You must have `glib' installed.
   You can get it from: ftp//ftp.gtk.org/pub/gtk
In fact glib (and glib-devel) are installed -
I assume glib is not in the expected place.

I shall continue to look for a way to compile the Canon program.
Meanwhile I have to re-boot into Windows to use this printer.


You don't say why you need to compile;  I have an MG4250 scanner/printer 
which works for me in SL7 with cnijfilter-mg4200series-3.80-1-rpm


There appear to be two similar sets of *.rpm.tar.gz packages (v2.20 and 
v4.00) for the mg5500 series here:


http://www.canonprinter-drivers.com/2016/04/canon-pixma-mg5500-drivers-download-win.html

HTH

John P



--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[Timothy Murphy]

Ed Greshko wrote:

>> I'm trying to compile Canon's Linux driver for my Canon MG5550 printer,
>> and the instructions tell me to run "rpmbuild".

> Isn't it as simply as
> 
> [egreshko@f24b ~]$ dnf whatprovides *bin/rpmbuild
> Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:33 ago on Sat Jun  4 21:50:19 2016.
> rpm-build-4.13.0-0.rc1.27.fc24.x86_64 : Scripts and executable programs
> used to
>   : build packages
> 
> Followed by the install of "rpm-build"?

Thank you, Ed.
You are (as usual) quite right.
I think all that was required to get the program rpmbuild
was to dnf-install rpm-build.

Sadly, even with this in place, I cannot compile Canon's official driver,
which is enormous.
The 2000-line process log ends with
  **Error**: You must have `glib' installed.
  You can get it from: ftp//ftp.gtk.org/pub/gtk
In fact glib (and glib-devel) are installed -
I assume glib is not in the expected place.

I shall continue to look for a way to compile the Canon program.
Meanwhile I have to re-boot into Windows to use this printer.


-- 
Timothy Murphy  
gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin

--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[Ahmad Samir]

On 4 June 2016 at 14:43, Timothy Murphy  wrote:

> I'm trying to compile Canon's Linux driver for my Canon MG5550 printer,
> and the instructions tell me to run "rpmbuild".
> When I consult <
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package>
> (dated 23 May 2016)
> I'm told to dnf-install fedora-packager, but this brings up
> [root@william tim]# dnf install fedora-packager
> Error: package fedora-packager-0.5.10.7-1.fc24.noarch requires mock,
>   but none of the providers can be installed
> and similarly
> [root@william tim]# dnf install mock
> Error: package mock-1.2.17-1.fc24.noarch requires systemd-container,
>   but none of the providers can be installed
>
> Is this because I am running Fedora-24 beta?
> Must I wait for 3 days?
> (Oh dear, I see it has been postponed until June 14.)
>
>
>
Use 'dnf --best install' this should hopefully provide more info about rpm
dependency problems.

--
Ahmad Samir
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[Ed Greshko]

On 06/04/16 20:43, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> [root@william tim]# dnf install mock
> Error: package mock-1.2.17-1.fc24.noarch requires systemd-container,
>   but none of the providers can be installed
>
> Is this because I am running Fedora-24 beta?

And, FWIW, on my fully updated F24 beta system (KDE desktop) I get

[egreshko@f24b ~]$ sudo dnf install mock
[sudo] password for egreshko:
Last metadata expiration check: 1:00:43 ago on Sat Jun  4 22:02:47 2016.
Dependencies resolved.

 Package  ArchVersion Repository   
Size

Installing:
 libmicrohttpdx86_64  0.9.46-2.fc24   fedora   
66 k
 mock noarch  1.2.17-1.fc24   fedora  
310 k
 pygpgme  x86_64  0.3-15.fc24 fedora   
77 k
 pyliblzmax86_64  0.5.3-15.fc24   fedora   
53 k
 python-kitchen   noarch  1.2.4-2.fc24fedora  
121 k
 python-pycurlx86_64  7.43.0-2.fc24   fedora  
204 k
 python-urlgrabbernoarch  3.10.1-8.fc24   fedora  
112 k
 python2-iniparse noarch  0.4-19.fc24 fedora   
45 k
 pyxattr  x86_64  0.5.3-7.fc24fedora   
33 k
 rpm-python   x86_64  4.13.0-0.rc1.27.fc24fedora  
102 k
 systemd-containerx86_64  229-8.fc24  fedora  
997 k
 yum  noarch  3.4.3-509.fc24  fedora  
1.2 M
 yum-metadata-parser  x86_64  1.1.4-16.fc24   fedora   
39 k
 yum-utilsnoarch  1.1.31-509.fc24 fedora  
117 k

Transaction Summary

Install  14 Packages

Total download size: 3.5 M
Installed size: 13 M
Is this ok [y/N]:



-- 
You're Welcome Zachary Quinto
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[Ed Greshko]

On 06/04/16 21:51, Ed Greshko wrote:
>
> On 06/04/16 20:43, Timothy Murphy wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to compile Canon's Linux driver for my Canon MG5550 printer,
>> and the instructions tell me to run "rpmbuild".
>> When I consult 
>> (dated 23 May 2016)
>> I'm told to dnf-install fedora-packager, but this brings up
>> [root@william tim]# dnf install fedora-packager
>> Error: package fedora-packager-0.5.10.7-1.fc24.noarch requires mock, 
>>   but none of the providers can be installed
>> and similarly
>> [root@william tim]# dnf install mock
>> Error: package mock-1.2.17-1.fc24.noarch requires systemd-container,
>>   but none of the providers can be installed
>>
>> Is this because I am running Fedora-24 beta?
>> Must I wait for 3 days?
>> (Oh dear, I see it has been postponed until June 14.)
>>
>>
>>
> Isn't it as simply as
>
> [egreshko@f24b ~]$ dnf whatprovides *bin/rpmbuild
> Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:33 ago on Sat Jun  4 21:50:19 2016.
> rpm-build-4.13.0-0.rc1.27.fc24.x86_64 : Scripts and executable programs used 
> to
>   : build packages
>
> Followed by the install of "rpm-build"?

Oh, you would probably want to install rpmdevtools and then run the 
rpmdev-setuptree
script that creates a build environment in your home directory. 
-- 
You're Welcome Zachary Quinto
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Re: rpmbuild

[Ed Greshko]

On 06/04/16 20:43, Timothy Murphy wrote:

> I'm trying to compile Canon's Linux driver for my Canon MG5550 printer,
> and the instructions tell me to run "rpmbuild".
> When I consult 
> (dated 23 May 2016)
> I'm told to dnf-install fedora-packager, but this brings up
> [root@william tim]# dnf install fedora-packager
> Error: package fedora-packager-0.5.10.7-1.fc24.noarch requires mock, 
>   but none of the providers can be installed
> and similarly
> [root@william tim]# dnf install mock
> Error: package mock-1.2.17-1.fc24.noarch requires systemd-container,
>   but none of the providers can be installed
>
> Is this because I am running Fedora-24 beta?
> Must I wait for 3 days?
> (Oh dear, I see it has been postponed until June 14.)
>
>
>
Isn't it as simply as

[egreshko@f24b ~]$ dnf whatprovides *bin/rpmbuild
Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:33 ago on Sat Jun  4 21:50:19 2016.
rpm-build-4.13.0-0.rc1.27.fc24.x86_64 : Scripts and executable programs used to
  : build packages

Followed by the install of "rpm-build"?

-- 
You're Welcome Zachary Quinto
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org