Re: ~/rpmbuild directory can't be a symlink?
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?
> 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?
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?
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
~/rpmbuild directory can't be a symlink?
I was just trying to build the rpm package (samba-4.18.1-0.fc38 from Fedora SRPM) but the build ended with an error: ... Processing files: ctdb-ceph-mutex-4.18.3-4.fc38.x86_64 Provides: ctdb-ceph-mutex = 2:4.18.3-4.fc38 ctdb-ceph-mutex(x86-64) = 2:4.18.3-4.fc38 Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 Requires: ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.34)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) librados.so.2()(64bit) libtalloc.so.2()(64bit) libtalloc.so.2(TALLOC_2.0.2)(64bit) libtevent.so.0()(64bit) libtevent.so.0(TEVENT_0.9.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Processing files: samba-debugsource-4.18.3-4.fc38.x86_64 error: Empty %files file /home/hanzlik/rpmbuild/BUILD/samba-4.18.3/debugsourcefiles.list RPM build errors: Empty %files file /home/hanzlik/rpmbuild/BUILD/samba-4.18.3/debugsourcefiles.list The problem seems to be somehow caused by ~/rpmbuild being a symlink ( $ ll ~/rpmbuild lrwxrwxrwx. 1 hanzlik hanzlik 43 Jul 6 05:07 /home/hanzlik/rpmbuild -> ../../mnt/zalohy/SW/linux/rpm/rela_rpmbuild ), and it doesn't matter if relative or absolute. If ~/rpmbuild is a real directory, the build succeeds. It's a general problem and rpmbuild must not be a symlink (I haven't found it anywhere yet) or it is e.g. rpm system error (some macro, etc.)? --- 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
rpmbuild
Hello, running rpmbuild -bb perl-Alien-GSL.spec I get: PM build errors: File not found: /home/pdupre/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/perl-Alien-GSL-1.03-1.fc32.x86_64/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/* rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/perl-Alien-GSL-1.03-1.fc32.x86_64/usr/share/perl5 does not exit. I guess that I need to change something in the .spec file Thanks === 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| | Room# D114A === ___ 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
rpmbuild
Hello, I am trying to generate a rpm package from the sources of perl-PDL-Graphics-PLplot-0.72 I run cpanspec to generate the .spec file (see below) and I get. setting SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH=1624752000 Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.iQt9av + umask 022 + cd /home/pdupre/rpmbuild/BUILD + cd /home/pdupre/rpmbuild/BUILD + rm -rf PDL-Graphics-PLplot-0.72 + /usr/bin/gzip -dc /home/pdupre/rpmbuild/SOURCES/PDL-Graphics-PLplot-0.72.tar.gz + /usr/bin/tar -xof - + STATUS=0 + '[' 0 -ne 0 ']' + cd PDL-Graphics-PLplot-0.72 + /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.ADwt9P + umask 022 + cd /home/pdupre/rpmbuild/BUILD + cd PDL-Graphics-PLplot-0.72 + /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 + make -j4 make: Nothing to be done for 'all'. + RPM_EC=0 ++ jobs -p + exit 0 Executing(%install): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.VQPCoW + umask 022 + cd /home/pdupre/rpmbuild/BUILD + '[' /home/pdupre/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/perl-PDL-Graphics-PLplot-0.72-1.fc34.x86_64 '!=' / ']' + rm -rf /home/pdupre/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/perl-PDL-Graphics-PLplot-0.72-1.fc34.x86_64 ++ dirname /home/pdupre/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/perl-PDL-Graphics-PLplot-0.72-1.fc34.x86_64 + mkdir -p /home/pdupre/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT + mkdir /home/pdupre/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/perl-PDL-Graphics-PLplot-0.72-1.fc34.x86_64 + cd PDL-Graphics-PLplot-0.72 + rm -rf /home/pdupre/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/perl-PDL-Graphics-PLplot-0.72-1.fc34.x86_64 + make pure_install PERL_INSTALL_ROOT=/home/pdupre/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/perl-PDL-Graphics-PLplot-0.72-1.fc34.x86_64 make: *** No rule to make target 'pure_install'. Stop. error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.VQPCoW (%install) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.VQPCoW (%install) any idea? spec file Name: perl-PDL-Graphics-PLplot Version:0.72 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) 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} %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 * Sun Jun 27 2021 Patrick Dupre 0.72-1 - Specfile autogenerated by cpanspec 1.78. === 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| | Room# D114A === ___ 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 perl-PDL-Graphics-PLplot
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) > >
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 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
rpmbuild perl-PDL-Graphics-PLplot
Hello, This spec file provide the an error. Can you help me to fix it? PLplot.c: In function 'XS_PDL__Graphics__PLplot_plgfci': PLplot.c:85895:25: warning: unused variable 'RETVAL' [-Wunused-variable] 85895 | unsigned intRETVAL; | ^~ /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/PDL/PP.pm: In function 'pdl_init_pltr_copy': /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/PDL/PP.pm:3385:61: warning: array subscript '_7 + -1' is outside the bounds of an interior zero-length array 'struct pdl *[0:]' [-Wzero-length-bounds] 3385 | for(i=0; i<__copy->vtable->npdls; i++) |~^~~ In file included from /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/PDL/PP.pm:1020: /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/PDL/Core/pdl.h:291:8: note: while referencing 'pdls' 291 | pdl *pdls[np] |^~~~ /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/PDL/PP.pm:3385:38: warning: array subscript '_7 + -1' is outside the bounds of an interior zero-length array 'struct pdl *[0:]' [-Wzero-length-bounds] 3385 | for(i=0; i<__copy->vtable->npdls; i++) | ^~~ In file included from /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/PDL/PP.pm:1020: /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/PDL/Core/pdl.h:291:8: note: while referencing 'pdls' 291 | pdl *pdls[np] |^~~~ cc1: some warnings being treated as errors make: *** [Makefile:345: PLplot.o] Error 1 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.FwlY8K (%build) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.FwlY8K (%build) --- 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} %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. === 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| | Room# D114A === ___ 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
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
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
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
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
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_li
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. --- /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
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
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
rpmbuild
Hello, Trying to create a rpm package for perl-Tk-JBrowseEntry I get: Provides: perl-Tk-JBrowseEntry = 5.22-1.fc30 Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files /home/pdupre/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/perl-Tk-JBrowseEntry-5.22-1.fc30.x86_64 error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /usr/bin/JBrowseTest.pl RPM build errors: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /usr/bin/JBrowseTest.pl Any ideas? 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 === ___ 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
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
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
rpmbuild
Hello, How can I make a rpmbuild and keep the compiled files? BUILD and BUIDROOT are erased === 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 === ___ 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
rpmbuild error
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. The spec file is at: https://paste.fedoraproject.org/paste/UyRdT3LJxQ5cW21SjBeR9w The source is available at: https://code.google.com/archive/p/wbar/downloads So, I get the error: $ rpmbuild -bb wbar.spec warning: Macro expanded in comment on line 11: %{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2 Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.XYyyfC + umask 022 + cd /home/maitra/rpmbuild/BUILD + cd /home/maitra/rpmbuild/BUILD + rm -rf wbar-2.3.4 + /usr/bin/bzip2 -dc /home/maitra/rpmbuild/SOURCES/wbar-2.3.4.tar.bz2 + /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.Am2P0X + 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 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 -Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong -grecord-gcc-switches -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -m64 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection -fcf-protection' + export CFLAGS + CXXFLAGS='-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong -grecord-gcc-switches -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -m64 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection -fcf-protection' + export CXXFLAGS + FFLAGS='-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong -grecord-gcc-switches -specs=/usr/l
Re: rpmbuild --define - some rpm sorcerer around?
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/0 00:00:00 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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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 "${_def1}" The man page specifies: --define='MACRO EXPR' Meaning that the macro "%{MACRO}" in your script would be replaced with the text "EXPR" (in this example case). Something like: --define='_my_macro `uname -r`' means that "%{_my_macro}" in the script would be replaced with the result of the "uname -r" command (the backticks around the uname command are so the command is executed...just like in the shell). In other words, the argument to the "--define=" flag consists of two items: the macro name itself and its definition. The macro name and its definition must be separated by a space. Because they must be separated by a space, the whole bit after the "=" must be quoted somehow so the shell doesn't consume them as two separate items. -- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigitalri...@alldigital.com - - AIM/Skype: therps2ICQ: 226437340 Yahoo: origrps2 - -- -He who laughs last thinks slowest. - -- ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/QQKIARPONU23CVC2WHTBTXSH4O7XSQU5/
Re: rpmbuild --define - some rpm sorcerer around?
lejeczek via users wrote: > On 08/06/18 16:39, Todd Zullinger wrote: >> lejeczek via users wrote: >>> how do you pass vars to rpmbuild for definition? eg >>> >>> rpmbuild --define \'"${_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?
On 08.06.2018 23:58, lejeczek via users wrote: > $ _def1="_me 1" > $ rpmbuild --define=${_def1} Try double quotes around your macro: $ rpmbuild --define "${_def1}" best regards Ulf ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/3W3Y7JL7AZITMW5MO4JM4BT5KHLWXJW4/
Re: rpmbuild --define - some rpm sorcerer around?
On 08/06/18 16:39, Todd Zullinger wrote: Hi, lejeczek via users wrote: how do you pass vars to rpmbuild for definition? eg rpmbuild --define \'"${_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=${_def1} %if does not seem to catch/see these definitions. Like I said rpmbuild will run but you should see it is not there as .spec gets digested & processed. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/DTIIF332XVZNYJMB2PQT4BGMEFYMD3BV/ ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/LEVG6FW3PR4MC6SKUXQGMHAO6KCJH662/
Re: rpmbuild --define - some rpm sorcerer around?
Hi, lejeczek via users wrote: > how do you pass vars to rpmbuild for definition? eg > > rpmbuild --define \'"${_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/
rpmbuild --define - some rpm sorcerer around?
hi 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. 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/WAC56XJPLSOKONLW5XGLRCYAR6GMFK7A/
Re: rpmbuild
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
> 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
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
rpmbuild
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) 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
Re: rpmbuild
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
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
> Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 10:49 PM > From: "Michael Schwendt" > 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
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
> Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 10:14 PM > From: "Michael Schwendt" > 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
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
rpmbuild
Hello, Can somebody tell me whatis wrong in the spec file Name: perl-Graphics-Primitive Version:0.67 Release:1%{?dist} Summary:Device and library agnostic graphic primitives License:GPL+ or Artistic Group: Development/Libraries URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/Graphics-Primitive/ Source0: http://www.cpan.org/modules/by-module/Graphics/Graphics-Primitive-%{version}.tar.gz BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) BuildArch: noarch 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) 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 Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`"; echo $version)) %description Graphics::Primitive is library agnostic system for drawing things. %prep %setup -q -n Graphics-Primitive-%{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 README %{perl_vendorlib}/* %{_mandir}/man3/* %changelog * Sun Sep 17 2017 Patrick Dupre 0.67-1 - Specfile autogenerated by cpanspec 1.78. 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 === 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
Re: rpmbuild --rebuiild with config options
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
rpmbuild --rebuiild with config options
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? Thanks! ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: rpmbuild
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
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
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
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
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
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
rpmbuild
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
Re: rpmbuild
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" > 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
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
rpmbuild
Hello, I tried to build my own package perl-PAR-Packer from Url: http://search.cpan.org/dist/PAR-Packer/ (see rpmfind.net) I run cpanspec and then 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* Here is the spec file: Name: perl-PAR-Packer Version:1.035 Release:1%{?dist} Summary:PAR Packager License:GPL+ or Artistic Group: Development/Libraries URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/PAR-Packer/ Source0: http://www.cpan.org/modules/by-module/PAR/PAR-Packer-%{version}.tar.gz BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) BuildRequires: perl >= 1:5.8.1 BuildRequires: perl(Archive::Zip) >= 1.02 BuildRequires: perl(Compress::Zlib) >= 1.30 BuildRequires: perl(Digest) BuildRequires: perl(Digest::SHA) BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker) BuildRequires: perl(File::Temp) >= 0.05 BuildRequires: perl(Getopt::ArgvFile) >= 1.07 BuildRequires: perl(IO::Compress::Gzip) BuildRequires: perl(Module::ScanDeps) >= 1.21 BuildRequires: perl(Module::Signature) BuildRequires: perl(PAR) >= 1.010 BuildRequires: perl(PAR::Dist) >= 0.22 BuildRequires: perl(Text::ParseWords) BuildRequires: perl(Tk) BuildRequires: perl(Tk::ColoredButton) BuildRequires: perl(Tk::EntryCheck) BuildRequires: perl(Tk::Getopt) Requires: perl(Archive::Zip) >= 1.02 Requires: perl(Compress::Zlib) >= 1.30 Requires: perl(Digest) Requires: perl(Digest::SHA) Requires: perl(File::Temp) >= 0.05 Requires: perl(Getopt::ArgvFile) >= 1.07 Requires: perl(IO::Compress::Gzip) Requires: perl(Module::ScanDeps) >= 1.21 Requires: perl(Module::Signature) Requires: perl(PAR) >= 1.010 Requires: perl(PAR::Dist) >= 0.22 Requires: perl(Text::ParseWords) Requires: perl(Tk) Requires: perl(Tk::ColoredButton) Requires: perl(Tk::EntryCheck) Requires: perl(Tk::Getopt) Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`"; echo $version)) %description This module implements the App::Packer::Backend interface, for generating stand-alone executables, perl scripts and PAR files. %prep %setup -q -n PAR-Packer-%{version} %build %{__perl} Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor OPTIMIZE="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" 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 -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 AUTHORS Changes README %{perl_vendorarch}/auto/* %{perl_vendorarch}/PAR* %{_mandir}/man3/* %changelog * Wed Nov 02 2016 Patrick Dupre 1.035-1 - Specfile autogenerated by cpanspec 1.78. Can somebody help me ? I tried to modify or remove the lines %{perl_vendorarch}/auto/* %{perl_vendorarch}/PAR* but it did not help. Thank. === 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
Re: rpmbuild: compiles without error but does not install
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
[SOLVED] rpmbuild: compiles without error but does not install
On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 11:06:46 -0700 Rick Stevens wrote: > > 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. You are correct -- the right way of putting this in should have been: %{__python3} setup.py install --prefix=%{_prefix} --root=%{buildroot} Here is the current (corrected) version of battray.spec for the records, where the rpm installs. $ fpaste battray.spec Uploading (1.6KiB)... http://paste.fedoraproject.org/442710/55191481/ -> https://paste.fedoraproject.org/442710/55191481 The tar.gz does not come with an explicit license file. I have asked upstream to put this in, and after that, I will submit to Fedora. Thanks again to you and to Stan for all your help!! It is much appreciated. 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
rpmbuild: compiles without error but does not install
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? 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
Re: rpmbuild for cmake project error :: Found 'build_dir' in installed files
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
rpmbuild for cmake project error :: Found 'build_dir' in installed files
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 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature -- 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