From qboosh at pld-linux.org  Fri Sep 13 18:10:23 2013
From: qboosh at pld-linux.org (Jakub Bogusz)
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 18:10:23 +0200
Subject: [packages/pam] up to 1.1.7, build fails with weird libtool errors
In-Reply-To: <0bc3c2f53a535c868bf077a8bcb89c3287ea9442_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
References: <c71ff417603291cafbfe5e14d7cd65763304f12a_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <0bc3c2f53a535c868bf077a8bcb89c3287ea9442_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <20130913161023.GA8523@mail>

On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 04:59:54PM +0200, glen wrote:
> commit 0bc3c2f53a535c868bf077a8bcb89c3287ea9442
> Author: Elan Ruusam?e <glen at delfi.ee>
> Date:   Fri Sep 13 17:56:03 2013 +0300
> 
>     up to 1.1.7, build fails with weird libtool errors

What errors you get?
I don't see any on localhost and Th builders.


-- 
Jakub Bogusz    http://qboosh.pl/


From glen at pld-linux.org  Fri Sep 13 19:32:02 2013
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Elan_Ruusam=E4e?=)
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 20:32:02 +0300
Subject: [packages/pam] up to 1.1.7, build fails with weird libtool errors
In-Reply-To: <20130913161023.GA8523@mail>
References: <c71ff417603291cafbfe5e14d7cd65763304f12a_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <0bc3c2f53a535c868bf077a8bcb89c3287ea9442_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <20130913161023.GA8523@mail>
Message-ID: <52334C12.2050809@pld-linux.org>

On 13.09.2013 19:10, Jakub Bogusz wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 04:59:54PM +0200, glen wrote:
>> commit 0bc3c2f53a535c868bf077a8bcb89c3287ea9442
>> Author: Elan Ruusam?e <glen at delfi.ee>
>> Date:   Fri Sep 13 17:56:03 2013 +0300
>>
>>      up to 1.1.7, build fails with weird libtool errors
> What errors you get?
> I don't see any on localhost and Th builders.
>
>
http://sprunge.us/YPiQ

trying to remove all *.la from carme to see if that makes any difference

-- 
glen



From qboosh at pld-linux.org  Fri Sep 13 19:53:17 2013
From: qboosh at pld-linux.org (Jakub Bogusz)
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 19:53:17 +0200
Subject: [packages/pam] up to 1.1.7, build fails with weird libtool errors
In-Reply-To: <52334C12.2050809@pld-linux.org>
References: <c71ff417603291cafbfe5e14d7cd65763304f12a_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <0bc3c2f53a535c868bf077a8bcb89c3287ea9442_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <20130913161023.GA8523@mail> <52334C12.2050809@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <20130913175317.GB8523@mail>

On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 08:32:02PM +0300, Elan Ruusam?e wrote:
> On 13.09.2013 19:10, Jakub Bogusz wrote:
> >On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 04:59:54PM +0200, glen wrote:
> >>commit 0bc3c2f53a535c868bf077a8bcb89c3287ea9442
> >>Author: Elan Ruusam?e <glen at delfi.ee>
> >>Date:   Fri Sep 13 17:56:03 2013 +0300
> >>
> >>     up to 1.1.7, build fails with weird libtool errors
> >What errors you get?
> >I don't see any on localhost and Th builders.
> >
> >
> http://sprunge.us/YPiQ

Stray "-l" at the end of link command.
It seems that LIBCRYPT="-l" after configure.

AC_SEARCH_LIBS([crypt],[$crypt_libs], LIBCRYPT="-l$ac_lib", LIBCRYPT="")

Too old autoconf?
-lcrypt already in $LIBS before that check?


-- 
Jakub Bogusz    http://qboosh.pl/


From qboosh at pld-linux.org  Mon Sep 23 21:10:05 2013
From: qboosh at pld-linux.org (Jakub Bogusz)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 21:10:05 +0200
Subject: _rpmversion in rpm 5.4.13
Message-ID: <20130923191005.GA8225@mail>

$ grep _rpmversion -r /usr/lib/rpm/
/usr/lib/rpm/macros:%_rpmversion                3.0 (Th)

Is it what it's expected to be?
It was 4.5 in rpm-4.5, >= 5 in rpm-5.1.12.
Now "%{_rpmversion}" >= "5.0" check doesn't work as before...


-- 
Jakub Bogusz    http://qboosh.pl/


From qboosh at pld-linux.org  Mon Sep 23 21:12:39 2013
From: qboosh at pld-linux.org (Jakub Bogusz)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 21:12:39 +0200
Subject: [packages/kmod] base does not require -libs anymore. revert that?
In-Reply-To: <5c0bad5ff2313504647c64ce4a34bf4e6504f5a6_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
References: <0af940e5ed791a5387b94ece37ca1edcd69b13d6_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <5c0bad5ff2313504647c64ce4a34bf4e6504f5a6_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <20130923191239.GB8225@mail>

On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 10:37:44AM +0200, glen wrote:
> commit 5c0bad5ff2313504647c64ce4a34bf4e6504f5a6
> Author: Elan Ruusam?e <glen at delfi.ee>
> Date:   Sat Sep 21 11:37:29 2013 +0300
> 
>     base does not require -libs anymore. revert that?
> 
>  kmod.spec | 5 ++++-
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> ---
> diff --git a/kmod.spec b/kmod.spec
> index 0aeb25f..8468b4a 100644
> --- a/kmod.spec
> +++ b/kmod.spec
> @@ -1,9 +1,12 @@
>  # TODO
>  # - alias from /etc/modprobe.d/3.4.32.longterm-1/geninitrd.conf does not work for geninitrd
> +# - kmod no longer links with library dynamically since kmod-15:
> +#   kmod binary statically links to libkmod - if distro is only interested in
> +#   the kmod tool (for example in an initrd) it can refrain from installing the library

IMO we can safely switch back to dynamic linking with libkmod.
Even if we use dynamic kmod for initrd then copying libkmod is minimal
effort (kmod requires libz and liblzma anyway).


-- 
Jakub Bogusz    http://qboosh.pl/


From glen at pld-linux.org  Mon Sep 23 23:41:11 2013
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Elan_Ruusam=E4e?=)
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 00:41:11 +0300
Subject: _rpmversion in rpm 5.4.13
In-Reply-To: <20130923191005.GA8225@mail>
References: <20130923191005.GA8225@mail>
Message-ID: <5240B577.4000200@pld-linux.org>

On 23/09/13 22:10, Jakub Bogusz wrote:
> $ grep _rpmversion -r /usr/lib/rpm/
> /usr/lib/rpm/macros:%_rpmversion                3.0 (Th)
>
> Is it what it's expected to be?
> It was 4.5 in rpm-4.5, >= 5 in rpm-5.1.12.
> Now "%{_rpmversion}" >= "5.0" check doesn't work as before...
>

afaik it's bug in rpm 5.4.13, ID= gets overwritten from lsb package. 
there's patch in rpm5-devel list

i didn't bother patching at that time, it as baggins said 5.4.13 will 
not be in th, so ...

-- 
glen



From n3npq at me.com  Mon Sep 23 23:41:41 2013
From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 17:41:41 -0400
Subject: _rpmversion in rpm 5.4.13
In-Reply-To: <20130923191005.GA8225@mail>
References: <20130923191005.GA8225@mail>
Message-ID: <D3122F93-0620-473A-86CA-19054237FB42@me.com>



Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 23, 2013, at 3:10 PM, Jakub Bogusz <qboosh at pld-linux.org> wrote:
> 
> $ grep _rpmversion -r /usr/lib/rpm/
> /usr/lib/rpm/macros:%_rpmversion                3.0 (Th)
> 
> Is it what it's expected to be?

Yes. LSB mandated 3.0 in all packages, preventing any rational
usage of versioning.

*shrug* rpm5 uses the rpm lead
(where the version is stored at offset 4) as padding. There has been no important usage case for the
"abandoned data structure" in
an rpm lead since 1997.

> It was 4.5 in rpm-4.5, >= 5 in rpm-5.1.12.

Someone in PLD, not me, changed.
Shame on you for not supporting 
LSB package standard efforts ;-)

> Now "%{_rpmversion}" >= "5.0" check doesn't work as before...
> 

I'm not sure how version comparison
solves any real world problem. E.g. 
RPM functionality is drastically
recinfigurable through macros and
build options.

Then there is a fork with different version schemes.

Have fun! Whatever works for you an PLD and rpm.org and ... 

hth

73 de Jeff
> 
> -- 
> Jakub Bogusz    http://qboosh.pl/
> _______________________________________________
> pld-devel-en mailing list
> pld-devel-en at lists.pld-linux.org
> http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en


From glen at pld-linux.org  Mon Sep 23 23:49:49 2013
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Elan_Ruusam=E4e?=)
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 00:49:49 +0300
Subject: _rpmversion in rpm 5.4.13
In-Reply-To: <D3122F93-0620-473A-86CA-19054237FB42@me.com>
References: <20130923191005.GA8225@mail>
 <D3122F93-0620-473A-86CA-19054237FB42@me.com>
Message-ID: <5240B77D.9020501@pld-linux.org>

On 24/09/13 00:41, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> >On Sep 23, 2013, at 3:10 PM, Jakub Bogusz<qboosh at pld-linux.org>  wrote:
>> >
>> >$ grep _rpmversion -r/usr/lib/rpm/
>> >/usr/lib/rpm/macros:%_rpmversion                3.0 (Th)
>> >
>> >Is it what it's expected to be?
> Yes. LSB mandated 3.0 in all packages, preventing any rational
> usage of versioning.
jbj, you are getting old?, %_rpmversion has always been @VERSION@ from 
autofuu.

rpm-5.4.13/macros/macros.in:20:%_rpmversion          @VERSION@

[cut]

-- 
glen



From n3npq at me.com  Mon Sep 23 23:50:15 2013
From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 17:50:15 -0400
Subject: _rpmversion in rpm 5.4.13
In-Reply-To: <5240B577.4000200@pld-linux.org>
References: <20130923191005.GA8225@mail> <5240B577.4000200@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <A018B2AE-FE20-4889-956B-18937CCA2F9A@me.com>



Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 23, 2013, at 5:41 PM, Elan Ruusam?e <glen at pld-linux.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 23/09/13 22:10, Jakub Bogusz wrote:
>> $ grep _rpmversion -r /usr/lib/rpm/
>> /usr/lib/rpm/macros:%_rpmversion                3.0 (Th)
>> 
>> Is it what it's expected to be?
>> It was 4.5 in rpm-4.5, >= 5 in rpm-5.1.12.
>> Now "%{_rpmversion}" >= "5.0" check doesn't work as before...
> 
> afaik it's bug in rpm 5.4.13, ID= gets overwritten from lsb package. there's patch in rpm5-devel list
> 

The existence of a patch does not
imply a "bug".

RPM cannot dictate its own version,
distros and LSB can and do.

RPM can (and does) use other means than versioning to achieve compatibility goals all this century.

hth

73 de Jeff


> i didn't bother patching at that time, it as baggins said 5.4.13 will not be in th, so ...
> 
> -- 
> glen
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pld-devel-en mailing list
> pld-devel-en at lists.pld-linux.org
> http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en


From n3npq at me.com  Mon Sep 23 23:57:54 2013
From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 17:57:54 -0400
Subject: _rpmversion in rpm 5.4.13
In-Reply-To: <5240B77D.9020501@pld-linux.org>
References: <20130923191005.GA8225@mail>
 <D3122F93-0620-473A-86CA-19054237FB42@me.com> <5240B77D.9020501@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <51757961-9627-4CC6-B997-E6D367BD9610@me.com>



Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 23, 2013, at 5:49 PM, Elan Ruusam?e <glen at pld-linux.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 24/09/13 00:41, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> >On Sep 23, 2013, at 3:10 PM, Jakub Bogusz<qboosh at pld-linux.org>  wrote:
>>> >
>>> >$ grep _rpmversion -r/usr/lib/rpm/
>>> >/usr/lib/rpm/macros:%_rpmversion                3.0 (Th)
>>> >
>>> >Is it what it's expected to be?
>> Yes. LSB mandated 3.0 in all packages, preventing any rational
>> usage of versioning.
> jbj, you are getting old?,

No more old than you are stoopid.

There's very little semantic content
in RPM versioning.

Feel free to put in any value you
choose: RPM itself does not use
version for anything useful.

I'd suggest that PLD do the same.

73 de Jeff

> %_rpmversion has always been @VERSION@ from autofuu.
> 
> rpm-5.4.13/macros/macros.in:20:%_rpmversion          @VERSION@
> 
> [cut]
> 
> -- 
> glen
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pld-devel-en mailing list
> pld-devel-en at lists.pld-linux.org
> http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en


From glen at pld-linux.org  Mon Sep 23 23:59:45 2013
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?B?RWxhbiBSdXVzYW3DpGU=?=)
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 00:59:45 +0300
Subject: _rpmversion in rpm 5.4.13
In-Reply-To: <A018B2AE-FE20-4889-956B-18937CCA2F9A@me.com>
References: <20130923191005.GA8225@mail> <5240B577.4000200@pld-linux.org>
 <A018B2AE-FE20-4889-956B-18937CCA2F9A@me.com>
Message-ID: <5240B9D1.1090008@pld-linux.org>

On 24/09/13 00:50, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Sep 23, 2013, at 5:41 PM, Elan Ruusam?e <glen at pld-linux.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 23/09/13 22:10, Jakub Bogusz wrote:
>>> $ grep _rpmversion -r /usr/lib/rpm/
>>> /usr/lib/rpm/macros:%_rpmversion                3.0 (Th)
>>>
>>> Is it what it's expected to be?
>>> It was 4.5 in rpm-4.5, >= 5 in rpm-5.1.12.
>>> Now "%{_rpmversion}" >= "5.0" check doesn't work as before...
>> afaik it's bug in rpm 5.4.13, ID= gets overwritten from lsb package. there's patch in rpm5-devel list
>>
> The existence of a patch does not
> imply a "bug".
>
> RPM cannot dictate its own version,
> distros and LSB can and do.
>
> RPM can (and does) use other means than versioning to achieve compatibility goals all this century.
>

so why did you apply it, give the same mambo-jumbo in your lists too!
http://rpm5.org/community/rpm-devel/5552.html

ps: any plans to fix cvs commits lists for rpm5 there?
http://rpm5.org/community/rpm-cvs/summary.html ends with Feb 2011


-- 
glen



From n3npq at me.com  Tue Sep 24 00:12:22 2013
From: n3npq at me.com (Jeffrey Johnson)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 18:12:22 -0400
Subject: _rpmversion in rpm 5.4.13
In-Reply-To: <5240B9D1.1090008@pld-linux.org>
References: <20130923191005.GA8225@mail> <5240B577.4000200@pld-linux.org>
 <A018B2AE-FE20-4889-956B-18937CCA2F9A@me.com> <5240B9D1.1090008@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <0E79FAE2-77EB-4332-A040-5C5587A017F1@me.com>



Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 23, 2013, at 5:59 PM, Elan Ruusam?e <glen at pld-linux.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 24/09/13 00:50, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>>> On Sep 23, 2013, at 5:41 PM, Elan Ruusam?e <glen at pld-linux.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On 23/09/13 22:10, Jakub Bogusz wrote:
>>>> $ grep _rpmversion -r /usr/lib/rpm/
>>>> /usr/lib/rpm/macros:%_rpmversion                3.0 (Th)
>>>> 
>>>> Is it what it's expected to be?
>>>> It was 4.5 in rpm-4.5, >= 5 in rpm-5.1.12.
>>>> Now "%{_rpmversion}" >= "5.0" check doesn't work as before...
>>> afaik it's bug in rpm 5.4.13, ID= gets overwritten from lsb package. there's patch in rpm5-devel list
>> The existence of a patch does not
>> imply a "bug".
>> 
>> RPM cannot dictate its own version,
>> distros and LSB can and do.
>> 
>> RPM can (and does) use other means than versioning to achieve compatibility goals all this century.
> 
> so why did you apply it, give the same mambo-jumbo in your lists too!
> http://rpm5.org/community/rpm-devel/5552.html
> 

Because it's easier to do what idiots want than to explain. Including LSB.

> ps: any plans to fix cvs commits lists for rpm5 there?
> http://rpm5.org/community/rpm-cvs/summary.html ends with Feb 2011
> 

I did several check-ins today and received mail.

Meanwhile -- as you should know -- there is no sysadmin at rpm5.org: if
you want the commit list archive fixed,
you should be prepared to do the work.

73 de Jeff
> 
> -- 
> glen
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pld-devel-en mailing list
> pld-devel-en at lists.pld-linux.org
> http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en


From baggins at pld-linux.org  Tue Sep 24 03:10:34 2013
From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=)
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 10:10:34 +0900
Subject: _rpmversion in rpm 5.4.13
In-Reply-To: <5240B577.4000200@pld-linux.org>
References: <20130923191005.GA8225@mail>
 <5240B577.4000200@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <20130924011033.GA3181@tachikoma>

On Tue, 24 Sep 2013, Elan Ruusam?e wrote:

> On 23/09/13 22:10, Jakub Bogusz wrote:
> > $ grep _rpmversion -r /usr/lib/rpm/
> > /usr/lib/rpm/macros:%_rpmversion                3.0 (Th)
> >
> > Is it what it's expected to be?
> > It was 4.5 in rpm-4.5, >= 5 in rpm-5.1.12.
> > Now "%{_rpmversion}" >= "5.0" check doesn't work as before...
> >
> 
> afaik it's bug in rpm 5.4.13, ID= gets overwritten from lsb package. 
> there's patch in rpm5-devel list

Damn, missed that one, thanks for applying this.

> i didn't bother patching at that time, it as baggins said 5.4.13 will 
> not be in th, so ...

Changed my mind ;)

-- 
Jan R?korajski                                 | PLD/Linux
SysAdm                                         | http://www.pld-linux.org/
baggins<at>mimuw.edu.pl
baggins<at>pld-linux.org


From caleb at pld-linux.org  Mon Sep 30 19:55:36 2013
From: caleb at pld-linux.org (Caleb Maclennan)
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 20:55:36 +0300
Subject: Package rename
Message-ID: <CAP9w9P4yeBjP2OCOCWzUKE6DDJqR-rqMKhL-aj_v50PZBuReXw@mail.gmail.com>

Can we rename the terminator package to gnome-terminator? There are
actually two projects by this name and I'd like to introduce the one
we don't have to a couple of my systems. I looked at the upstream
projects and it looks like the one currently in our specs repo is
already partially renamed upstream and is the logical one to get a new
package name on our side.

http://gnometerminator.blogspot.com/
https://code.launchpad.net/~gnome-terminator/terminator/trunk

Caleb