From baggins at pld-linux.org  Wed Dec  2 16:08:18 2020
From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 16:08:18 +0100
Subject: rpm.org, the story so far (summary)
Message-ID: <20201202150818.GB126679@starbug.lan>

Hi,

I want to give the summary of rpm.org findings so far. I believe it would be
better this way, than answering every singe message.

- rpmlib(ShortCircuited) deps
  I have added disable_short_circuited_deps macro to disable this,
  just define 'disable_short_circuited_deps 0' in your .rpmrc to disable those
  deps.

- patch run with different args: --no-backup-if-mismatch '--fuzz=0'
  I prefer to leave --fuzz=0, anecdotally I have encoutered patches that do
  apply, but break things. I'd rather spend some time updating them, than have
  nasty surprises.

  I think we should remove --no-backup-if-mismatch if no one is against.

- symlink warnings (absolute symlinks, 777 mode / %attr)
  TBH I don't care, this is harmless noise. Let'signore for now,
  maybe silence in the future.

- --blink
  Sorry, but this would require porting transaction code which is completely
  different. We will have to live without this.

- poldek appears to still enforce directory deps
  Fixed, disabled for rpm.org

- most noarch conditions stopped working now since 4.16 < 4.6
  Either remove those (preferred) or replace with noarchpackage macro
  (macro will resolve to 'BuildArch: noarch' when using rpm-pld-macros for rpm4)

- Requires(triggerpostun) is not supported (pam.spec)
  Again, looks like a lot of work to support, just replace with postun.

- virtual obsoletes/provides not supported
- Obsoletes on files (Obsoletes: '/' (msmtp: Obsoletes:      /usr/lib/sendmail))
  Same, would require too much work to support this, replace with packages

- mutual obsoletes (php* only problem?)
  I honestly don't know what to do with this, rpm behavior seems sane to me,
  maybe we should rethink how this is packaged (maybe replace with Conflicts
  and let administrator deal with it?)

- hrmib integration
  Too much work to reimplement, and IMO SNMP is not a good fit for
  monitoring installed packages.

- '@' version in obsoletes/provides/requires (perl.spec: Provides: perldoc = 3.14_02 at 5.30.3 (illegal char '@'))
  Fixed.

- Provides for libraries are not populated if ELF is not executable
  Applied workaround to ignore executable bit and always check ELFs.

- missing %{__ln} and __bash macros
  Fixed.

- digests algorithms - rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
  IMHO we should stick with default, MD5 is a weak algo and, since Ac and Th
  diverged a lot over the years, the upgrade must be manual so adding an
  intermediate step to uprade to a snap should not be such a pain.
  Also, this is solving for a corner case IMHO.


Please add your comments and tell me if I missed anything.

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


From baggins at pld-linux.org  Wed Dec  2 16:18:18 2020
From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 16:18:18 +0100
Subject: rpm.org, the story so far (summary)
In-Reply-To: <20201202150818.GB126679@starbug.lan>
References: <20201202150818.GB126679@starbug.lan>
Message-ID: <20201202151818.GC126679@starbug.lan>

On Wed, 02 Dec 2020, Jan R?korajski wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I want to give the summary of rpm.org findings so far. I believe it would be
> better this way, than answering every singe message.
[...]

A few more things.

I'd like to switch in January, let 2020 snap still have rpm5.

And while we're at it, let's follow upstream/Fedora and change the
database format to sqlite. Conversion is automatic on the db rebuild, I
have not encountered eny issues.

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


From hawk at pld-linux.org  Wed Dec  2 17:58:45 2020
From: hawk at pld-linux.org (Marcin Krol)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 17:58:45 +0100
Subject: rpm.org, the story so far (summary)
In-Reply-To: <20201202150818.GB126679@starbug.lan>
References: <20201202150818.GB126679@starbug.lan>
Message-ID: <3bfc7deb-6bcd-b7e6-3e17-601be4317aae@pld-linux.org>

On 02-Dec-20 16:08, Jan R?korajski wrote:
> - mutual obsoletes (php* only problem?)
>    I honestly don't know what to do with this, rpm behavior seems sane to me,
>    maybe we should rethink how this is packaged (maybe replace with Conflicts
>    and let administrator deal with it?)

+1 for rethinking :-) Actually I did that long time ago in TLD. The 
packaging was changed so all PHP versions are versioned (php_suffix) and 
may fully coexist, including devel files. Default PHP for system may be 
selected using alternatives. There were/are some quirks especially when 
building additional PHP modules from specs, but overally it works fine 
for me.

M.


From glen at pld-linux.org  Wed Dec  2 20:58:34 2020
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Elan_Ruusam=c3=a4e?=)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 21:58:34 +0200
Subject: rpm.org, the story so far (summary)
In-Reply-To: <20201202150818.GB126679@starbug.lan>
References: <20201202150818.GB126679@starbug.lan>
Message-ID: <beab3da0-dcea-1328-466b-5ca0635377c9@pld-linux.org>

On 12/2/20 5:08 PM, Jan R?korajski wrote:

> - patch run with different args: --no-backup-if-mismatch '--fuzz=0'
>    I prefer to leave --fuzz=0, anecdotally I have encoutered patches that do
>    apply, but break things. I'd rather spend some time updating them, than have
>    nasty surprises.

can you (or anybody else) share a recipe how to easily re-diff them.

I'm sure it can be automated in most of the part.


for example I develop with `%_default_patch_fuzz 2` override, but invoke 
`builder --rediff-patches` before pushing out.



From glen at pld-linux.org  Wed Dec  2 21:04:15 2020
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Elan_Ruusam=c3=a4e?=)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 22:04:15 +0200
Subject: rpm.org, the story so far (summary)
In-Reply-To: <20201202151818.GC126679@starbug.lan>
References: <20201202150818.GB126679@starbug.lan>
 <20201202151818.GC126679@starbug.lan>
Message-ID: <bfcbcf50-a624-e1ff-db04-a6fbdc669864@pld-linux.org>

On 12/2/20 5:18 PM, Jan R?korajski wrote:

> And while we're at it, let's follow upstream/Fedora and change the
> database format to sqlite. Conversion is automatic on the db rebuild, I
> have not encountered eny issues.

i'm actually wondering, is there any docker friendly format, so that 
each package upgrade will not double image size because the same file 
was changed in transaction.

for example, if rpmdb is 40mb, installing a package, or removing a 
package, will add 40mb layer besides the actual files from the package.

ideally it should be some kind of log format that adds new files to a 
directory, and when "loading" such database, iterates over the files. 
it's not performance wise the best, but docker image layer storage wise 
it would be.



From glen at pld-linux.org  Wed Dec  2 21:06:51 2020
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Elan_Ruusam=c3=a4e?=)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 22:06:51 +0200
Subject: rpm.org, the story so far (summary)
In-Reply-To: <3bfc7deb-6bcd-b7e6-3e17-601be4317aae@pld-linux.org>
References: <20201202150818.GB126679@starbug.lan>
 <3bfc7deb-6bcd-b7e6-3e17-601be4317aae@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <874a9f16-2ce0-15da-043f-aac5a4b2dd3d@pld-linux.org>

On 12/2/20 6:58 PM, Marcin Krol wrote:

> On 02-Dec-20 16:08, Jan R?korajski wrote:
>> - mutual obsoletes (php* only problem?)
>> ?? I honestly don't know what to do with this, rpm behavior seems 
>> sane to me,
>> ?? maybe we should rethink how this is packaged (maybe replace with 
>> Conflicts
>> ?? and let administrator deal with it?)
>
> +1 for rethinking :-) Actually I did that long time ago in TLD. The 
> packaging was changed so all PHP versions are versioned (php_suffix) 
> and may fully coexist, including devel files. Default PHP for system 
> may be selected using alternatives. There were/are some quirks 
> especially when building additional PHP modules from specs, but 
> overally it works fine for me.

the current state in pld php packages is because 
lazy-ness/lack-of-time/no-interest, and you haven't ported your changes 
back :(

for bulding additional modules there's "-D php_suffix 52" support added 
to builder, not sure if TLD uses that infrastructure.



From glen at pld-linux.org  Wed Dec  2 21:11:18 2020
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Elan_Ruusam=c3=a4e?=)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 22:11:18 +0200
Subject: [packages/rust] - add future hint for x32 build requirements
In-Reply-To: <3c25e53df9459c05678a282cdcad2a34e0816835_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
References: <d794f84ff8fc9f67069b3b8d23850fd9e2e791a8_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <3c25e53df9459c05678a282cdcad2a34e0816835_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <48af851a-b7c6-da31-c465-3d8331b5446d@pld-linux.org>

On 12/2/20 7:14 PM, baggins wrote:

> +# how to specify? - rpm.org adds arch provides on packages (__isa), uncomment once we switch
> +#BuildRequires:	curl-devel(x86-64)
> +#BuildRequires:	libgit2-devel(x86-64)
> +#BuildRequires:	llvm-devel(x86-64)>= 7.0
> +#BuildRequires:	openssl-devel(x86-64)
> +#BuildRequires:	zlib-devel(x86-64)

if you want to solve this now,

you can add BR: %{_libdir}/libcurl.so to require curl-devel for current 
arch. or /usr/lib64 to require specific one regardless of build arch.



From hawk at pld-linux.org  Thu Dec  3 00:10:03 2020
From: hawk at pld-linux.org (Marcin Krol)
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 00:10:03 +0100
Subject: rpm.org, the story so far (summary)
In-Reply-To: <874a9f16-2ce0-15da-043f-aac5a4b2dd3d@pld-linux.org>
References: <20201202150818.GB126679@starbug.lan>
 <3bfc7deb-6bcd-b7e6-3e17-601be4317aae@pld-linux.org>
 <874a9f16-2ce0-15da-043f-aac5a4b2dd3d@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <36e6bc05-b7a8-599d-1965-631c19438fe6@pld-linux.org>

On 02-Dec-20 21:06, Elan Ruusam?e wrote:
> the current state in pld php packages is because 
> lazy-ness/lack-of-time/no-interest, and you haven't ported your changes 
> back :(

I'm not porting back any changes which break "clean" poldek upgrades, 
require modification/addition/testing of systemd stuff, applies heavy 
changes to packages etc. Also lack of time is the issue here.

> for bulding additional modules there's "-D php_suffix 52" support added 
> to builder, not sure if TLD uses that infrastructure.

I'm using it. Works fine except some extremly rare cases with suffixed 
php devel stuff and multiple versions of it installed in parallel.

M.


From qboosh at pld-linux.org  Sat Dec  5 08:35:00 2020
From: qboosh at pld-linux.org (Jakub Bogusz)
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2020 08:35:00 +0100
Subject: cvs/git down
Message-ID: <20201205073500.GA31209@stranger.qboosh.pl>

Who has access to host system or console?


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


From glen at pld-linux.org  Sat Dec  5 15:25:13 2020
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Elan_Ruusam=c3=a4e?=)
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2020 16:25:13 +0200
Subject: cvs/git down
In-Reply-To: <20201205073500.GA31209@stranger.qboosh.pl>
References: <20201205073500.GA31209@stranger.qboosh.pl>
Message-ID: <4b9f5a5a-020b-a51a-f4aa-8aa12dc353d2@pld-linux.org>


On 12/5/20 9:35 AM, Jakub Bogusz wrote:
> Who has access to host system or console?
>
looks like watchdog recovered it 4 hours ago.




From glen at pld-linux.org  Sun Dec  6 10:50:54 2020
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Elan_Ruusam=c3=a4e?=)
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2020 11:50:54 +0200
Subject: [packages/transmission] add gtk and qt bconds
In-Reply-To: <7b5e04bdf569a143a34e66ace2b6b0f90a15d7e5_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
References: <c72d551ab3ce709dec3675115758e3c040682c5e_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <7b5e04bdf569a143a34e66ace2b6b0f90a15d7e5_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <7583b8e3-a571-d892-5958-f2b6ff64e075@pld-linux.org>


On 12/6/20 12:58 AM, atler wrote:
> +%files %{?with_gtk:-f %{name}.lang}
wouldn't it make sense to move the language files to gtk subpackage then?


From qboosh at pld-linux.org  Tue Dec  8 18:38:00 2020
From: qboosh at pld-linux.org (Jakub Bogusz)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2020 18:38:00 +0100
Subject: bash 5.1.0
Message-ID: <20201208173800.GA14755@mail>

# rpm -Fhv bash-5.1.0-1.i686.rpm
error: Failed dependencies:
        mktemp < 1.6 conflicts with rpm-build-tools-4.9-6.noarch

It's caused by soname provides from dynamic builtins (which don't have
.so extension)

$ rpm -qpP bash-5.1.0-1.i686.rpm | grep mktemp
mktemp


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


From glen at pld-linux.org  Wed Dec  9 11:43:35 2020
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Elan_Ruusam=c3=a4e?=)
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 12:43:35 +0200
Subject: bash 5.1.0
In-Reply-To: <20201208173800.GA14755@mail>
References: <20201208173800.GA14755@mail>
Message-ID: <d6c0dbbf-cd9f-a1b1-bb7c-1e89ad469eb2@pld-linux.org>

On 12/8/20 7:38 PM, Jakub Bogusz wrote:

> It's caused by soname provides from dynamic builtins (which don't have
> .so extension)
i think these should be added to noautoprov by path (_noautoprovfiles), 
is that macro support even ported to 4.16?


From atler at pld-linux.org  Sun Dec 13 21:30:19 2020
From: atler at pld-linux.org (Jan Palus)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2020 21:30:19 +0100
Subject: rpm4 on carme*
In-Reply-To: <20201122160050.o2eta4yibvkxkhet@pine>
References: <20201027222117.GA77656@tachikoma.lan>
 <20201106194956.v2un4kbwxcecdrvu@kalarepa>
 <20201110171843.cwfwxku2w27ytljj@pine>
 <20201118094710.q4tkgs64w6m3dsvw@kalarepa>
 <20201122160050.o2eta4yibvkxkhet@pine>
Message-ID: <20201213203019.3ymqlphzk65mx555@pine>

Looks like poldek does not recognize R:(post, postun) and fails to
install packages even though dependencies are present:

$ ag '^R.*post' mpd.spec
86:Requires(post,postun):	gtk-update-icon-cache
87:Requires(post,preun,postun):	systemd-units >= 38

$ poldek --cmd desc -r mpd |grep gtk-update-icon-cache
Requires(pre):  /bin/sh, /bin/sh, gtk-update-icon-cache, systemd-units >= 38
Requires(un):   /bin/sh, /bin/sh, gtk-update-icon-cache, systemd-units >= 38

$ poldek -u mpd
...
Processing dependencies...
There are 1 package to install:
A mpd-0.22.3-1
This operation will use 1.4MB of disk space.
Need to get 507.6KB of archives.
mpd-0.22.3-1.armv6hl.rpm: digests OK
Executing pm-command.sh --upgrade -vh --root / --define _check_dirname_deps 1...
error: Failed dependencies:
	gtk-update-icon-cache is needed by mpd-0.22.3-1.armv6hl

Manual installation of gtk-update-icon-cache followed by installation of
mpd is all fine.


From atler at pld-linux.org  Mon Dec 14 16:20:32 2020
From: atler at pld-linux.org (Jan Palus)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 16:20:32 +0100
Subject: rpm4 on carme*
In-Reply-To: <20201213203019.3ymqlphzk65mx555@pine>
References: <20201027222117.GA77656@tachikoma.lan>
 <20201106194956.v2un4kbwxcecdrvu@kalarepa>
 <20201110171843.cwfwxku2w27ytljj@pine>
 <20201118094710.q4tkgs64w6m3dsvw@kalarepa>
 <20201122160050.o2eta4yibvkxkhet@pine>
 <20201213203019.3ymqlphzk65mx555@pine>
Message-ID: <20201214152032.7q3dldlam3535e2m@kalarepa>

If commit message includes '%' then rpmbuild spawned by builder script
fails. See ie test.spec which includes '%prep':

error: line 40: second %prep

builder creates spec copy with %changelog appended. Apparently rpm.org
evaluates macros in %changelog while rpm5 does not. Not sure whether
we're supposed to escape macros in changelog now or whether rpm.org
should read %changelog as is.


From ngompa13 at gmail.com  Mon Dec 14 16:24:32 2020
From: ngompa13 at gmail.com (Neal Gompa)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 10:24:32 -0500
Subject: rpm4 on carme*
In-Reply-To: <20201214152032.7q3dldlam3535e2m@kalarepa>
References: <20201027222117.GA77656@tachikoma.lan>
 <20201106194956.v2un4kbwxcecdrvu@kalarepa>
 <20201110171843.cwfwxku2w27ytljj@pine>
 <20201118094710.q4tkgs64w6m3dsvw@kalarepa>
 <20201122160050.o2eta4yibvkxkhet@pine> <20201213203019.3ymqlphzk65mx555@pine>
 <20201214152032.7q3dldlam3535e2m@kalarepa>
Message-ID: <CAEg-Je_hwhFyRJQv9uv2PVxS_Jve7HjkqzYD7k-6yvN=8XVmXA@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 10:21 AM Jan Palus <atler at pld-linux.org> wrote:
>
> If commit message includes '%' then rpmbuild spawned by builder script
> fails. See ie test.spec which includes '%prep':
>
> error: line 40: second %prep
>
> builder creates spec copy with %changelog appended. Apparently rpm.org
> evaluates macros in %changelog while rpm5 does not. Not sure whether
> we're supposed to escape macros in changelog now or whether rpm.org
> should read %changelog as is.

Macros are supposed to be escaped.



-- 
?????????/ Always, there's only one truth!


From glen at pld-linux.org  Mon Dec 14 21:10:10 2020
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Elan_Ruusam=c3=a4e?=)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 22:10:10 +0200
Subject: rpm4 on carme*
In-Reply-To: <20201214152032.7q3dldlam3535e2m@kalarepa>
References: <20201027222117.GA77656@tachikoma.lan>
 <20201106194956.v2un4kbwxcecdrvu@kalarepa>
 <20201110171843.cwfwxku2w27ytljj@pine>
 <20201118094710.q4tkgs64w6m3dsvw@kalarepa>
 <20201122160050.o2eta4yibvkxkhet@pine> <20201213203019.3ymqlphzk65mx555@pine>
 <20201214152032.7q3dldlam3535e2m@kalarepa>
Message-ID: <610764e2-ba23-16b1-5a3b-1216f6cf330c@pld-linux.org>

On 12/14/20 5:20 PM, Jan Palus wrote:

> If commit message includes '%' then rpmbuild spawned by builder script
> fails. See ie test.spec which includes '%prep':
>
> error: line 40: second %prep
>
> builder creates spec copy with %changelog appended. Apparently rpm.org
> evaluates macros in %changelog while rpm5 does not. Not sure whether
> we're supposed to escape macros in changelog now or whether rpm.org
> should read %changelog as is.

looks like we're back to 10+ years old issues that pld solved.

pld (and later rpm5) had a patch to disable macro expansion in 
%changelog section



From glen at pld-linux.org  Mon Dec 14 21:11:06 2020
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Elan_Ruusam=c3=a4e?=)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 22:11:06 +0200
Subject: rpm4 on carme*
In-Reply-To: <20201213203019.3ymqlphzk65mx555@pine>
References: <20201027222117.GA77656@tachikoma.lan>
 <20201106194956.v2un4kbwxcecdrvu@kalarepa>
 <20201110171843.cwfwxku2w27ytljj@pine>
 <20201118094710.q4tkgs64w6m3dsvw@kalarepa>
 <20201122160050.o2eta4yibvkxkhet@pine> <20201213203019.3ymqlphzk65mx555@pine>
Message-ID: <c0d924be-c010-9a60-7b06-f7b9a8a9a5de@pld-linux.org>

On 12/13/20 10:30 PM, Jan Palus via pld-devel-en wrote:

> Looks like poldek does not recognize R:(post, postun) and fails to
> install packages even though dependencies are present:
>
> $ ag '^R.*post' mpd.spec
> 86:Requires(post,postun):	gtk-update-icon-cache
> 87:Requires(post,preun,postun):	systemd-units >= 38
>
> $ poldek --cmd desc -r mpd |grep gtk-update-icon-cache
> Requires(pre):  /bin/sh, /bin/sh, gtk-update-icon-cache, systemd-units >= 38
> Requires(un):   /bin/sh, /bin/sh, gtk-update-icon-cache, systemd-units >= 38
>
> $ poldek -u mpd
> ...
> Processing dependencies...
> There are 1 package to install:
> A mpd-0.22.3-1
> This operation will use 1.4MB of disk space.
> Need to get 507.6KB of archives.
> mpd-0.22.3-1.armv6hl.rpm: digests OK
> Executing pm-command.sh --upgrade -vh --root / --define _check_dirname_deps 1...
> error: Failed dependencies:
> 	gtk-update-icon-cache is needed by mpd-0.22.3-1.armv6hl
>
> Manual installation of gtk-update-icon-cache followed by installation of
> mpd is all fine.

another 10+ year old issue, the feature that landed on rpm5


From krzysztof at mrozowicz.eu  Tue Dec 15 00:19:56 2020
From: krzysztof at mrozowicz.eu (Krzysztof Mrozowicz)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 23:19:56 +0000
Subject: problem with mpd and libvirt
Message-ID: <01020176638da5c5-c85a9a44-5276-4509-9d82-d05b39703ddf-000000@eu-west-1.amazonses.com>

Hi,
I upgraded my PLD installation with today's "ready" repo and just 
discovered that two services I use started to segfault.

libvirtd:
gru 14 23:06:34 oko libvirtd[22095]: internal error: Failed to start 
QEMU binary /usr/bin/qemu-system-x86_64 for probing: qemu-system-x86_64: 
/tmp/B.HHaAz_/BUILD/qemu-5.0.0/util/fdmon-io_uring.c:292: 
fdmon_io_uring_wait: Assertion `ret >= 0' failed.
gru 14 23:06:34 oko libvirtd[22095]: Failed to probe capabilities for 
/usr/bin/qemu-system-x86_64: internal error: Failed to start QEMU binary 
/usr/bin/qemu-system-x86_64 for probing: qemu-system-x86_64: 
/tmp/B.HHaAz_/BUILD/qemu-5.0.0/util/fdmon-io_uring.c:292: 
fdmon_io_uring_wait: Assertion `ret >= 0' failed.

mpd:
gru 14 23:16:49 oko systemd[1]: Starting Music Player Daemon...
gru 14 23:16:49 oko systemd-coredump[51998]: [?] Process 50078 (mpd) of 
user 204 dumped core.

If I can do anything to help to identify the problem, please let me know.

Best Regards
Krzysiek



From atler at pld-linux.org  Tue Dec 15 09:51:56 2020
From: atler at pld-linux.org (Jan Palus)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 09:51:56 +0100
Subject: problem with mpd and libvirt
In-Reply-To: <01020176638da5c5-c85a9a44-5276-4509-9d82-d05b39703ddf-000000@eu-west-1.amazonses.com>
References: <01020176638da5c5-c85a9a44-5276-4509-9d82-d05b39703ddf-000000@eu-west-1.amazonses.com>
Message-ID: <20201215085156.4apg6it5s56z7ao5@kalarepa>

On 14.12.2020 23:19, Krzysztof Mrozowicz wrote:
> Hi,
> I upgraded my PLD installation with today's "ready" repo and just discovered
> that two services I use started to segfault.
> 
> libvirtd:
> gru 14 23:06:34 oko libvirtd[22095]: internal error: Failed to start QEMU
> binary /usr/bin/qemu-system-x86_64 for probing: qemu-system-x86_64:
> /tmp/B.HHaAz_/BUILD/qemu-5.0.0/util/fdmon-io_uring.c:292:
> fdmon_io_uring_wait: Assertion `ret >= 0' failed.
> gru 14 23:06:34 oko libvirtd[22095]: Failed to probe capabilities for
> /usr/bin/qemu-system-x86_64: internal error: Failed to start QEMU binary
> /usr/bin/qemu-system-x86_64 for probing: qemu-system-x86_64:
> /tmp/B.HHaAz_/BUILD/qemu-5.0.0/util/fdmon-io_uring.c:292:
> fdmon_io_uring_wait: Assertion `ret >= 0' failed.
> 
> mpd:
> gru 14 23:16:49 oko systemd[1]: Starting Music Player Daemon...
> gru 14 23:16:49 oko systemd-coredump[51998]: [?] Process 50078 (mpd) of user
> 204 dumped core.
> 
> If I can do anything to help to identify the problem, please let me know.

mpd works fine for me but can you try upgrading mpd/qemu* to
versions from th-test and see if it fixes your issues?


From krzysztof at mrozowicz.eu  Tue Dec 15 10:07:25 2020
From: krzysztof at mrozowicz.eu (Krzysztof Mrozowicz)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 09:07:25 +0000
Subject: =?utf-8?q?Re=3A?= problem with mpd and libvirt
In-Reply-To: <20201215085156.4apg6it5s56z7ao5@kalarepa>
Message-ID: <0102017665a7805f-a0568e0a-862e-49a7-9beb-46cb86719dbf-000000@eu-west-1.amazonses.com>

On Tuesday, December 15, 2020 08:51 GMT, Jan Palus <atler at pld-linux.org> wrote: 

> > If I can do anything to help to identify the problem, please let me know.
> 
> mpd works fine for me but can you try upgrading mpd/qemu* to
> versions from th-test and see if it fixes your issues?

Hi, I upgraded qemu and mpd from th-test and all works good again.
Thanks a lot for quick response, Jan!

--
KM


From glen at pld-linux.org  Tue Dec 15 11:48:58 2020
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Elan_Ruusam=c3=a4e?=)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 12:48:58 +0200
Subject: problem with mpd and libvirt
In-Reply-To: <20201215085156.4apg6it5s56z7ao5@kalarepa>
References: <01020176638da5c5-c85a9a44-5276-4509-9d82-d05b39703ddf-000000@eu-west-1.amazonses.com>
 <20201215085156.4apg6it5s56z7ao5@kalarepa>
Message-ID: <3902df01-3dc6-6a9a-44d0-a7c0509f04c0@pld-linux.org>

On 15.12.2020 10:51, Jan Palus wrote:

> On 14.12.2020 23:19, Krzysztof Mrozowicz wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I upgraded my PLD installation with today's "ready" repo and just discovered
>> that two services I use started to segfault.
>>
>> libvirtd:
>> gru 14 23:06:34 oko libvirtd[22095]: internal error: Failed to start QEMU
>> binary /usr/bin/qemu-system-x86_64 for probing: qemu-system-x86_64:
>> /tmp/B.HHaAz_/BUILD/qemu-5.0.0/util/fdmon-io_uring.c:292:
>> fdmon_io_uring_wait: Assertion `ret >= 0' failed.
>> gru 14 23:06:34 oko libvirtd[22095]: Failed to probe capabilities for
>> /usr/bin/qemu-system-x86_64: internal error: Failed to start QEMU binary
>> /usr/bin/qemu-system-x86_64 for probing: qemu-system-x86_64:
>> /tmp/B.HHaAz_/BUILD/qemu-5.0.0/util/fdmon-io_uring.c:292:
>> fdmon_io_uring_wait: Assertion `ret >= 0' failed.
>>
>> mpd:
>> gru 14 23:16:49 oko systemd[1]: Starting Music Player Daemon...
>> gru 14 23:16:49 oko systemd-coredump[51998]: [?] Process 50078 (mpd) of user
>> 204 dumped core.
>>
>> If I can do anything to help to identify the problem, please let me know.
> mpd works fine for me but can you try upgrading mpd/qemu* to
> versions from th-test and see if it fixes your issues?

io_uring may be related to kernel, what is your kernel, glibc, liburing, 
qemu?



From krzysztof at mrozowicz.eu  Tue Dec 15 15:53:50 2020
From: krzysztof at mrozowicz.eu (Krzysztof Mrozowicz)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 14:53:50 +0000
Subject: problem with mpd and libvirt
In-Reply-To: <3902df01-3dc6-6a9a-44d0-a7c0509f04c0@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <0102017666e4a94b-8c279223-e6b8-4cc5-821d-9cbbfadb4be1-000000@eu-west-1.amazonses.com>

On Tuesday, December 15, 2020 10:48 GMT, Elan Ruusam?e <glen at pld-linux.org> wrote: 
 
> io_uring may be related to kernel, what is your kernel, glibc, liburing, 
> qemu?
Thanks for the answer, Elan. The packages rebuild did the job. Maybe they were built against older glibc... 

--
Regards
KM


From atler at pld-linux.org  Tue Dec 15 16:59:08 2020
From: atler at pld-linux.org (Jan Palus)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 16:59:08 +0100
Subject: problem with mpd and libvirt
In-Reply-To: <3902df01-3dc6-6a9a-44d0-a7c0509f04c0@pld-linux.org>
References: <01020176638da5c5-c85a9a44-5276-4509-9d82-d05b39703ddf-000000@eu-west-1.amazonses.com>
 <20201215085156.4apg6it5s56z7ao5@kalarepa>
 <3902df01-3dc6-6a9a-44d0-a7c0509f04c0@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <20201215155908.k5iyvce5kxewmaye@kalarepa>

On 15.12.2020 12:48, Elan Ruusam?e wrote:
> On 15.12.2020 10:51, Jan Palus wrote:
> 
> > On 14.12.2020 23:19, Krzysztof Mrozowicz wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > I upgraded my PLD installation with today's "ready" repo and just discovered
> > > that two services I use started to segfault.
> > > 
> > > libvirtd:
> > > gru 14 23:06:34 oko libvirtd[22095]: internal error: Failed to start QEMU
> > > binary /usr/bin/qemu-system-x86_64 for probing: qemu-system-x86_64:
> > > /tmp/B.HHaAz_/BUILD/qemu-5.0.0/util/fdmon-io_uring.c:292:
> > > fdmon_io_uring_wait: Assertion `ret >= 0' failed.
> > > gru 14 23:06:34 oko libvirtd[22095]: Failed to probe capabilities for
> > > /usr/bin/qemu-system-x86_64: internal error: Failed to start QEMU binary
> > > /usr/bin/qemu-system-x86_64 for probing: qemu-system-x86_64:
> > > /tmp/B.HHaAz_/BUILD/qemu-5.0.0/util/fdmon-io_uring.c:292:
> > > fdmon_io_uring_wait: Assertion `ret >= 0' failed.
> > > 
> > > mpd:
> > > gru 14 23:16:49 oko systemd[1]: Starting Music Player Daemon...
> > > gru 14 23:16:49 oko systemd-coredump[51998]: [?] Process 50078 (mpd) of user
> > > 204 dumped core.
> > > 
> > > If I can do anything to help to identify the problem, please let me know.
> > mpd works fine for me but can you try upgrading mpd/qemu* to
> > versions from th-test and see if it fixes your issues?
> 
> io_uring may be related to kernel, what is your kernel, glibc, liburing,
> qemu?

It looks like ABI breakage to me -- the reason why mpd worked for me
(qemu fails the same way) is most likely due to:

* on x86_64 I'm using mpd in user session which in default configuration
  does not use io_uring (mpd requires 64M `ulimit -l` while by
  default 64K is available)

* on ARM I'm using system instance but mpd was compiled with liburing
  0.7

After quick look at liburing commits between 0.6 and 0.7 I'd say it
would be this one:

https://github.com/axboe/liburing/commit/0f0517331307605e576b3492c93dc4988e06fdc0


From glen at pld-linux.org  Wed Dec 16 10:14:49 2020
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Elan_Ruusam=c3=a4e?=)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2020 11:14:49 +0200
Subject: [packages/kernel] - drop unneeded excludes (rpm 4.16 handles
 these differently from rpm 5)
In-Reply-To: <c0f1053232337d969d6655d815460e16b8ef035a_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
References: <e37dd06aa8802a64332fe12279c3923ddd77794d_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <c0f1053232337d969d6655d815460e16b8ef035a_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <4a5de9b0-bf2b-2afd-7f8b-7978f74d44d2@pld-linux.org>

On 15.12.2020 18:05, arekm wrote:

>   %exclude %{_kernelsrcdir}/scripts/mod
> -%exclude %{_kernelsrcdir}/scripts/module-common.lds

what do you mean?

rpm 4.16 does prefix match and rpm5 does glob match?

ie that

%{_kernelsrcdir}/scripts/mod

 ? matches also

%{_kernelsrcdir}/scripts/module-common.lds

 ? on 4.16?


does your change make .spec inclusive to 4.16-only now?




From arekm at maven.pl  Wed Dec 16 10:36:12 2020
From: arekm at maven.pl (=?UTF-8?Q?Arkadiusz_Mi=c5=9bkiewicz?=)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2020 10:36:12 +0100
Subject: [packages/kernel] - drop unneeded excludes (rpm 4.16 handles
 these differently from rpm 5)
In-Reply-To: <4a5de9b0-bf2b-2afd-7f8b-7978f74d44d2@pld-linux.org>
References: <e37dd06aa8802a64332fe12279c3923ddd77794d_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <c0f1053232337d969d6655d815460e16b8ef035a_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <4a5de9b0-bf2b-2afd-7f8b-7978f74d44d2@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <3c8f6786-1de6-d210-3504-bc62f423de5a@maven.pl>

W dniu 16.12.2020 o?10:14, Elan Ruusam?e pisze:
> On 15.12.2020 18:05, arekm wrote:
> 
>> ? %exclude %{_kernelsrcdir}/scripts/mod
>> -%exclude %{_kernelsrcdir}/scripts/module-common.lds
> 
> what do you mean?
> 
> rpm 4.16 does prefix match and rpm5 does glob match?
> 
> ie that
> 
> %{_kernelsrcdir}/scripts/mod
> 
> ? matches also
> 
> %{_kernelsrcdir}/scripts/module-common.lds
> 
> ? on 4.16?
> 
> 
> does your change make .spec inclusive to 4.16-only now?

%exclude non-existsing-file seems to pass on 4.16 while fail on 5.


Similar thing - %doc with not existing file succeeds on 4.16.

-- 
Arkadiusz Mi?kiewicz, arekm / ( maven.pl | pld-linux.org )


From arekm at maven.pl  Wed Dec 16 22:37:01 2020
From: arekm at maven.pl (=?UTF-8?Q?Arkadiusz_Mi=c5=9bkiewicz?=)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2020 22:37:01 +0100
Subject: [packages/kernel] - drop unneeded excludes (rpm 4.16 handles
 these differently from rpm 5)
In-Reply-To: <3c8f6786-1de6-d210-3504-bc62f423de5a@maven.pl>
References: <e37dd06aa8802a64332fe12279c3923ddd77794d_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <c0f1053232337d969d6655d815460e16b8ef035a_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <4a5de9b0-bf2b-2afd-7f8b-7978f74d44d2@pld-linux.org>
 <3c8f6786-1de6-d210-3504-bc62f423de5a@maven.pl>
Message-ID: <61195580-dfa0-4b87-5b81-4f27875fd4e8@maven.pl>

W dniu 16.12.2020 o?10:36, Arkadiusz Mi?kiewicz pisze:
> W dniu 16.12.2020 o?10:14, Elan Ruusam?e pisze:
>> On 15.12.2020 18:05, arekm wrote:
>>
>>> ? %exclude %{_kernelsrcdir}/scripts/mod
>>> -%exclude %{_kernelsrcdir}/scripts/module-common.lds
>>
>> what do you mean?
>>
>> rpm 4.16 does prefix match and rpm5 does glob match?
>>
>> ie that
>>
>> %{_kernelsrcdir}/scripts/mod
>>
>> ? matches also
>>
>> %{_kernelsrcdir}/scripts/module-common.lds
>>
>> ? on 4.16?
>>
>>
>> does your change make .spec inclusive to 4.16-only now?
> 
> %exclude non-existsing-file seems to pass on 4.16 while fail on 5.
> 
> 
> Similar thing - %doc with not existing file succeeds on 4.16.
> 

Another one. Non existing %ghost also doesn't cause build failure and
results in unpackaged files (if soname gets new version while spec has
old one as ghost).


-- 
Arkadiusz Mi?kiewicz, arekm / ( maven.pl | pld-linux.org )


From baggins at pld-linux.org  Fri Dec 18 19:25:20 2020
From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 19:25:20 +0100
Subject: [packages/kernel] - drop unneeded excludes (rpm 4.16 handles
 these differently from rpm 5)
In-Reply-To: <61195580-dfa0-4b87-5b81-4f27875fd4e8@maven.pl>
References: <e37dd06aa8802a64332fe12279c3923ddd77794d_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <c0f1053232337d969d6655d815460e16b8ef035a_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <4a5de9b0-bf2b-2afd-7f8b-7978f74d44d2@pld-linux.org>
 <3c8f6786-1de6-d210-3504-bc62f423de5a@maven.pl>
 <61195580-dfa0-4b87-5b81-4f27875fd4e8@maven.pl>
Message-ID: <20201218182520.GD126679@starbug.lan>

On Wed, 16 Dec 2020, Arkadiusz Mi?kiewicz via pld-devel-en wrote:

> W dniu 16.12.2020 o?10:36, Arkadiusz Mi?kiewicz pisze:
> > W dniu 16.12.2020 o?10:14, Elan Ruusam?e pisze:
> >> On 15.12.2020 18:05, arekm wrote:
> >>
> >>> ? %exclude %{_kernelsrcdir}/scripts/mod
> >>> -%exclude %{_kernelsrcdir}/scripts/module-common.lds
> >>
> >> what do you mean?
> >>
> >> rpm 4.16 does prefix match and rpm5 does glob match?
> >>
> >> ie that
> >>
> >> %{_kernelsrcdir}/scripts/mod
> >>
> >> ? matches also
> >>
> >> %{_kernelsrcdir}/scripts/module-common.lds
> >>
> >> ? on 4.16?
> >>
> >>
> >> does your change make .spec inclusive to 4.16-only now?
> > 
> > %exclude non-existsing-file seems to pass on 4.16 while fail on 5.
> > 
> > 
> > Similar thing - %doc with not existing file succeeds on 4.16.
> > 
> 
> Another one. Non existing %ghost also doesn't cause build failure and
> results in unpackaged files (if soname gets new version while spec has
> old one as ghost).

I tested %doc and %exclude and both fail build when passed non-existing
file:

RPM build errors:
    Could not canonicalize hostname: pldmachine
    File not found: /home/users/baggins/tmp/alien-8.95.1-x86_64-root-baggins/asdfgsdgsdfgsadfg
    File not found: /home/users/baggins/tmp/alien-8.95.1-x86_64-root-baggins/usr/share/doc/alien-8.95.1/fubar

%ghost does pass tho.

$ rpm -q rpm
rpm-4.16.0-0.10.x86_64

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


From arekm at maven.pl  Fri Dec 18 19:35:25 2020
From: arekm at maven.pl (=?UTF-8?Q?Arkadiusz_Mi=c5=9bkiewicz?=)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 19:35:25 +0100
Subject: [packages/kernel] - drop unneeded excludes (rpm 4.16 handles
 these differently from rpm 5)
In-Reply-To: <20201218182520.GD126679@starbug.lan>
References: <e37dd06aa8802a64332fe12279c3923ddd77794d_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <c0f1053232337d969d6655d815460e16b8ef035a_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <4a5de9b0-bf2b-2afd-7f8b-7978f74d44d2@pld-linux.org>
 <3c8f6786-1de6-d210-3504-bc62f423de5a@maven.pl>
 <61195580-dfa0-4b87-5b81-4f27875fd4e8@maven.pl>
 <20201218182520.GD126679@starbug.lan>
Message-ID: <d68da6f5-c7d6-97b6-8ede-670bfe0dad15@maven.pl>

W dniu 18.12.2020 o?19:25, Jan R?korajski pisze:
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2020, Arkadiusz Mi?kiewicz via pld-devel-en wrote:
> 
>> W dniu 16.12.2020 o?10:36, Arkadiusz Mi?kiewicz pisze:
>>> W dniu 16.12.2020 o?10:14, Elan Ruusam?e pisze:
>>>> On 15.12.2020 18:05, arekm wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ? %exclude %{_kernelsrcdir}/scripts/mod
>>>>> -%exclude %{_kernelsrcdir}/scripts/module-common.lds
>>>>
>>>> what do you mean?
>>>>
>>>> rpm 4.16 does prefix match and rpm5 does glob match?
>>>>
>>>> ie that
>>>>
>>>> %{_kernelsrcdir}/scripts/mod
>>>>
>>>> ? matches also
>>>>
>>>> %{_kernelsrcdir}/scripts/module-common.lds
>>>>
>>>> ? on 4.16?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> does your change make .spec inclusive to 4.16-only now?
>>>
>>> %exclude non-existsing-file seems to pass on 4.16 while fail on 5.
>>>
>>>
>>> Similar thing - %doc with not existing file succeeds on 4.16.
>>>
>>
>> Another one. Non existing %ghost also doesn't cause build failure and
>> results in unpackaged files (if soname gets new version while spec has
>> old one as ghost).
> 
> I tested %doc and %exclude and both fail build when passed non-existing
> file:
> 
> RPM build errors:
>     Could not canonicalize hostname: pldmachine
>     File not found: /home/users/baggins/tmp/alien-8.95.1-x86_64-root-baggins/asdfgsdgsdfgsadfg
>     File not found: /home/users/baggins/tmp/alien-8.95.1-x86_64-root-baggins/usr/share/doc/alien-8.95.1/fubar
> 
> %ghost does pass tho.
> 
> $ rpm -q rpm
> rpm-4.16.0-0.10.x86_64
> 

Try this:

-%doc debian/changelog README TODO
+%doc {debian/changelog,README,TODO,NOTEXISTENT}

-- 
Arkadiusz Mi?kiewicz, arekm / ( maven.pl | pld-linux.org )


From baggins at pld-linux.org  Fri Dec 18 19:55:44 2020
From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 19:55:44 +0100
Subject: [packages/kernel] - drop unneeded excludes (rpm 4.16 handles
 these differently from rpm 5)
In-Reply-To: <d68da6f5-c7d6-97b6-8ede-670bfe0dad15@maven.pl>
References: <e37dd06aa8802a64332fe12279c3923ddd77794d_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <c0f1053232337d969d6655d815460e16b8ef035a_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <4a5de9b0-bf2b-2afd-7f8b-7978f74d44d2@pld-linux.org>
 <3c8f6786-1de6-d210-3504-bc62f423de5a@maven.pl>
 <61195580-dfa0-4b87-5b81-4f27875fd4e8@maven.pl>
 <20201218182520.GD126679@starbug.lan>
 <d68da6f5-c7d6-97b6-8ede-670bfe0dad15@maven.pl>
Message-ID: <20201218185544.GE126679@starbug.lan>

On Fri, 18 Dec 2020, Arkadiusz Mi?kiewicz wrote:

> W dniu 18.12.2020 o?19:25, Jan R?korajski pisze:
[...]
> > 
> > I tested %doc and %exclude and both fail build when passed non-existing
> > file:
> > 
> > RPM build errors:
> >     Could not canonicalize hostname: pldmachine
> >     File not found: /home/users/baggins/tmp/alien-8.95.1-x86_64-root-baggins/asdfgsdgsdfgsadfg
> >     File not found: /home/users/baggins/tmp/alien-8.95.1-x86_64-root-baggins/usr/share/doc/alien-8.95.1/fubar
> > 
> > %ghost does pass tho.
> > 
> > $ rpm -q rpm
> > rpm-4.16.0-0.10.x86_64
> > 
> 
> Try this:
> 
> -%doc debian/changelog README TODO
> +%doc {debian/changelog,README,TODO,NOTEXISTENT}

Fixed.

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


From baggins at pld-linux.org  Fri Dec 18 20:14:23 2020
From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 20:14:23 +0100
Subject: rpm4 on carme*
In-Reply-To: <610764e2-ba23-16b1-5a3b-1216f6cf330c@pld-linux.org>
References: <20201027222117.GA77656@tachikoma.lan>
 <20201106194956.v2un4kbwxcecdrvu@kalarepa>
 <20201110171843.cwfwxku2w27ytljj@pine>
 <20201118094710.q4tkgs64w6m3dsvw@kalarepa>
 <20201122160050.o2eta4yibvkxkhet@pine>
 <20201213203019.3ymqlphzk65mx555@pine>
 <20201214152032.7q3dldlam3535e2m@kalarepa>
 <610764e2-ba23-16b1-5a3b-1216f6cf330c@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <20201218191423.GF126679@starbug.lan>

On Mon, 14 Dec 2020, Elan Ruusam?e wrote:

> On 12/14/20 5:20 PM, Jan Palus wrote:
> 
> > If commit message includes '%' then rpmbuild spawned by builder script
> > fails. See ie test.spec which includes '%prep':
> >
> > error: line 40: second %prep
> >
> > builder creates spec copy with %changelog appended. Apparently rpm.org
> > evaluates macros in %changelog while rpm5 does not. Not sure whether
> > we're supposed to escape macros in changelog now or whether rpm.org
> > should read %changelog as is.
> 
> looks like we're back to 10+ years old issues that pld solved.

20.

commit 0a6e9fd18fb9abecd65b1b8e94de0fa0a27415ba
Author: filon <filon at sokrates.mimuw.edu.pl>
Date:   Thu Aug 30 22:42:55 2001 +0000

    disables expanding of rpm macros in %changelog and %description section

Rebased for 4.16.

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


From baggins at pld-linux.org  Fri Dec 18 20:31:06 2020
From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 20:31:06 +0100
Subject: rpm4 on carme*
In-Reply-To: <20201213203019.3ymqlphzk65mx555@pine>
References: <20201027222117.GA77656@tachikoma.lan>
 <20201106194956.v2un4kbwxcecdrvu@kalarepa>
 <20201110171843.cwfwxku2w27ytljj@pine>
 <20201118094710.q4tkgs64w6m3dsvw@kalarepa>
 <20201122160050.o2eta4yibvkxkhet@pine>
 <20201213203019.3ymqlphzk65mx555@pine>
Message-ID: <20201218193106.GG126679@starbug.lan>

On Sun, 13 Dec 2020, Jan Palus via pld-devel-en wrote:

> Looks like poldek does not recognize R:(post, postun) and fails to
> install packages even though dependencies are present:
> 
> $ ag '^R.*post' mpd.spec
> 86:Requires(post,postun):	gtk-update-icon-cache
> 87:Requires(post,preun,postun):	systemd-units >= 38
> 
> $ poldek --cmd desc -r mpd |grep gtk-update-icon-cache
> Requires(pre):  /bin/sh, /bin/sh, gtk-update-icon-cache, systemd-units >= 38
> Requires(un):   /bin/sh, /bin/sh, gtk-update-icon-cache, systemd-units >= 38
> 
> $ poldek -u mpd
> ...
> Processing dependencies...
> There are 1 package to install:
> A mpd-0.22.3-1
> This operation will use 1.4MB of disk space.
> Need to get 507.6KB of archives.
> mpd-0.22.3-1.armv6hl.rpm: digests OK
> Executing pm-command.sh --upgrade -vh --root / --define _check_dirname_deps 1...
> error: Failed dependencies:
> 	gtk-update-icon-cache is needed by mpd-0.22.3-1.armv6hl
> 
> Manual installation of gtk-update-icon-cache followed by installation of
> mpd is all fine.

Works for me.
Maybe it's rpm4 that does not produce deps for R:(post, postun)?

[root at pldmachine-rpm.org ~]# rpm -q rpm poldek
rpm-4.16.0-0.12.x86_64
poldek-0.42.2-3.5.x86_64


poldek:/all-avail> install -t mpd-0.22.3-2.x86_64 
Processing dependencies...
mpd-0.22.3-2.x86_64 marks gtk-update-icon-cache-3.24.23-1.x86_64 (cap gtk-update-icon-cache)
There are 2 packages to install (1 marked by dependencies):
A gtk-update-icon-cache-3.24.23-1.x86_64  mpd-0.22.3-2.x86_64
This operation will use 1.8MB of disk space.
Need to get 661.4KB of archives (661.4KB to download).

poldek:/all-avail> install mpd-0.22.3-2.x86_64 
Processing dependencies...
mpd-0.22.3-2.x86_64 marks gtk-update-icon-cache-3.24.23-1.x86_64 (cap gtk-update-icon-cache)
There are 2 packages to install (1 marked by dependencies):
A gtk-update-icon-cache-3.24.23-1.x86_64  mpd-0.22.3-2.x86_64
This operation will use 1.8MB of disk space.
Need to get 661.4KB of archives (661.4KB to download).

[1/2] th::gtk-update-icon-cache-3.24.23-1.x86_64.rpm [20.7K (20.7K/s)]                                
gtk-update-icon-cache-3.24.23-1.x86_64.rpm: digests OK
[2/2] th-test::mpd-0.22.3-2.x86_64.rpm [640.6K (640.6K/s)]                                
mpd-0.22.3-2.x86_64.rpm: digests OK
Executing pm-command.sh --upgrade -vh --root / --define _check_dirname_deps 1...
warning: /root/.poldek-cache/ftp_ftp1.pld-linux.org.dists.th.PLD.x86.64.RPMS/gtk-update-icon-cache-3.24.23-1.x86_64.rpm: Header V4 DSA/SHA1 Signature, key ID e4f1bc2d: NOKEY
warning: /root/.poldek-cache/ftp_ftp1.pld-linux.org.dists.th.test.x86.64.RPMS/mpd-0.22.3-2.x86_64.rpm: Header V4 DSA/SHA1 Signature, key ID 857607c0: NOKEY
Verifying...                          ################################# [100%]
Preparing...                          ################################# [100%]
Updating / installing...
   1:gtk-update-icon-cache-3.24.23-1  ################################# [ 50%]
Adding group mpd GID=204.
Adding user mpd UID=204.
   2:mpd-0.22.3-2                     ################################# [100%]
poldek:/all-avail> 

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


From atler at pld-linux.org  Fri Dec 18 22:13:13 2020
From: atler at pld-linux.org (Jan Palus)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 22:13:13 +0100
Subject: rpm4 on carme*
In-Reply-To: <20201218193106.GG126679@starbug.lan>
References: <20201027222117.GA77656@tachikoma.lan>
 <20201106194956.v2un4kbwxcecdrvu@kalarepa>
 <20201110171843.cwfwxku2w27ytljj@pine>
 <20201118094710.q4tkgs64w6m3dsvw@kalarepa>
 <20201122160050.o2eta4yibvkxkhet@pine>
 <20201213203019.3ymqlphzk65mx555@pine>
 <20201218193106.GG126679@starbug.lan>
Message-ID: <20201218211313.ulsgu3xy4pgmttti@kalarepa>

On 18.12.2020 20:31, Jan R?korajski wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2020, Jan Palus via pld-devel-en wrote:
> 
> > Looks like poldek does not recognize R:(post, postun) and fails to
> > install packages even though dependencies are present:
> > 
> > $ ag '^R.*post' mpd.spec
> > 86:Requires(post,postun):	gtk-update-icon-cache
> > 87:Requires(post,preun,postun):	systemd-units >= 38
> > 
> > $ poldek --cmd desc -r mpd |grep gtk-update-icon-cache
> > Requires(pre):  /bin/sh, /bin/sh, gtk-update-icon-cache, systemd-units >= 38
> > Requires(un):   /bin/sh, /bin/sh, gtk-update-icon-cache, systemd-units >= 38
> > 
> > $ poldek -u mpd
> > ...
> > Processing dependencies...
> > There are 1 package to install:
> > A mpd-0.22.3-1
> > This operation will use 1.4MB of disk space.
> > Need to get 507.6KB of archives.
> > mpd-0.22.3-1.armv6hl.rpm: digests OK
> > Executing pm-command.sh --upgrade -vh --root / --define _check_dirname_deps 1...
> > error: Failed dependencies:
> > 	gtk-update-icon-cache is needed by mpd-0.22.3-1.armv6hl
> > 
> > Manual installation of gtk-update-icon-cache followed by installation of
> > mpd is all fine.
> 
> Works for me.
> Maybe it's rpm4 that does not produce deps for R:(post, postun)?
> 
> [root at pldmachine-rpm.org ~]# rpm -q rpm poldek
> rpm-4.16.0-0.12.x86_64
> poldek-0.42.2-3.5.x86_64
> 
> 
> poldek:/all-avail> install -t mpd-0.22.3-2.x86_64 
> Processing dependencies...
> mpd-0.22.3-2.x86_64 marks gtk-update-icon-cache-3.24.23-1.x86_64 (cap gtk-update-icon-cache)

Is this by any chance mpd from main th repo built with rpm5? The
difference is most likely here:

> > $ poldek --cmd desc -r mpd |grep gtk-update-icon-cache
> > Requires(pre):  /bin/sh, /bin/sh, gtk-update-icon-cache, systemd-units >= 38

With rpm4 + poldek(rpm4) gtk-update-icon-cache lands in Requires(pre):
while with rpm5 + poldek(rpm5) it's just in Requires:. I suppose poldek
ignores Requires(pre).


From baggins at pld-linux.org  Sun Dec 20 20:55:02 2020
From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=)
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2020 20:55:02 +0100
Subject: rpm4 on carme*
In-Reply-To: <20201218211313.ulsgu3xy4pgmttti@kalarepa>
References: <20201027222117.GA77656@tachikoma.lan>
 <20201106194956.v2un4kbwxcecdrvu@kalarepa>
 <20201110171843.cwfwxku2w27ytljj@pine>
 <20201118094710.q4tkgs64w6m3dsvw@kalarepa>
 <20201122160050.o2eta4yibvkxkhet@pine>
 <20201213203019.3ymqlphzk65mx555@pine>
 <20201218193106.GG126679@starbug.lan>
 <20201218211313.ulsgu3xy4pgmttti@kalarepa>
Message-ID: <20201220195502.GH126679@starbug.lan>

On Fri, 18 Dec 2020, Jan Palus wrote:

> On 18.12.2020 20:31, Jan R?korajski wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 Dec 2020, Jan Palus via pld-devel-en wrote:
> > 
> > > Looks like poldek does not recognize R:(post, postun) and fails to
> > > install packages even though dependencies are present:
> > > 
> > > $ ag '^R.*post' mpd.spec
> > > 86:Requires(post,postun):	gtk-update-icon-cache
> > > 87:Requires(post,preun,postun):	systemd-units >= 38
> > > 
> > > $ poldek --cmd desc -r mpd |grep gtk-update-icon-cache
> > > Requires(pre):  /bin/sh, /bin/sh, gtk-update-icon-cache, systemd-units >= 38
> > > Requires(un):   /bin/sh, /bin/sh, gtk-update-icon-cache, systemd-units >= 38
> > > 
> > > $ poldek -u mpd
> > > ...
> > > Processing dependencies...
> > > There are 1 package to install:
> > > A mpd-0.22.3-1
> > > This operation will use 1.4MB of disk space.
> > > Need to get 507.6KB of archives.
> > > mpd-0.22.3-1.armv6hl.rpm: digests OK
> > > Executing pm-command.sh --upgrade -vh --root / --define _check_dirname_deps 1...
> > > error: Failed dependencies:
> > > 	gtk-update-icon-cache is needed by mpd-0.22.3-1.armv6hl
> > > 
> > > Manual installation of gtk-update-icon-cache followed by installation of
> > > mpd is all fine.
> > 
> > Works for me.
> > Maybe it's rpm4 that does not produce deps for R:(post, postun)?
> > 
> > [root at pldmachine-rpm.org ~]# rpm -q rpm poldek
> > rpm-4.16.0-0.12.x86_64
> > poldek-0.42.2-3.5.x86_64
> > 
> > 
> > poldek:/all-avail> install -t mpd-0.22.3-2.x86_64 
> > Processing dependencies...
> > mpd-0.22.3-2.x86_64 marks gtk-update-icon-cache-3.24.23-1.x86_64 (cap gtk-update-icon-cache)
> 
> Is this by any chance mpd from main th repo built with rpm5? The
> difference is most likely here:
> 
> > > $ poldek --cmd desc -r mpd |grep gtk-update-icon-cache
> > > Requires(pre):  /bin/sh, /bin/sh, gtk-update-icon-cache, systemd-units >= 38
> 
> With rpm4 + poldek(rpm4) gtk-update-icon-cache lands in Requires(pre):
> while with rpm5 + poldek(rpm5) it's just in Requires:. I suppose poldek
> ignores Requires(pre).

I can't figure out what's missing there, opened poldek bug

https://github.com/poldek-pm/poldek/issues/17

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


From glen at pld-linux.org  Tue Dec 22 08:59:32 2020
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Elan_Ruusam=c3=a4e?=)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 09:59:32 +0200
Subject: [packages/fzf] do not rely on uname -m to determine target arch; 
 add more arm variants
In-Reply-To: <fe56ff9e1f2dfb7cae768c14c4c760bfe2bcb2d4_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
References: <44d468500b60ed8fccfe45d5062aae3595851418_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <fe56ff9e1f2dfb7cae768c14c4c760bfe2bcb2d4_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <e87683d0-f1a9-860c-de46-f245a1977392@pld-linux.org>

On 22.12.2020 00:34, atler wrote:

> -ExclusiveArch:	%{x8664} armv5l armv6l armv7l armv8l aarch64 ppc64le
> +ExclusiveArch:	%{x8664} armv5l armv5tel armv5tejl armv6l armv6hl armv7l armv7hl armv7hnl armv8l armv8hll armv8hnl armv8hcnl aarch64 ppc64le
isn't it about time to add %{arm} macro? or at least %{arm6} %{arm7} 
%{arm8} ?


From glen at pld-linux.org  Tue Dec 22 09:02:23 2020
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Elan_Ruusam=c3=a4e?=)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 10:02:23 +0200
Subject: [packages/fzf] do not rely on uname -m to determine target arch; 
 add more arm variants
In-Reply-To: <fe56ff9e1f2dfb7cae768c14c4c760bfe2bcb2d4_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
References: <44d468500b60ed8fccfe45d5062aae3595851418_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <fe56ff9e1f2dfb7cae768c14c4c760bfe2bcb2d4_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <a9338ef5-f16f-16e6-7762-7ac97677e4c4@pld-linux.org>


On 22.12.2020 00:34, atler wrote:
> +%{__make} \
> +%ifarch armv5tl armv5tel arm5tejl
> +	UNAME_M=armv5l \
> +%else
> +%ifarch armv6l armv6hl
> +	UNAME_M=armv6l \
> +%else
> +%ifarch armv7l armv7hl armv7hnl
> +	UNAME_M=armv6l \
> +%else
> +%ifarch armv8l armv8hl armv8hnl armv8hcnl
> +	UNAME_M=armv8l \
> +%else
> +	UNAME_M=%{_target_cpu} \
> +%endif
> +%endif
> +%endif
> +%endif

you can simplify these by removing the some of the "else"-s.

for example "ifarch armv5tl" is matched, it can't be matched with 
"ifarch armv6l" so 'else' for 'ifarch armv5t' is redundant.



From krzysztof at mrozowicz.eu  Fri Dec 25 11:18:34 2020
From: krzysztof at mrozowicz.eu (Krzysztof Mrozowicz)
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2020 10:18:34 +0000
Subject: XFCE-4.16
Message-ID: <0102017699683f3e-e64a11ec-fcda-4d02-862a-4b943888ba30-000000@eu-west-1.amazonses.com>

Hi all,
To avoid doubling the work, I'd like to let you know that I'm going to 
update XFCE specs to version 4.16 in the next few days. If someone is 
working on it already, please let me know.

Happy Christmas!

Krzysiek



From atler at pld-linux.org  Sun Dec 27 22:25:56 2020
From: atler at pld-linux.org (Jan Palus)
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2020 22:25:56 +0100
Subject: iptables-nft broken?
Message-ID: <20201227212556.6jvivypdlj5phn4n@pine>

Does iptables-nft work for anyone in PLD? iptables-nft -L is supposed to
create table/chains already but it does nothing. Same for any
iptables-nft -A .... No errors just nothing. If I create INPUT chain
and add single rule manually with nft then I can see it in iptables-nft -L.
Almost as if iptables-nft was "read-only". Am I missing something?


From glen at pld-linux.org  Tue Dec 29 13:02:01 2020
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Elan_Ruusam=c3=a4e?=)
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2020 14:02:01 +0200
Subject: php dba linkage
Message-ID: <5757060f-cf65-beda-b263-30063015e984@pld-linux.org>

the php-dba used to be linked with db 5.3


$ rpm -q php73-dba --requires|grep db

php73-dba-7.3.24-1.x86_64
libdb-5.3.so()(64bit)
libgdbm.so.6()(64bit)

but now, built on carme results in:

error: Failed dependencies:
 ??????? libdb-6.1.so()(64bit) is needed by php73-dba-7.3.24-2.x86_64


is this due rpm upgrade? some "default" db version changed?

how the db version should be picked in packages like php-dba?



From glen at pld-linux.org  Thu Dec 31 14:42:19 2020
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Elan_Ruusam=c3=a4e?=)
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2020 15:42:19 +0200
Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender
In-Reply-To: <b7e658ce-78e2-bdfd-e075-38174afe1109@gmail.com>
References: <5903.1609325174@distfiles.pld-linux.org>
 <E1kuYzj-0001ZX-7S@cvs.pld-linux.org>
 <b7e658ce-78e2-bdfd-e075-38174afe1109@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <24172703-36ef-7366-3f25-40a37c1c885d@pld-linux.org>

could someone correct this or /dev/null that alias, as the bounce mail 
is sent with each push...


> On 30.12.2020 12:46, Mail Delivery System wrote:
>> This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
>>
>> A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
>> recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
>>
>> ?? mrozowik at pld-linux.org
>> ???? host b.mx.pld-linux.org [178.217.190.84]
>> ???? SMTP error from remote mail server after RCPT 
>> TO:<mrozowik at pld-linux.org>:
>> ???? 550 5.1.1<mrozowik at pld-linux.org>: Recipient address rejected:
>> ???? User unknown