From baggins at pld-linux.org  Fri Jan  1 18:21:06 2021
From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=)
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2021 18:21:06 +0100
Subject: PLD Th 2020 snapshot released
Message-ID: <20210101172106.GA2290@starbug>

2019 snapshot of PLD/Linux Th has been released. It is available on
ftp://ftp.pld-linux.org/dists/th/2020/PLD/ and as poldek sources th-2020.

The main highlights of this release are:

    kernels 4.4.248, 4.9.248, 4.14.212, 4.19.163, 5.4.83 and 5.9.14 (4.4 and 4.9 have vserver enabled)
    GCC 10.2.0
    LLVM 10.0.1
    glibc 2.32
    Python 3.8.6 and 2.7.18
    PHP 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 7.0, 7.1, 7.2.34, 7.3.24, 7.4.12 and 8.0.0
    Perl 5.30.3
    Ruby 2.6.6
    libreoffice 6.4.7.2
    GNOME 3.38
    KDE5 5.67 / 19.04
    MATE Desktop Environment 1.24

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


From baggins at pld-linux.org  Mon Jan 11 09:38:00 2021
From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 09:38:00 +0100
Subject: rpm.org 4.16.x is coming to Th
Message-ID: <20210111083800.GA2282@starbug>

Hi,

Later this week rpm from rpm.org, along with all necessary tools
(macros, poldek, specdump, etc.) are going to land in th-test.

I believe the last real stopper[1] has been "fixed", so we should finally
switch.

If you think there is still something that is blocking the change please
speak *now*.

Please be aware that rpm database format will change with this to sqlite.

[1] 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 atler at pld-linux.org  Mon Jan 11 11:31:45 2021
From: atler at pld-linux.org (Jan Palus)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 11:31:45 +0100
Subject: [packages/kf5-kcontacts] - Initial version - ka5-kcontacts is
 now kf5-kcontacts.
In-Reply-To: <dafe4e812b30fb4c82eb24be3b726bc549b64210_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
References: <161031745345.12124.1781251854736206615@pld-linux.org>
 <dafe4e812b30fb4c82eb24be3b726bc549b64210_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <20210111103145.wjpeoauadiulh2mw@kalarepa>

On 10.01.2021 23:24, lmasko wrote:
> commit dafe4e812b30fb4c82eb24be3b726bc549b64210
> Author: ?ukasz Ma?ko <lmasko at pld-linux.org>
> Date:   Sun Jan 10 23:23:28 2021 +0100
> 
>     - Initial version - ka5-kcontacts is now kf5-kcontacts.
> 
>  kf5-kcontacts.spec | 85 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 85 insertions(+)
> ---
> diff --git a/kf5-kcontacts.spec b/kf5-kcontacts.spec
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..f9d368c
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/kf5-kcontacts.spec
> @@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
> +%define		kdeframever	5.77
> +%define		qtver		5.15.0
> +%define		kfname		kcontacts
> +Summary:	kcontacts
> +Name:		kf5-%{kfname}

You do wanna use `copy` for such renames to keep history intact.


From ed at yen.ipipan.waw.pl  Mon Jan 11 13:02:28 2021
From: ed at yen.ipipan.waw.pl (Peri Noid)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 13:02:28 +0100
Subject: [packages/kf5-kcontacts] - Initial version - ka5-kcontacts is now
 kf5-kcontacts.
In-Reply-To: <20210111103145.wjpeoauadiulh2mw@kalarepa>
References: <161031745345.12124.1781251854736206615@pld-linux.org>
 <dafe4e812b30fb4c82eb24be3b726bc549b64210_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <20210111103145.wjpeoauadiulh2mw@kalarepa>
Message-ID: <1971978.IPxmx0RBlc@laptok>

Dnia poniedzia?ek, 11 stycznia 2021 11:31:45 CET Jan Palus pisze:
[...]
> You do wanna use `copy` for such renames to keep history intact.

Oh, probably yes... I'll do so, when I spot another situation of this kind 
(did already, though I didn't know, how to do it well). I'm trying to make 
KDE5 running. There were a lot of changes since the last version that we have. 

Thanks.
-- 
?ukasz Ma?ko                                                            _o)
Lukasz.Masko(at)ipipan.waw.pl                                           /\\
Registered Linux User #61028                                           _\_V
Ubuntu: staroafryka?skie s?owo oznaczaj?ce "Nie umiem zainstalowa? Debiana"





From glen at pld-linux.org  Mon Jan 11 15:10:54 2021
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Elan_Ruusam=c3=a4e?=)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 16:10:54 +0200
Subject: rpm.org 4.16.x is coming to Th
In-Reply-To: <20210111083800.GA2282@starbug>
References: <20210111083800.GA2282@starbug>
Message-ID: <a72a1280-9f1f-8b9e-1c3a-854ca3e67e33@pld-linux.org>

On 11.01.2021 10:38, Jan R?korajski wrote:

> If you think there is still something that is blocking the change please
> speak*now*.

php devel packages /usr/bin/php dependency



From glen at pld-linux.org  Mon Jan 11 15:12:18 2021
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Elan_Ruusam=c3=a4e?=)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 16:12:18 +0200
Subject: rpm.org 4.16.x is coming to Th
In-Reply-To: <20210111083800.GA2282@starbug>
References: <20210111083800.GA2282@starbug>
Message-ID: <87cc32e1-1ca2-7975-b8cc-f9d01497c6df@pld-linux.org>


On 11.01.2021 10:38, Jan R?korajski wrote:
> Please be aware that rpm database format will change with this to sqlite.

please provide guide for this. migrating, back, forward,? etc. common 
problems and how to troubleshoot.


wiki is good place:

- https://www.pld-linux.org/packages/rpm#rpm_416_porting_status




From glen at pld-linux.org  Mon Jan 11 16:08:13 2021
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Elan_Ruusam=c3=a4e?=)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 17:08:13 +0200
Subject: rpm.org 4.16.x is coming to Th
In-Reply-To: <20210111083800.GA2282@starbug>
References: <20210111083800.GA2282@starbug>
Message-ID: <350ab932-9d0a-3ada-7fc5-ff327359f0af@pld-linux.org>


On 11.01.2021 10:38, Jan R?korajski wrote:
> If you think there is still something that is blocking the change please
> speak*now*.

are these pld introduced noauto* macros and files supported in 4.16 build?


%define		_noautoprovfiles	%{_libdir}/%{name}



From glen at pld-linux.org  Mon Jan 11 16:10:18 2021
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Elan_Ruusam=c3=a4e?=)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 17:10:18 +0200
Subject: [packages/rpm/rpm.org] - unlock rpmdb in case we're rebuilding db
 from rpm.org to rpm.org, post transaction scriptlet sho
In-Reply-To: <f6db4f31cd92438b38165982af8732e0fb50e7de_refs_heads_rpm.org@pld-linux.org>
References: <269352f06cca35124b933a3d94d3b91ae05a75f4_refs_heads_rpm.org@pld-linux.org>
 <f6db4f31cd92438b38165982af8732e0fb50e7de_refs_heads_rpm.org@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <8da51e49-b5b2-51a3-5650-48aa1e6f8103@pld-linux.org>


On 09.01.2021 11:51, baggins wrote:
> +	# Unlock database for rebuild, safe since this is posttrans
> +	%{__rm} -rf/var/lib/rpm/.rpm.lock >/dev/null 2>/dev/null || :

it's likely a file, so -r is superfluous

and why hide unlink errors? I prefer to see "permission denied" or 
similar errors if rm failed. easier to diagnose issues.




From ngompa13 at gmail.com  Mon Jan 11 16:10:27 2021
From: ngompa13 at gmail.com (Neal Gompa)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 10:10:27 -0500
Subject: rpm.org 4.16.x is coming to Th
In-Reply-To: <350ab932-9d0a-3ada-7fc5-ff327359f0af@pld-linux.org>
References: <20210111083800.GA2282@starbug>
 <350ab932-9d0a-3ada-7fc5-ff327359f0af@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <CAEg-Je8EyumXt5APA_ey_L6d6-AmDOn6jzYXhbri3LLwqu2Lkg@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:09 AM Elan Ruusam?e <glen at pld-linux.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 11.01.2021 10:38, Jan R?korajski wrote:
> > If you think there is still something that is blocking the change please
> > speak*now*.
>
> are these pld introduced noauto* macros and files supported in 4.16 build?
>
>
> %define         _noautoprovfiles        %{_libdir}/%{name}

No, you need to use the standard filtering mechanism:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering/


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


From glen at pld-linux.org  Mon Jan 11 18:33:32 2021
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Elan_Ruusam=c3=a4e?=)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 19:33:32 +0200
Subject: AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering (was Re: rpm.org 4.16.x is coming to
 Th)
In-Reply-To: <CAEg-Je8EyumXt5APA_ey_L6d6-AmDOn6jzYXhbri3LLwqu2Lkg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20210111083800.GA2282@starbug>
 <350ab932-9d0a-3ada-7fc5-ff327359f0af@pld-linux.org>
 <CAEg-Je8EyumXt5APA_ey_L6d6-AmDOn6jzYXhbri3LLwqu2Lkg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0b52aee7-b920-3457-b613-0d1aac1fc06d@pld-linux.org>


On 11.01.2021 17:10, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:09 AM Elan Ruusam?e <glen at pld-linux.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 11.01.2021 10:38, Jan R?korajski wrote:
>>> If you think there is still something that is blocking the change please
>>> speak*now*.
>> are these pld introduced noauto* macros and files supported in 4.16 build?
>>
>>
>> %define         _noautoprovfiles        %{_libdir}/%{name}
> No, you need to use the standard filtering mechanism:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering/

I've always thought, why provide/require SONAME dependencies of files that are not in default dl.so search path?

like, why this (or equivalent) can't be the default:

%global __provides_exclude_from ^%{_libdir}/.+/.+\\.so$
%global __requires_exclude_from ^%{_libdir}/.+/.+\\.so$

to exclude everything not a direct file in %{_libdir}[*].

[*] might also need to support lib32dir and libx32dir for multiarch.



From ngompa13 at gmail.com  Mon Jan 11 18:41:23 2021
From: ngompa13 at gmail.com (Neal Gompa)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 12:41:23 -0500
Subject: AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering (was Re: rpm.org 4.16.x is
 coming to Th)
In-Reply-To: <0b52aee7-b920-3457-b613-0d1aac1fc06d@pld-linux.org>
References: <20210111083800.GA2282@starbug>
 <350ab932-9d0a-3ada-7fc5-ff327359f0af@pld-linux.org>
 <CAEg-Je8EyumXt5APA_ey_L6d6-AmDOn6jzYXhbri3LLwqu2Lkg@mail.gmail.com>
 <0b52aee7-b920-3457-b613-0d1aac1fc06d@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <CAEg-Je8fFsZdX0pS=vSUMr1UTx7tHKUg0b+z34i0EoX1274Ybw@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 12:34 PM Elan Ruusam?e <glen at pld-linux.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 11.01.2021 17:10, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:09 AM Elan Ruusam?e <glen at pld-linux.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 11.01.2021 10:38, Jan R?korajski wrote:
> >>> If you think there is still something that is blocking the change please
> >>> speak*now*.
> >> are these pld introduced noauto* macros and files supported in 4.16 build?
> >>
> >>
> >> %define         _noautoprovfiles        %{_libdir}/%{name}
> > No, you need to use the standard filtering mechanism:
> > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering/
>
> I've always thought, why provide/require SONAME dependencies of files that are not in default dl.so search path?
>
> like, why this (or equivalent) can't be the default:
>
> %global __provides_exclude_from ^%{_libdir}/.+/.+\\.so$
> %global __requires_exclude_from ^%{_libdir}/.+/.+\\.so$
>
> to exclude everything not a direct file in %{_libdir}[*].
>
> [*] might also need to support lib32dir and libx32dir for multiarch.
>

The main reason is that it's difficult to *add* paths to dynamically
search sanely, but it's possible to do what you're saying by changing
the fileattr definitions for elf dependencies to include a file path
restriction.


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


From baggins at pld-linux.org  Tue Jan 12 08:40:22 2021
From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 08:40:22 +0100
Subject: [packages/rpm/rpm.org] - unlock rpmdb in case we're rebuilding
 db from rpm.org to rpm.org, post transaction scriptlet sho
In-Reply-To: <8da51e49-b5b2-51a3-5650-48aa1e6f8103@pld-linux.org>
References: <269352f06cca35124b933a3d94d3b91ae05a75f4_refs_heads_rpm.org@pld-linux.org>
 <f6db4f31cd92438b38165982af8732e0fb50e7de_refs_heads_rpm.org@pld-linux.org>
 <8da51e49-b5b2-51a3-5650-48aa1e6f8103@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <20210112074022.GB2282@starbug>

On Mon, 11 Jan 2021, Elan Ruusam?e wrote:

> 
> On 09.01.2021 11:51, baggins wrote:
> > +	# Unlock database for rebuild, safe since this is posttrans
> > +	%{__rm} -rf/var/lib/rpm/.rpm.lock >/dev/null 2>/dev/null || :
> 
> it's likely a file, so -r is superfluous

Yeah, removed.
> 
> and why hide unlink errors? I prefer to see "permission denied" or 
> similar errors if rm failed. easier to diagnose issues.

All you could see is "no such file or directory", which is just noise.
This script was like this for years.

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


From glen at pld-linux.org  Tue Jan 12 10:03:37 2021
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Elan_Ruusam=c3=a4e?=)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 11:03:37 +0200
Subject: [packages/rpm/rpm.org] - unlock rpmdb in case we're rebuilding db
 from rpm.org to rpm.org, post transaction scriptlet sho
In-Reply-To: <20210112074022.GB2282@starbug>
References: <269352f06cca35124b933a3d94d3b91ae05a75f4_refs_heads_rpm.org@pld-linux.org>
 <f6db4f31cd92438b38165982af8732e0fb50e7de_refs_heads_rpm.org@pld-linux.org>
 <8da51e49-b5b2-51a3-5650-48aa1e6f8103@pld-linux.org>
 <20210112074022.GB2282@starbug>
Message-ID: <18997ba9-11c6-0fb5-0feb-bc3a1230fe8b@pld-linux.org>


On 12.01.2021 09:40, Jan R?korajski wrote:
> All you could see is "no such file or directory", which is just noise.
> This script was like this for years.

rm -f will not say "no such file or directory" error. try it.

but, it could say unable to delete in case the removed target is 
mountpoint and it's "busy", which is error that should be shown, as i 
will likely be reason for errors that will follow. in fact, the script 
should abort if the operation is not success. i.e path to be deleted 
can't be deleted.

unlikely to happen for this very particular case, but we have this kind 
of "hide everything pattern" used everywhere, because stupid reasons 
like above "has been this for years, i don't know why, i'll just 
replicate same code"



From glen at pld-linux.org  Tue Jan 12 19:44:55 2021
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Elan_Ruusam=c3=a4e?=)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 20:44:55 +0200
Subject: [packages/glibc] - make rpm 4.16 happy
In-Reply-To: <03aa4b8dadbb6574688a948c95b1c311b6b0ef8b_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
References: <b03fd6661384945ce716b83a8a4fdb0b8bc03b51_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <03aa4b8dadbb6574688a948c95b1c311b6b0ef8b_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <855280ff-09c8-c5d1-1dca-4e2b3169278b@pld-linux.org>


On 12.01.2021 19:02, arekm wrote:
> +Provides:	%{name}-header-cpu-(%{_target_cpu} = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release}
happy how? you still have paren present


From qboosh at pld-linux.org  Sun Jan 17 11:33:48 2021
From: qboosh at pld-linux.org (Jakub Bogusz)
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2021 11:33:48 +0100
Subject: [packages/platform] - initial
In-Reply-To: <3a74dc283894e74d4fb8411e8c3f9cea22e42920_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
References: <161087842639.4775.16196179027969025543@pld-linux.org>
 <3a74dc283894e74d4fb8411e8c3f9cea22e42920_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <20210117103348.GA492@mail>

On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 11:13:51AM +0100, arekm wrote:
> commit 3a74dc283894e74d4fb8411e8c3f9cea22e42920
> Author: Arkadiusz Mi?kiewicz <arekm at maven.pl>
> Date:   Sun Jan 17 11:13:34 2021 +0100
> 
>     - initial
> 
>  platform.spec | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

> +Source0:	https://github.com/Pulse-Eight/platform/archive/p8-%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

> +%files
> +%defattr(644,root,root,755)
> +%doc README.md
> +%attr(755,root,root) %{_libdir}/libp8-%{name}.so.*.*
> +%attr(755,root,root) %ghost %{_libdir}/libp8-%{name}.so.2
> +
> +%files devel
> +%defattr(644,root,root,755)
> +%{_includedir}/p8-%{name}
> +%attr(755,root,root) %{_libdir}/libp8-%{name}.so
> +%{_libdir}/p8-%{name}
> +%{_pkgconfigdir}/p8-%{name}.pc

I'd suggest "p8-platform" package Name here.


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


From hawk at pld-linux.org  Mon Jan 18 02:42:07 2021
From: hawk at pld-linux.org (Marcin Krol)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 02:42:07 +0100
Subject: rpm.org 4.16.x is coming to Th
In-Reply-To: <20210111083800.GA2282@starbug>
References: <20210111083800.GA2282@starbug>
Message-ID: <d097f0ad-47da-e90a-5c33-eb5766f13418@pld-linux.org>

On 11-Jan-21 09:38, Jan R?korajski wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Later this week rpm from rpm.org, along with all necessary tools
> (macros, poldek, specdump, etc.) are going to land in th-test.
> 
> I believe the last real stopper[1] has been "fixed", so we should finally
> switch.
> 
> If you think there is still something that is blocking the change please
> speak *now*.
> 
> Please be aware that rpm database format will change with this to sqlite.
> 
> [1] https://github.com/poldek-pm/poldek/issues/17

rpmbuild --nobuild doesn't return missing deps, just empty output

This call is used in install.py of pld-builder.new and not returning 
missing deps results in builders not doing auto install of missing deps.

M.

P.S. Tested on TLD, but differences shouldn't matter in this case



From hawk at pld-linux.org  Mon Jan 18 17:52:45 2021
From: hawk at pld-linux.org (Marcin Krol)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 17:52:45 +0100
Subject: rpm.org 4.16.x is coming to Th
In-Reply-To: <d097f0ad-47da-e90a-5c33-eb5766f13418@pld-linux.org>
References: <20210111083800.GA2282@starbug>
 <d097f0ad-47da-e90a-5c33-eb5766f13418@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <823b376c-a823-8c03-be2f-e88fa6c7307d@pld-linux.org>

> rpmbuild --nobuild doesn't return missing deps, just empty output
> 
> This call is used in install.py of pld-builder.new and not returning 
> missing deps results in builders not doing auto install of missing deps.
> 
> M.
> 
> P.S. Tested on TLD, but differences shouldn't matter in this case

Looks like "rpmbuild --nodbuild -br" does the job...

M.


From baggins at pld-linux.org  Wed Jan 20 00:40:09 2021
From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 00:40:09 +0100
Subject: rpm.org 4.16.x is coming to Th
In-Reply-To: <823b376c-a823-8c03-be2f-e88fa6c7307d@pld-linux.org>
References: <20210111083800.GA2282@starbug>
 <d097f0ad-47da-e90a-5c33-eb5766f13418@pld-linux.org>
 <823b376c-a823-8c03-be2f-e88fa6c7307d@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <20210119234009.GC2282@starbug>

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021, Marcin Krol wrote:

> > rpmbuild --nobuild doesn't return missing deps, just empty output
> > 
> > This call is used in install.py of pld-builder.new and not returning 
> > missing deps results in builders not doing auto install of missing deps.
> > 
> > M.
> > 
> > P.S. Tested on TLD, but differences shouldn't matter in this case
> 
> Looks like "rpmbuild --nodbuild -br" does the job...

Thanks for figuring this out.

I ported ftp admin tools over to rpm4 / py3, unfortunately I don't have
a builder handy to break for porting. Luckily it looks like builder does
not pull python-rpm, just calls rpm binary. So if there are no more
surprises we should be good to go.

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


From baggins at pld-linux.org  Wed Jan 20 00:44:13 2021
From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 00:44:13 +0100
Subject: [packages/rpm/rpm.org] - unlock rpmdb in case we're rebuilding
 db from rpm.org to rpm.org, post transaction scriptlet sho
In-Reply-To: <18997ba9-11c6-0fb5-0feb-bc3a1230fe8b@pld-linux.org>
References: <269352f06cca35124b933a3d94d3b91ae05a75f4_refs_heads_rpm.org@pld-linux.org>
 <f6db4f31cd92438b38165982af8732e0fb50e7de_refs_heads_rpm.org@pld-linux.org>
 <8da51e49-b5b2-51a3-5650-48aa1e6f8103@pld-linux.org>
 <20210112074022.GB2282@starbug>
 <18997ba9-11c6-0fb5-0feb-bc3a1230fe8b@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <20210119234413.GD2282@starbug>

On Tue, 12 Jan 2021, Elan Ruusam?e wrote:

> 
> On 12.01.2021 09:40, Jan R?korajski wrote:
> > All you could see is "no such file or directory", which is just noise.
> > This script was like this for years.
> 
> rm -f will not say "no such file or directory" error. try it.
> 
> but, it could say unable to delete in case the removed target is 
> mountpoint and it's "busy", which is error that should be shown, as i 
> will likely be reason for errors that will follow. in fact, the script 
> should abort if the operation is not success. i.e path to be deleted 
> can't be deleted.
> 
> unlikely to happen for this very particular case, but we have this kind 
> of "hide everything pattern" used everywhere, because stupid reasons 
> like above "has been this for years, i don't know why, i'll just 
> replicate same code"

It is this way because I wrote it this way 9 years ago. Basically,
we don't care if those rm's fail. And if you have such a convoluted
setup that they may fail because of mount points, then, sorry,
but you are on your own.

In case these files/dirs create an issue then rebuilddb will complain
and fail. And I prefer to fail on a real bug than on the intermittent
issue.

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


From baggins at pld-linux.org  Wed Jan 20 00:48:19 2021
From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 00:48:19 +0100
Subject: rpm.org 4.16.x is coming to Th
In-Reply-To: <a72a1280-9f1f-8b9e-1c3a-854ca3e67e33@pld-linux.org>
References: <20210111083800.GA2282@starbug>
 <a72a1280-9f1f-8b9e-1c3a-854ca3e67e33@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <20210119234819.GE2282@starbug>

On Mon, 11 Jan 2021, Elan Ruusam?e wrote:

> On 11.01.2021 10:38, Jan R?korajski wrote:
> 
> > If you think there is still something that is blocking the change please
> > speak*now*.
> 
> php devel packages /usr/bin/php dependency

Sorry, but I do not consider one sad package to be a blocker.

The real blocker was our tooling that relied on rpm5 APIs.
I fixed ftp admin tools and builder tooling should be ready now.

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


From krzysztof at mrozowicz.eu  Wed Jan 20 12:54:34 2021
From: krzysztof at mrozowicz.eu (Krzysztof Mrozowicz)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 11:54:34 +0000
Subject: new package - cherrytree
Message-ID: <010201771fa57b07-8506178b-7642-42b0-9575-8dbf0d491d89-000000@eu-west-1.amazonses.com>

Hi,
I'd like to propose a new package to PLD. Cherrytree 
(https://www.giuspen.com/cherrytree/) is a hierarchical note taking 
application, featuring rich text and syntax highlighting, storing data 
in a single xml or sqlite file.

I attached the spec file for it. To successful compilation it requires 
(among others) spdlog-devel >= 1:1.8.1, which is in GIT, but not built 
as rpm yet. The built version of spdlog (1.12) is old and doesn't work 
with this software.

Best Regards
krzysiek

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: cherrytree.spec
Type: text/x-rpm-spec
Size: 2331 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </mailman/pipermail/pld-devel-en/attachments/20210120/84f27186/attachment.bin>

From glen at pld-linux.org  Wed Jan 20 13:33:46 2021
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Elan_Ruusam=c3=a4e?=)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 14:33:46 +0200
Subject: new package - cherrytree
In-Reply-To: <010201771fa57b07-8506178b-7642-42b0-9575-8dbf0d491d89-000000@eu-west-1.amazonses.com>
References: <010201771fa57b07-8506178b-7642-42b0-9575-8dbf0d491d89-000000@eu-west-1.amazonses.com>
Message-ID: <d3d7ba6a-fec8-afd8-ff33-2525060ffb20@pld-linux.org>


On 20.01.2021 13:54, Krzysztof Mrozowicz wrote:
> Hi,
> I'd like to propose a new package to PLD. Cherrytree 
> (https://www.giuspen.com/cherrytree/) is a hierarchical note taking 
> application, featuring rich text and syntax highlighting, storing data 
> in a single xml or sqlite file.

if you want yourself being authored, send the patch with git format-patch

>
> I attached the spec file for it. To successful compilation it requires 
> (among others) spdlog-devel >= 1:1.8.1, which is in GIT, but not built 
> as rpm yet. The built version of spdlog (1.12) is old and doesn't work 
> with this software.


sent to builders, may need rebuild dependencies.

the (if any) broken deps should appear for this library in this report:

- https://srcbuilder.pld-linux.org/~pldth/qa.php?q=main-ready-test


>
> Best Regards
> krzysiek



From glen at pld-linux.org  Wed Jan 20 13:39:50 2021
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Elan_Ruusam=c3=a4e?=)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 14:39:50 +0200
Subject: [projects/pld-builder.new] Drop a TODO for rpm4 migration
In-Reply-To: <f05867b3eb0b8c820b6998cda6dace5f78e2467c_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
References: <beab35c853e2f374f402276ca78a0fc779369c3e_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <f05867b3eb0b8c820b6998cda6dace5f78e2467c_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <058fbaa8-0e3d-42ab-f247-e225b4b25409@pld-linux.org>

On 20.01.2021 01:35, baggins wrote:

> +        # TODO: detect rpm version and use the below for rpm 4.x
> +        # rpmcommand = "rpmbuild --nobuild -br"

we should have some maintainable version for detecting this. perhaps add 
some macro?

- %{?rpm4}

- %{!?rpm5}


or a file?:

- test -f /usr/lib/rpm/some-specifically-identified-file


as can seen, it's not easy to get right:

1. by baggins: 
https://github.com/pld-linux/rpm-build-tools/commit/ac1281919568d928bdefe8cbc5436cdf3fa5906d

2. fixing baggins by glen: 
https://github.com/pld-linux/rpm-build-tools/commit/e267517f208dae6ee42da97e4380b9735a8b65bf

3. fixing glen by jpaulus: 
https://github.com/pld-linux/rpm-build-tools/commit/30e78ca0b942bf5e64e1418d9f2f29129854bafd


also, i think we may need to have 3 flavours:

1. rpm 5

2. rpm 4.5

3. rpm 4.16+



From krzysztof at mrozowicz.eu  Thu Jan 21 10:29:34 2021
From: krzysztof at mrozowicz.eu (Krzysztof Mrozowicz)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 09:29:34 +0000
Subject: new package - cherrytree
In-Reply-To: <d3d7ba6a-fec8-afd8-ff33-2525060ffb20@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <010201772447176c-96d8016f-801e-4fae-8560-9bb1f646e3fb-000000@eu-west-1.amazonses.com>

HI Elan, thanks for the reply :)

On Wednesday, January 20, 2021 12:33 GMT, Elan Ruusam?e <glen at pld-linux.org> wrote:  
> On 20.01.2021 13:54, Krzysztof Mrozowicz wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I'd like to propose a new package to PLD. Cherrytree 
[...] 
> if you want yourself being authored, send the patch with git format-patch
To be honest, I don't know what steps to take to have it done from the position where I have the spec file which is not versioned yet. But, I have RW rights to the git repo and already found out how to add a new project, so I'll go this way, as I see no voices against adding this to PLD :-)
> >
> > I attached the spec file for it. To successful compilation it requires 
> > (among others) spdlog-devel >= 1:1.8.1, which is in GIT, but not built 
> > as rpm yet. The built version of spdlog (1.12) is old and doesn't work 
> > with this software.
> 
> sent to builders, may need rebuild dependencies.
> 
> the (if any) broken deps should appear for this library in this report:
> 
> - https://srcbuilder.pld-linux.org/~pldth/qa.php?q=main-ready-test
> 
Fortunately nothing related to spdlog :)

Best Regards
Krzysiek


From glen at pld-linux.org  Thu Jan 21 11:05:41 2021
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Elan_Ruusam=c3=a4e?=)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 12:05:41 +0200
Subject: [packages/dehydrated] - rel 3; O: letsencrypt.sh (old name of
 this project)
In-Reply-To: <414a1fa2bfce375124c51724b12799c7ca73a7e5_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
References: <c8b38766d4d2308565233f4902c0b8e84df9aeef_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <414a1fa2bfce375124c51724b12799c7ca73a7e5_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <05d1e519-5f1e-bb8f-33cd-832584d8bfb4@pld-linux.org>

On 21.01.2021 09:45, arekm wrote:

> +Obsoletes:	letsencrypt.sh

1. you are not providing any upgrade migrations, so it does not 
obsolete! just two unrelated packages.

2. obsoletes must be versioned!




From glen at pld-linux.org  Thu Jan 21 11:09:17 2021
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Elan_Ruusam=c3=a4e?=)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 12:09:17 +0200
Subject: new package - cherrytree
In-Reply-To: <010201772447176c-96d8016f-801e-4fae-8560-9bb1f646e3fb-000000@eu-west-1.amazonses.com>
References: <010201772447176c-96d8016f-801e-4fae-8560-9bb1f646e3fb-000000@eu-west-1.amazonses.com>
Message-ID: <4c7bb98b-83fa-e43a-18b9-fedb0ab57391@pld-linux.org>

On 21.01.2021 11:29, Krzysztof Mrozowicz wrote:

>> if you want yourself being authored, send the patch with git format-patch
> To be honest, I don't know what steps to take to have it done from the position where I have the spec file which is not versioned yet. But, I have RW rights to the git repo and already found out how to add a new project, so I'll go this way, as I see no voices against adding this to PLD:-)

indeed, git format-patch requires that you commit things first!


git init

git add foo.spec

git commit

git format-patch -1



From glen at pld-linux.org  Thu Jan 21 11:10:17 2021
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Elan_Ruusam=c3=a4e?=)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 12:10:17 +0200
Subject: [packages/dehydrated] - rel 3; O: letsencrypt.sh (old name of
 this project)
In-Reply-To: <05d1e519-5f1e-bb8f-33cd-832584d8bfb4@pld-linux.org>
References: <c8b38766d4d2308565233f4902c0b8e84df9aeef_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <414a1fa2bfce375124c51724b12799c7ca73a7e5_refs_heads_master@pld-linux.org>
 <05d1e519-5f1e-bb8f-33cd-832584d8bfb4@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <21d45310-6f8c-cf43-fb3b-564767790535@pld-linux.org>


On 21.01.2021 12:05, Elan Ruusam?e wrote:
> On 21.01.2021 09:45, arekm wrote:
>
>> +Obsoletes:??? letsencrypt.sh
>
> 1. you are not providing any upgrade migrations, so it does not 
> obsolete! just two unrelated packages.
>
> 2. obsoletes must be versioned!
>

same thing, 4 years ago:

- 
https://github.com/pld-linux/dehydrated/commit/ffc43e1380eb43a1dd0cb37c43478398899f9856



From krzysztof at mrozowicz.eu  Fri Jan 22 10:12:42 2021
From: krzysztof at mrozowicz.eu (Krzysztof Mrozowicz)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 09:12:42 +0000
Subject: new package - cherrytree
In-Reply-To: <4c7bb98b-83fa-e43a-18b9-fedb0ab57391@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <01020177295e0073-5b4887fe-98f1-464c-bfee-97cef1633c80-000000@eu-west-1.amazonses.com>

On Thursday, January 21, 2021 10:09 GMT, Elan Ruusam?e <glen at pld-linux.org> wrote: 
 
> On 21.01.2021 11:29, Krzysztof Mrozowicz wrote:
> 
> >> if you want yourself being authored, send the patch with git format-patch
> > To be honest, I don't know what steps to take to have it done from the position where I have the spec file which is not versioned yet. But, I have RW rights to the git repo and already found out how to add a new project, so I'll go this way, as I see no voices against adding this to PLD:-)
> 
> indeed, git format-patch requires that you commit things first!
> 
I sent cherrytree to git. Would you mind sending it to builders, Elan?


From krzysztof at mrozowicz.eu  Fri Jan 22 11:08:32 2021
From: krzysztof at mrozowicz.eu (Krzysztof Mrozowicz)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 10:08:32 +0000
Subject: audacity 2.4.x and wxWidgets
Message-ID: <0102017729911ebc-5a7cb3bb-45ed-492d-845c-0c3fe5c53616-000000@eu-west-1.amazonses.com>

Hi,
I updated audacity spec to version 2.4.2, but during the work I found 
that this version no longer compiles on 32 bits. I don't know what 
exactly should be added to the spec file to inform builders to do not 
try to build it on unsupported architectures. Can someone help?

The audacity build instruction don't mention a word about supporting 
wxWidgets 3.0, so I bumped wxWidgets spec to 3.1, but eventually it 
turned out it was not required, plus FileZilla doesn't want to build 
with 3.1, so I created a branch "v3.1" and pushed my work there.

--
Krzysiek



From glen at pld-linux.org  Fri Jan 22 11:47:30 2021
From: glen at pld-linux.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Elan_Ruusam=c3=a4e?=)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 12:47:30 +0200
Subject: audacity 2.4.x and wxWidgets
In-Reply-To: <0102017729911ebc-5a7cb3bb-45ed-492d-845c-0c3fe5c53616-000000@eu-west-1.amazonses.com>
References: <0102017729911ebc-5a7cb3bb-45ed-492d-845c-0c3fe5c53616-000000@eu-west-1.amazonses.com>
Message-ID: <73eaea1e-d1f0-ee3c-d4d2-6a1c5b9c4a0f@pld-linux.org>


On 22.01.2021 12:08, Krzysztof Mrozowicz wrote:
>
> I updated audacity spec to version 2.4.2, but during the work I found 
> that this version no longer compiles on 32 bits. I don't know what 
> exactly should be added to the spec file to inform builders to do not 
> try to build it on unsupported architectures. 


it's two different things:

1. audacity developers dropped 32bit support

2. it fails to build due unknown error (details not shared)


for 1, You can use ExcludeArch or ExclusiveArch directive, and include 
proof of upstream their decision as such (in commit message).

for 2, probably should show what is the build error, maybe someone can 
fix, and of course using search engine, maybe somebody already solved 
the problem.



From atler at pld-linux.org  Sat Jan 23 11:25:58 2021
From: atler at pld-linux.org (Jan Palus)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2021 11:25:58 +0100
Subject: audacity 2.4.x and wxWidgets
In-Reply-To: <0102017729911ebc-5a7cb3bb-45ed-492d-845c-0c3fe5c53616-000000@eu-west-1.amazonses.com>
References: <0102017729911ebc-5a7cb3bb-45ed-492d-845c-0c3fe5c53616-000000@eu-west-1.amazonses.com>
Message-ID: <20210123102558.cx23umhpanqinpgp@pine>

On 22.01.2021 10:08, Krzysztof Mrozowicz wrote:
> Hi,
> I updated audacity spec to version 2.4.2, but during the work I found that
> this version no longer compiles on 32 bits. I don't know what exactly should
> be added to the spec file to inform builders to do not try to build it on
> unsupported architectures. Can someone help?

Compilation on i686 was fixed however few things still can be improved:

- in %prep drop all sources from lib-src/ which are already packaged in
  PLD also verify whether respective BRs are present

- consider upgrading libsbsms2 to 2.1.0 from https://github.com/claytonotey/libsbsms
  and with small cmake patch you could possibly use system sbsms
  (library which was failing on i686)

cmake-proxies/CMakeLists.txt:
-addlib( sbsms              sbsms       SBSMS       NO    YES   "" )
+addlib( sbsms              sbsms       SBSMS       NO    YES   "sbsms" )



From krzysztof at mrozowicz.eu  Sun Jan 24 12:07:17 2021
From: krzysztof at mrozowicz.eu (Krzysztof Mrozowicz)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2021 11:07:17 +0000
Subject: audacity 2.4.x and wxWidgets
In-Reply-To: <20210123102558.cx23umhpanqinpgp@pine>
References: <0102017729911ebc-5a7cb3bb-45ed-492d-845c-0c3fe5c53616-000000@eu-west-1.amazonses.com>
 <20210123102558.cx23umhpanqinpgp@pine>
Message-ID: <0102017734139fce-b02f09e6-4928-4a4f-8afd-b934214c7291-000000@eu-west-1.amazonses.com>

W dniu 23.01.2021 o?10:25, Jan Palus pisze:
> On 22.01.2021 10:08, Krzysztof Mrozowicz wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I updated audacity spec to version 2.4.2, but during the work I found that
>> this version no longer compiles on 32 bits. I don't know what exactly should
>> be added to the spec file to inform builders to do not try to build it on
>> unsupported architectures. Can someone help?
> Compilation on i686 was fixed however few things still can be improved:
>
> - in %prep drop all sources from lib-src/ which are already packaged in
>    PLD also verify whether respective BRs are present
>
> - consider upgrading libsbsms2 to 2.1.0 from https://github.com/claytonotey/libsbsms
>    and with small cmake patch you could possibly use system sbsms
>    (library which was failing on i686)
>
> cmake-proxies/CMakeLists.txt:
> -addlib( sbsms              sbsms       SBSMS       NO    YES   "" )
> +addlib( sbsms              sbsms       SBSMS       NO    YES   "sbsms" )

Thanks for the above, Jan. I'll try to work on what you suggested.

--
Krzysiek


From krzysztof at mrozowicz.eu  Sun Jan 24 12:14:58 2021
From: krzysztof at mrozowicz.eu (Krzysztof Mrozowicz)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2021 11:14:58 +0000
Subject: audacity 2.4.x and wxWidgets
In-Reply-To: <73eaea1e-d1f0-ee3c-d4d2-6a1c5b9c4a0f@pld-linux.org>
References: <0102017729911ebc-5a7cb3bb-45ed-492d-845c-0c3fe5c53616-000000@eu-west-1.amazonses.com>
 <73eaea1e-d1f0-ee3c-d4d2-6a1c5b9c4a0f@pld-linux.org>
Message-ID: <01020177341aa899-2de804d3-37a9-4730-a770-ba56f4d4f6bb-000000@eu-west-1.amazonses.com>

W dniu 22.01.2021 o?10:47, Elan Ruusam?e pisze:
>
> On 22.01.2021 12:08, Krzysztof Mrozowicz wrote:
>>
>> I updated audacity spec to version 2.4.2, but during the work I found 
>> that this version no longer compiles on 32 bits. I don't know what 
>> exactly should be added to the spec file to inform builders to do not 
>> try to build it on unsupported architectures. 
>
>
> it's two different things:
>
> 1. audacity developers dropped 32bit support
>
> 2. it fails to build due unknown error (details not shared)
>
>
> for 1, You can use ExcludeArch or ExclusiveArch directive, and include 
> proof of upstream their decision as such (in commit message).
This already has been fixed - the solution was to disable SSE and SSE2 
for ix86.

> for 2, probably should show what is the build error, maybe someone can 
> fix, and of course using search engine, maybe somebody already solved 
> the problem.

The configure/cmake script of FileZilla says that development version of 
wxWidgets is not supported and quits. From the other hand the wxWidgets 
roadmap says that stable 3.2 version is expected at the first half of 
2021, so I think it's OK to wait for it and then add to PLD.

__
Krzysiek



From baggins at pld-linux.org  Sun Jan 31 10:16:04 2021
From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=)
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2021 10:16:04 +0100
Subject: rpm.org 4.16.x is coming to Th
In-Reply-To: <CAEg-Je8EyumXt5APA_ey_L6d6-AmDOn6jzYXhbri3LLwqu2Lkg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20210111083800.GA2282@starbug>
 <350ab932-9d0a-3ada-7fc5-ff327359f0af@pld-linux.org>
 <CAEg-Je8EyumXt5APA_ey_L6d6-AmDOn6jzYXhbri3LLwqu2Lkg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20210131091604.GG2282@starbug>

On Mon, 11 Jan 2021, Neal Gompa wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:09 AM Elan Ruusam?e <glen at pld-linux.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 11.01.2021 10:38, Jan R?korajski wrote:
> > > If you think there is still something that is blocking the change please
> > > speak*now*.
> >
> > are these pld introduced noauto* macros and files supported in 4.16 build?
> >
> >
> > %define         _noautoprovfiles        %{_libdir}/%{name}
> 
> No, you need to use the standard filtering mechanism:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering/

And, sadly, this mechanism is again a piece of crap, and another thing that was
solved 20 years ago in PLD.

rpm5 supports multiple lines with multiple regexps each. rpmfcExpandRegexps.

rpm.org rpm can only do a single regexp in a single macro, so no things
like we have:

%__noautoreq		%(sed -e s'/#.*//' /etc/rpm/noautoreq) \
	%{?_noautoreq: %{_noautoreq}} \
	%{?_noautoreq_java: %{__noauto_regexp_helper -p java %{_noautoreq_java}}} \
	%{?_noautoreq_mono: %{__noauto_regexp_helper -p mono %{_noautoreq_mono}}} \
	%{?_noautoreq_pear: %{__noauto_regexp_helper -p pear %{_noautoreq_pear}}} \
	%{?_noautoreq_perl: %{__noauto_regexp_helper -p perl %{_noautoreq_perl}}} \
	%{?_noautoreq_pyegg: %{__noauto_regexp_helper -p pythonegg %{_noautoreq_pyegg}}} \
	%{?_noautoreq_py3egg: %{__noauto_regexp_helper -p python3egg %{_noautoreq_py3egg}}} \

or, in a spec file

%define _noautoreq libFoo.so.1 libBar.so.1

I'll see if I can fix this...

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


From ngompa13 at gmail.com  Sun Jan 31 16:45:23 2021
From: ngompa13 at gmail.com (Neal Gompa)
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2021 10:45:23 -0500
Subject: rpm.org 4.16.x is coming to Th
In-Reply-To: <20210131091604.GG2282@starbug>
References: <20210111083800.GA2282@starbug>
 <350ab932-9d0a-3ada-7fc5-ff327359f0af@pld-linux.org>
 <CAEg-Je8EyumXt5APA_ey_L6d6-AmDOn6jzYXhbri3LLwqu2Lkg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210131091604.GG2282@starbug>
Message-ID: <CAEg-Je97S_s7Pc13dmvq1GtWzpw83SEp-syYeu6UOKTsnqMXNg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 4:16 AM Jan R?korajski <baggins at pld-linux.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2021, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:09 AM Elan Ruusam?e <glen at pld-linux.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 11.01.2021 10:38, Jan R?korajski wrote:
> > > > If you think there is still something that is blocking the change please
> > > > speak*now*.
> > >
> > > are these pld introduced noauto* macros and files supported in 4.16 build?
> > >
> > >
> > > %define         _noautoprovfiles        %{_libdir}/%{name}
> >
> > No, you need to use the standard filtering mechanism:
> > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering/
>
> And, sadly, this mechanism is again a piece of crap, and another thing that was
> solved 20 years ago in PLD.
>
> rpm5 supports multiple lines with multiple regexps each. rpmfcExpandRegexps.
>

In the years I've been involved in rpm.org upstream, literally nobody
has ever asked for this to be made better, much less submitted
patches. Complaining about it being "crap" and "solved 20 years ago in
PLD" is unhelpful when as far as I know, nobody from PLD talked to
rpm.org rpm upstream in at least the past decade, even before PLD
switched to rpm5.org rpm back in 2012.

> rpm.org rpm can only do a single regexp in a single macro, so no things
> like we have:
>
> %__noautoreq            %(sed -e s'/#.*//' /etc/rpm/noautoreq) \
>         %{?_noautoreq: %{_noautoreq}} \
>         %{?_noautoreq_java: %{__noauto_regexp_helper -p java %{_noautoreq_java}}} \
>         %{?_noautoreq_mono: %{__noauto_regexp_helper -p mono %{_noautoreq_mono}}} \
>         %{?_noautoreq_pear: %{__noauto_regexp_helper -p pear %{_noautoreq_pear}}} \
>         %{?_noautoreq_perl: %{__noauto_regexp_helper -p perl %{_noautoreq_perl}}} \
>         %{?_noautoreq_pyegg: %{__noauto_regexp_helper -p pythonegg %{_noautoreq_pyegg}}} \
>         %{?_noautoreq_py3egg: %{__noauto_regexp_helper -p python3egg %{_noautoreq_py3egg}}} \
>

That's technically a single definition, isn't it?

> or, in a spec file
>
> %define _noautoreq libFoo.so.1 libBar.so.1
>
> I'll see if I can fix this...
>

You could make a macro wrapper that generates the RPM native one. Or
submit a patch to rpm.org rpm to support multiple regexps in the
current stuff.



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


From baggins at pld-linux.org  Sun Jan 31 20:57:13 2021
From: baggins at pld-linux.org (Jan =?utf-8?Q?R=C4=99korajski?=)
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2021 20:57:13 +0100
Subject: rpm.org 4.16.x is coming to Th
In-Reply-To: <CAEg-Je97S_s7Pc13dmvq1GtWzpw83SEp-syYeu6UOKTsnqMXNg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20210111083800.GA2282@starbug>
 <350ab932-9d0a-3ada-7fc5-ff327359f0af@pld-linux.org>
 <CAEg-Je8EyumXt5APA_ey_L6d6-AmDOn6jzYXhbri3LLwqu2Lkg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210131091604.GG2282@starbug>
 <CAEg-Je97S_s7Pc13dmvq1GtWzpw83SEp-syYeu6UOKTsnqMXNg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20210131195713.GA3110641@starbug.lan>

On Sun, 31 Jan 2021, Neal Gompa wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 4:16 AM Jan R?korajski <baggins at pld-linux.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 11 Jan 2021, Neal Gompa wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:09 AM Elan Ruusam?e <glen at pld-linux.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 11.01.2021 10:38, Jan R?korajski wrote:
> > > > > If you think there is still something that is blocking the change please
> > > > > speak*now*.
> > > >
> > > > are these pld introduced noauto* macros and files supported in 4.16 build?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > %define         _noautoprovfiles        %{_libdir}/%{name}
> > >
> > > No, you need to use the standard filtering mechanism:
> > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering/
> >
> > And, sadly, this mechanism is again a piece of crap, and another thing that was
> > solved 20 years ago in PLD.
> >
> > rpm5 supports multiple lines with multiple regexps each. rpmfcExpandRegexps.
> >
> 
> In the years I've been involved in rpm.org upstream, literally nobody
> has ever asked for this to be made better, much less submitted
> patches. Complaining about it being "crap" and "solved 20 years ago in
> PLD" is unhelpful when as far as I know, nobody from PLD talked to
> rpm.org rpm upstream in at least the past decade, even before PLD
> switched to rpm5.org rpm back in 2012.

Sorry, but it was working AFAIR before the split without any special
patching. There was no rpm5 20 years ago :)

And how would I know that rpm.org does not have something that was there
so long ago?

> > rpm.org rpm can only do a single regexp in a single macro, so no things
> > like we have:
> >
> > %__noautoreq            %(sed -e s'/#.*//' /etc/rpm/noautoreq) \
> >         %{?_noautoreq: %{_noautoreq}} \
> >         %{?_noautoreq_java: %{__noauto_regexp_helper -p java %{_noautoreq_java}}} \
> >         %{?_noautoreq_mono: %{__noauto_regexp_helper -p mono %{_noautoreq_mono}}} \
> >         %{?_noautoreq_pear: %{__noauto_regexp_helper -p pear %{_noautoreq_pear}}} \
> >         %{?_noautoreq_perl: %{__noauto_regexp_helper -p perl %{_noautoreq_perl}}} \
> >         %{?_noautoreq_pyegg: %{__noauto_regexp_helper -p pythonegg %{_noautoreq_pyegg}}} \
> >         %{?_noautoreq_py3egg: %{__noauto_regexp_helper -p python3egg %{_noautoreq_py3egg}}} \
> >
> 
> That's technically a single definition, isn't it?

Unfortunately not for the regexp(3) :(
It's a multiline blob that's far from being a valid regexp as such.

> > or, in a spec file
> >
> > %define _noautoreq libFoo.so.1 libBar.so.1
> >
> > I'll see if I can fix this...
> >
> 
> You could make a macro wrapper that generates the RPM native one. Or
> submit a patch to rpm.org rpm to support multiple regexps in the
> current stuff.

Wrapper it is. TBH adding a wrapper is more straightforward than
figuring out hacky rpm5 code and adapting it for rpm.org.

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