FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 07-09-2008, 10:51 AM
Panu Matilainen
 
Default Heads-up: brand new RPM version about to hit rawhide

At long last, we are about to get a brand new RPM version (alpha snapshot
at the moment) into rawhide. The list of changes from 4.4.2.x is massive
and a full summary needs a separate posting (will follow as time permits),
this is just a heads-up of immediate consequences for Fedora packagers and
rawhide consumers:


Users:
1) BACKUP YOUR RPMDB, NOW! We're not aware of any baby-eating bugs in rpm
but I'd be shocked if there were no new bugs at all... Better safe
than sorry - do something like this before updating to the new rpm:
# cp -avp /var/lib/rpm /var/lib/rpm-`date +%d%m%y`

2) Rebuilding the rpmdb is not a bad idea (if not strictly necessary):
# rpm --rebuilddb

3) Watch out for regressions and please report immediately if found.
Again, we're not aware of any baby-eating bugs but there has been an
enormous amount of changes in the codebase...

The python bindings are supposed to be entirely backwards compatible
but there are some small differences with returned types (notably
returning an empty list vs None) on tag data in some cases, this breaks
rpmlint (patch is trivial, will send to maintainer).

Packagers:
1) So-name bumb is involved, the API has changed a lot. Here's the list
of involved packages according to repoquery and status, I'll be sending
patches to package maintainers shortly:
- gdb (needs update to locate build-id patch)
- perl-RPM2 (needs some updating)
- apt (needs major work, but this is my headache)
- ruby-rpm (needs quite a bit of work)
- deltarpm (just needs a rebuild apparently)
- net-snmp (needs rebuild with -D_RPM_4_4_COMPAT)
- rpmreaper (needs rebuild with -D_RPM_4_4_COMPAT)

2) rpmbuild uses --fuzz=0 parameter to patch by default. This will "break"
many many packages as this is stricter than the default of patch
command itself. Two possibilities:
- Rediff your patches and check they're applying correctly. This is
the best thing to do, patches applied with fuzz can and do cause
strange and nasty bugs.
- As a temporary action, adding "%define _default_patch_fuzz 2"
to spec will force rpm to use fuzz level 2 which is the default for
patch itself.

3) %{_topdir} now defaults to $(HOME)/rpmbuild/, /usr/src/redhat/ is
no more.

4) BuildRoot from spec is ignored. Rpm now defaults to buildroot under
%{_topdir}/BUILDROOT/

5) Rpm now supports "arch dependencies", so eg. foo-devel dependencies can
be expressed correctly. Please wait for FPC recommendations on the
subject, this needs a mass rebuild to be usable.

6) Rpm now collects pkg-config and libtool dependencies automatically.
Initially only provides will be created to avoid creating unsolvable
dependencies though.

7) Two new macros, %{patches} and %{sources} are supported in rpmbuild.
In other words, you can now do things like:
for p in %{patches}; do
...
done
Just keep in mind that using these in your spec will make the it
incompatible with rpm 4.4.x versions.

P.S. The new rpm will be initially built against Berkeley DB 4.5.20 from
compat-db to ensure easy downgrade path to rpm 4.4.x should something
go terribly, horribly wrong. Newer BDB would require manual db
conversion to downgrade.

- Panu -

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 07-09-2008, 10:59 AM
"Colin Walters"
 
Default Heads-up: brand new RPM version about to hit rawhide

On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 6:51 AM, Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@redhat.com> wrote:



2) rpmbuild uses --fuzz=0 parameter to patch by default. This will "break"

* many many packages as this is stricter than the default of patch

* command itself. Two possibilities:

When everyone is dealing with the vast amount of busywork this is going to entail, don't forget to double check that your patches are sent upstream if possible and add an appropriate comment:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PatchUpstreamStatus


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 07-09-2008, 12:14 PM
Dimi Paun
 
Default Heads-up: brand new RPM version about to hit rawhide

On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 13:51 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> At long last, we are about to get a brand new RPM version (alpha
> snapshot at the moment) into rawhide. The list of changes from 4.4.2.x
> is massive and a full summary needs a separate posting (will follow as
> time permits)

Thanks Panu,

This is way cool! I'm glad to see so many needed changes being
addressed. I'd be interested in the full list of changes,
if you can find the time to put it together.

--
Dimi Paun <dimi@lattica.com>
Lattica, Inc.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 07-09-2008, 01:43 PM
"Tom "spot" Callaway"
 
Default Heads-up: brand new RPM version about to hit rawhide

On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 13:51 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> this is just a heads-up of immediate consequences for Fedora packagers
> and rawhide consumers:

Panu,

Thanks! I'm excited at the opportunity to prune the packaging guidelines
as a result.

~spot

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 07-09-2008, 01:52 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default Heads-up: brand new RPM version about to hit rawhide

Panu Matilainen <pmatilai <at> redhat.com> writes:
> Packagers:
8) Unnumbered Source: and Patch: are no longer accepted, you have to explicitly
write Source0: resp. Patch: (unless I misunderstood this commit:
http://devel.linux.duke.edu/gitweb/?p=rpm.git;a=commit;h=724b07bba5e802998b1b79b408c2 401d2a238a3b ).

I hope packages which FTBFS (only) due to this and/or the patch fuzz issue
won't be considered for the FTFBS package elimination in a week, otherwise
we'll end up with half the distro removed! :-(

Kevin Kofler

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 07-09-2008, 01:54 PM
seth vidal
 
Default Heads-up: brand new RPM version about to hit rawhide

On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 13:52 +0000, Kevin Kofler wrote:

> I hope packages which FTBFS (only) due to this and/or the patch fuzz issue
> won't be considered for the FTFBS package elimination in a week, otherwise
> we'll end up with half the distro removed! :-(

You say that like it is a bad thing...

-sv


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 07-09-2008, 01:56 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default Heads-up: brand new RPM version about to hit rawhide

I wrote:
> 8) Unnumbered Source: and Patch: are no longer accepted, you have to
> explicitly write Source0: resp. Patch:

I mean Patch0: here of course. ;-)

Kevin Kofler

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 07-09-2008, 01:58 PM
Matthew Miller
 
Default Heads-up: brand new RPM version about to hit rawhide

On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 01:51:15PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> 3) %{_topdir} now defaults to $(HOME)/rpmbuild/, /usr/src/redhat/ is
> no more.

This = I love you.

> 4) BuildRoot from spec is ignored. Rpm now defaults to buildroot under
> %{_topdir}/BUILDROOT/

This too.

> 5) Rpm now supports "arch dependencies", so eg. foo-devel dependencies can
> be expressed correctly. Please wait for FPC recommendations on the
> subject, this needs a mass rebuild to be usable.

And !!!


--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 07-09-2008, 02:04 PM
"Tom "spot" Callaway"
 
Default Heads-up: brand new RPM version about to hit rawhide

On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 13:51 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> 4) BuildRoot from spec is ignored. Rpm now defaults to buildroot under
> %{_topdir}/BUILDROOT/

A few questions here:

Is the BuildRoot from the spec ignored, or does it override the default
buildroot?

Is the default buildroot literally "%{_topdir}/BUILDROOT/" or is it
something more complicated. I could easily see a case where two
concurrent rpm builds could step on each other's buildroots.

~spot

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 07-09-2008, 02:07 PM
Jarod Wilson
 
Default Heads-up: brand new RPM version about to hit rawhide

On Wednesday 09 July 2008 06:51:15 am Panu Matilainen wrote:
> 7) Two new macros, %{patches} and %{sources} are supported in rpmbuild.
> * * In other words, you can now do things like:
> * * * *for p in %{patches}; do
> * * * * * *...
> * * * *done
> * * Just keep in mind that using these in your spec will make the it
> * * incompatible with rpm 4.4.x versions.

Rock! The addition of %{patches} alone would reduce the size of the kernel
spec by a pretty hefty amount. I've always hated having to specify every
damned patch two times.

Its annoying in the Fedora kernel specs, and outright obnoxious in RHEL, where
the patches obviously add up a LOT over time... For example, RHEL5.2's kernel
spec has like 1800 patches in it. 1800 less lines is a Very Good Thing. (Nb:
I'm not suggesting this be backported to RHEL5, I was thinking more in terms
of when RHEL6 rolls around).

--
Jarod Wilson
jwilson@redhat.com

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 02:49 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org