Home » Developing U++ » Releasing U++ » Does the provided upp.spec works for you and on which distro?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Does the provided upp.spec works for you and on which distro? [message #17529 is a reply to message #17525] |
Tue, 19 August 2008 14:38   |
 |
amrein
Messages: 278
Registered: August 2008
Location: France
|
Experienced Member |
|
|
Some kind of script?
Problem: Mandriva use urpmi. Redhat use yum. Suse use something else I think. I haven't find a way to download files automatically from U++ forum.
Here are instructions without comments for advanced users (replace urpmi by yum, ...):
# su
# urpmi rpm-build freetype2-devel gtk2-devel pango-devel atk-devel cairo-devel X11-devel xft2-devel expat-devel
# exit
# cat > ~/.rpmrc << EOF
buildarchtranslate: i386: i586
buildarchtranslate: i486: i586
buildarchtranslate: i586: i586
buildarchtranslate: i686: i586
EOF
# cat > ~/.rpmmacros << EOF
%_topdir $HOME/rpm
%_tmppath $HOME/rpm/tmp
%distribution Linux
%vendor Ultimate++ team
%packager YourName YourLastName <youremail@provider.loc>
EOF
# mkdir -p ~/rpm/{BUILD,RPMS/{i586,x86_64,noarch},SOURCES,SRPMS,SPECS,t mp}
# cd ~/rpm/SOURCE/
# wget -N http://dfn.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/upp/upp-src-2008.1 .tar.gz
Download and save the tarball you will find at the end of this message. Then uncompress it with this command:
# tar zxvf rpmscript_and_fix.tar.gz -C ~/
That's all. To create the source and binary rpm packages:
# rpmbuild -ba ~/rpm/SPEC/upp.spec
Simple enough? 
[Updated on: Tue, 26 August 2008 18:47] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Does the provided upp.spec works for you and on which distro? [message #17535 is a reply to message #17525] |
Tue, 19 August 2008 15:53 |
|
amrein
Messages: 278
Registered: August 2008
Location: France
|
Experienced Member |
|
|
Ok. Found one. Simpler.
Download upp-2008.1-1.src.rpm from here: http://dl.free.fr/jdy1GSwDF
Then create your rpmbuild environment:
# cat > ~/.rpmrc << EOF
buildarchtranslate: i386: i586
buildarchtranslate: i486: i586
buildarchtranslate: i586: i586
buildarchtranslate: i686: i586
EOF
# cat > ~/.rpmmacros << EOF
%_topdir $HOME/rpm
%_tmppath $HOME/rpm/tmp
%distribution Linux
%vendor Ultimate++ team
%packager YourName YourLastName <youremail@provider.loc>
EOF
For next command, please, remove the space between for tmp (shouldn't be "t mp}" but when I "Apply message changes" the space is back again:
# mkdir -p ~/rpm/{BUILD,RPMS/{i586,x86_64,noarch},SOURCES,SRPMS,SPECS,t mp}
Now, build the rpm source file:
# rpmbuild --rebuild upp-2008.1-1.src.rpm
[Updated on: Tue, 26 August 2008 19:11] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Does the provided upp.spec works for you and on which distro? [message #17559 is a reply to message #17550] |
Wed, 20 August 2008 19:06 |
|
amrein
Messages: 278
Registered: August 2008
Location: France
|
Experienced Member |
|
|
| cbpporter wrote on Wed, 20 August 2008 12:19 |
I tried to install under openSuse 11 and I got:
warning: user camrein does not exist - using root
warning: group camrein does not exist - using root
|
Yes. When you install a src.rpm, rpm always show this. It's because cpio try to keep the login:group of the original packager.
| Quote: |
Also:
X11-devel is needed by upp-2008.1-1.i586
xft2-devel is needed by upp-2008.1-1.i586
expat-devel is needed by upp-2008.1-1.i586
X11-devel is xorg-x11-devel and expat is libexpat-devel.
|
Please, can you show me the output of this 2 commands:
# rpm -q --provides xorg-x11-devel
# rpm -q --provides libexpat-devel
If they give me what I want, your distro as mine will works out of the box with the src.rpm.
| Quote: |
Unfortunately, the old problem with Linux (and rpm) not providing a stable and reliable environment for software distribution and detection shows it's ugly head.
I don't think that it is possible to create a cross distro rpm. Only if you strip out all dependencies. Or create a rpm for each distro, which would be an extremely tedious and may I day cruel task.
|
Me too, I don't understand why they don't talk to each other to have an unique name for each "--provides".
At least, rpm show us the name to search for.
Next, the rpm build. Did it works out of the box?
(many thanks for your previous post)
[Updated on: Wed, 20 August 2008 19:11] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Does the provided upp.spec works for you and on which distro? [message #17567 is a reply to message #17565] |
Wed, 20 August 2008 22:19 |
|
amrein
Messages: 278
Registered: August 2008
Location: France
|
Experienced Member |
|
|
| cbpporter wrote on Wed, 20 August 2008 21:33 |
rpm -q --provides xorg-x11-devel
xorg-x11-compat70-devel
xorg-x11-man
XFree86-devel
xorg-x11-devel = 7.3-64.1
rpm -q --provides libexpat-devel
libexpat-devel = 2.0.1-62.1
|
Thanks. I can use XFree86-devel and libexpat-devel. Both are in Mandriva. Btw, it's a pity because this is no more XFree86 and libexpat-devel could be lib64expat-devel on 64 bit system.
Fortunately, Mandriva has added those provides in their rpm for fedora compatibility.
This could be considered as a bug. Your distro packager are not following the redhat rpm naming policy.
| Quote: |
I actually did a new install on a clean system (no dev packages installed) and satisfied dependencies one by one to make sure that everything is ok. Those 3 libraries are the only ones which my distro does not provide under that name.
I tried using --nodeps to build the rpm, but I got:
Installing /home/raul/upp-2008.1-1.src.rpm
warning: user camrein does not exist - using root
warning: group camrein does not exist - using root
...
+ echo 'Patch #0 (upp-src-2008.1.fix_png_name_in_desktop_file):'
Patch #0 (upp-src-2008.1.fix_png_name_in_desktop_file):
+ patch -p0 -s
/root/rpm/tmp/rpm-tmp.5889: line 35: patch: command not found
error: Bad exit status from /root/rpm/tmp/rpm-tmp.5889 (%prep)
|
Well. On your distro, when you install rpmbuild, they don't install patch. My goodness. The patch program applies diff files to originals. This is the well know standard tool from GNU. Most every src.rpm need it for rpm building. You should file a bug report. No doubt about it.
I guess you are using an unstable release.
# yum install patch
Should be enough.
Note: if you type "rpm -i upp-src-2008.1.rpm", you will have ~/rpm/SPEC/upp.spec installed and source+patches in ~/rpm/SOURCE. You can edit upp.spec to see what's going on.
[Updated on: Wed, 20 August 2008 22:20] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Does the provided upp.spec works for you and on which distro? [message #17614 is a reply to message #17603] |
Fri, 22 August 2008 15:05 |
cbpporter
Messages: 1428
Registered: September 2007
|
Ultimate Contributor |
|
|
OK, I replaced %make with make (what does %make mean?), and he two dependencies, and deleted xft2-devel as a dependency (it seems my distro includes it in x11 devel package).
Build went pretty well, expect that it lasted an incredibly long time. I could have built about 10% of a kernel in that time  .
There are still some small problems. Rpmbuild tries to copy files to %{buildroot}, but it actually takes it verbatim and files wind up in "~/rpm/BUILd/upp-2008.1/%{buildroot}". I believe that it should have replaced %{buildroot} with something. Must set it up somewhere.
I also got a:
Processing files: upp-2008.1-1
error: File not found: /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps/theide.png
Shouldn't it be working with local build files instead of with my systems /usr content?
PS:
rpm -bb ~/rpm/SPEC/upp.spec
is actually
rpmbuild -bb ~/rpm/SPECS/upp.spec
for those who want to try the build process also.
PS2: What is wrong with the png? It shows up OK.
[Updated on: Fri, 22 August 2008 15:10] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Does the provided upp.spec works for you and on which distro? [message #17622 is a reply to message #17618] |
Fri, 22 August 2008 22:36 |
|
amrein
Messages: 278
Registered: August 2008
Location: France
|
Experienced Member |
|
|
(UPDATED WITH LAST RPMS, THEY WORKS)
Ok, here are the rpms. They are also now on sourceforge.net too.
RPM binary Release to use (those rpms will be there for 30 days if no one download them):
Fedora 9 i386 rpm: http://dl.free.fr/p3MvNQeEE
(install with yum install --nogpgcheck upp-2008.1-1.fc9.i386.rpm)
Mandriva 2008.1 i586 rpm: http://dl.free.fr/qS3GEy9wv
OpenSuse 11.0 i586 rpm: http://dl.free.fr/qTueoO3N8
Mandriva + Fedora + OpenSuse source rpm: http://dl.free.fr/jdy1GSwDF
Build dependencies if you want to build the source rpm yourself:
(because you are running a Linux 64 bit distro or want to test...)
First, create the rpmbuild environment (see 8th post) then, before building the binary with "rpmbuild --rebuild upp-2008.1-1.src.rpm" with your user account you need to become root and type":
Mandriva 2008.1: # urpmi rpm-build gcc gcc-c++ gtk2-devel pango-devel atk-devel cairo-devel expat-devel X11-devel freetype2-devel
Fedora 9: # yum install rpm-build gcc gcc-c++ gtk2-devel pango-devel atk-devel cairo-devel expat-devel xorg-x11-server-devel freetype-devel
OpenSuse 11.0: # YaST -i patch make gcc gcc-c++ gtk2-devel pango-devel atk-devel cairo-devel libexpat-devel xorg-x11-devel freetype2-devel
[Updated on: Wed, 27 August 2008 15:21] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Does the provided upp.spec works for you and on which distro? [message #17701 is a reply to message #17686] |
Tue, 26 August 2008 18:29 |
|
amrein
Messages: 278
Registered: August 2008
Location: France
|
Experienced Member |
|
|
| cbpporter wrote on Tue, 26 August 2008 00:56 |
I installed the opensuse rpm on two machines, one of them beeing "clean" and It worked. U++ also behaves correctly after install.
There are some issues though.
1. In YaST, the License field for the rpm states "BSD-like, GPL-2.1, LGPL". That's a little much, is it not?
|
U++ include external components using those license. If I write BSD-like only, then people won't know about GPL and LGPL code inside.
| Quote: |
2. Distribution is empty and Vendor is "Mandriva".
|
Yes! Thank you.
Will fix it.
Not: "rpm -qi upp" show all information correctly. "rpm -ql upp" too.
I just need to remove Mandrivalinux.
| Quote: |
3. It does not display anything in the "Install (Available)" column.
|
Because upp is not part of the default OpenSuse repository (I mean, on their website). The install tool only show what is available in their repository.
With OpenSuse, the two way I found to install an external rpm are:
- with command line ("Yast -i" or "rpm -i").
- with YaST install/remove tool. But only if the rpm distributor have made a repository specially for OpenSuse. You then need to add first this repository.
There's also perhaps another way, because I saw a few page on the web with a special "click me" button for quick rpm installation. Something like " click me and I will install this package X from this website " but just for Suse distro.
| Quote: |
4. Clicking on "File List" crashes the program.
|
It works here without problem.
I think you should update your distro with last bug fix.
Options for update (like MS Win update) are in YaST. Mine was buggy even before I tried U++ then I've got the updates and no problem since.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Does the provided upp.spec works for you and on which distro? [message #17702 is a reply to message #17701] |
Tue, 26 August 2008 19:50 |
cbpporter
Messages: 1428
Registered: September 2007
|
Ultimate Contributor |
|
|
| amrein wrote on Tue, 26 August 2008 19:29 |
Because upp is not part of the default OpenSuse repository (I mean, on their website). The install tool only show what is available in their repository.
|
Yes, you are right! It shows the online package version. If all goes well maybe we can include it there. openSuse has the Factory system, which allows users to upload packages. I guess having Suse and Mandriva online packages in third party repository could help a little in boosting U++ popularity. AFAIK, Ubuntu deb is not in any official repository.
| Quote: |
With OpenSuse, the two way I found to install an external rpm are:
- with command line ("Yast -i" or "rpm -i").
- with YaST install/remove tool. But only if the rpm distributor have made a repository specially for OpenSuse. You then need to add first this repository.
|
There is also "zypper install <package>", but as YaST interface, it only works for packages in online repository. It is similar to apt-get, yum and urpmi. I wish people would stop inventing their own package manager front-ends.
| Quote: |
There's also perhaps another way, because I saw a few page on the web with a special "click me" button for quick rpm installation. Something like " click me and I will install this package X from this website " but just for Suse distro.
|
That's the "one click install". It automatically registers a repository, and downloads and installs a package together with it's dependencies. Very useful for KDE (getting the latest 4.x) and other huge packages.
| Quote: |
It works here without problem.
I think you should update your distro with last bug fix.
Options for update (like MS Win update) are in YaST. Mine was buggy even before I tried U++ then I've got the updates and no problem since.
|
I'm up to date and still get crash. I'll try to clean system and do a reinstall to see if the problem persists.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Does the provided upp.spec works for you and on which distro? [message #17703 is a reply to message #17701] |
Tue, 26 August 2008 21:31 |
 |
mirek
Messages: 14290
Registered: November 2005
|
Ultimate Member |
|
|
| amrein wrote on Tue, 26 August 2008 12:29 |
| cbpporter wrote on Tue, 26 August 2008 00:56 |
I installed the opensuse rpm on two machines, one of them beeing "clean" and It worked. U++ also behaves correctly after install.
There are some issues though.
1. In YaST, the License field for the rpm states "BSD-like, GPL-2.1, LGPL". That's a little much, is it not?
|
U++ include external components using those license. If I write BSD-like only, then people won't know about GPL and LGPL code inside.
|
Only mingw release contains GPLed code. Worst you get for linux releases is LGPL in ndisasm package (which, quite ironically, is only needed for native MSC debugger
Mirek
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Does the provided upp.spec works for you and on which distro? [message #17719 is a reply to message #17525] |
Wed, 27 August 2008 15:08 |
|
amrein
Messages: 278
Registered: August 2008
Location: France
|
Experienced Member |
|
|
There's something wrong in building rpms each night: for me there is no interest for end user and it could be a very big waste of time.
There are 2 types of users:
1. Those who want to use and work with U++ and TheIDE
2. Those who want to contribute and work on U++ and TheIDE source code and send improvements/patches
The fist category wants stable release (deb, rpm). The second category wants access to the svn source code and wants to build Ultimate++ themselves. None of them need everyday rpm build.
| Quote: |
*EXCELLENT* work, thanks a lot.
Might we open a discussion how to do this each night automatically?
IMO, we will need 4 chroot environments, correct?
I guess I should setup something like SFTP on "infra" server so that maintainers can establish (upload) chroot environments required for builds.
IMO, we perhaps need some unified scripting interface to make everything work too..
|
cbpporter talked about OpenSuse "having the Factory system", which allows users to upload packages and build them for many distro on OpenSuse website. Their factory source code is available online (must register to download it).
They don't use chroot but VMWare to simulate all those distro (virtual machines) and have automatic package build from them. We could use VirtualBox instead of VMWare (VMWare is faster and have more options but not so much).
The difference is not so big between virtual computers and real computers. With virtual machines, you can clone the virtual computers easily (on any new installed server). You can make snapshots with one click. You can ask the virtual machine to go back to a previous snapshot with one click to get back to a working and clean build environment. You don't have issue with dbus/sys/proc/hal/... You don't have to mess up with scripts not working because of "chroot ." in another distro root.
Really, I said that it was the easier solution. I didn't know about Novell factory. If people like Novel/OpenSuse use virtual machines, I think they know what they are doing.
Note: This build architecture will be needed for next Ultimate++ release. How many time before 2008.2?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Does the provided upp.spec works for you and on which distro? [message #17722 is a reply to message #17719] |
Wed, 27 August 2008 15:48 |
cbpporter
Messages: 1428
Registered: September 2007
|
Ultimate Contributor |
|
|
| Quote: |
There's something wrong in building rpms each night: for me there is no interest for end user and it could be a very big waste of time.
There are 2 types of users:
1. Those who want to use and work with U++ and TheIDE
2. Those who want to contribute and work on U++ and TheIDE source code and send improvements/patches
The fist category wants stable release (deb, rpm). The second category wants access to the svn source code and wants to build Ultimate++ themselves. None of them need everyday rpm build.
|
I have to agree. Normal users want stable releases. Even I use stable releases most of the time and for all official stuff, and maintain some patches until next dev if I need a fix. Of course, on my hacking machine where I experiment with stuff, I have all the source dirs linked to svn and remain always up to date, except when I'm doing some experimental patch.
But having a working make system that does all the building for all targeted distros is a must, and if the machine is working there is no reason to not do nightly builds, even if most users will stick with stable packages.
What would be better than nightly builds would be to create some kind of Update packages once a small number of bugs have been fixed. These updates must not break anything. If a user downloads 2008.1, he/she will most likely stick with it. But if offered 2008.1 Update 1, which is identical to 2008.1, except for fixed bugs, there would be incentive to upgrade. This is similar to current systems with dev builds, but devs have free form content (like the new allocator that was introduced some while ago and needed some testing before it was proven stable) which offer few advantages for users who want stability. So basically I propose smaller and more frequent updates which are guaranteed not to break anything (except accident of course), and when new features or changes are included, some beta/rc packages followed shortly by by new release and removing dev releases.
Dev branches can be checked out from svn by all developers/testers.
| Quote: |
Note: This build architecture will be needed for next Ultimate++ release. How many time before 2008.2?
|
I don't know when Mirek wants it, but basically I think the sooner the better.
I don't think that with current release schedule we'll have a 2008.2 (but a 2009.1), but probably we'll get to 2008.dev-2 by winter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Does the provided upp.spec works for you and on which distro? [message #17733 is a reply to message #17727] |
Wed, 27 August 2008 16:31 |
mr_ped
Messages: 826
Registered: November 2005
Location: Czech Republic - Praha
|
Experienced Contributor |
|
|
| luzr wrote on Wed, 27 August 2008 16:17 |
Actually, I was suggesting that the ".1" is not really needed... because it is unlikely we will have another "major" release this year.
In fact, I would like to have next release sort of "ultimate", we remaining U++ issues possibly solved (see and extend "The plan...").
Mirek
|
I would try (if possible and it makes sense) to change+finish 1 thing from "The plan" at a time and release after each one is done.
Waiting for "ultimate" version may easily go from something like 1 year to 5-10 years, and at that point everyone will be either using svn/dev's releases as stable, or still stick to 2008.1 (unlikely).
I mean, let's find the smallest possible set of new features, which makes sense to be implemented together, do them and release. (See also "SCRUM" for reference what I feel)
While I would love version with "all issues solved", I don't believe into such things anymore. There will be always some new issue.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Does the provided upp.spec works for you and on which distro? [message #17739 is a reply to message #17525] |
Wed, 27 August 2008 20:36 |
|
amrein
Messages: 278
Registered: August 2008
Location: France
|
Experienced Member |
|
|
I think I have finally understood why you are still asking for this. If fact, you want to be sure that all U++ svn commit won't break Linux compatibility. Am I wrong?
Ok, but as long as U++ can build on Ubuntu, big patches won't be needed for rpm based distro. Here is a proof, there is no fix for the source code in my src.rpm. Nothing. I just fought with the rpm external dependencies.
Why no break on other distro? Because they use package with the same major release: GTK+ 2.x.x, xorg-1.4.x.x, ...
So, in my opinion, the only think to do is to test if building the unstable release works in Ubuntu.
I will add this:
- A ".rpm" file is a compressed file (using cpio), a kind of tar.gz of the binary (I mean what you get with "make install") with a few extra information at the beginning of the cpio file for authors, licenses, ... That's all.
- A src.rpms is a compressed file too. It's the original source code tarball with a few extra information at the beginning + an automatic build script. That's all. It's like having the tarball + a build script (doing make, make install) + info about the needed dependencies.
If you don't trust me, just type in a console:
# rpm2cpio upp-2008.1-1.src.rpm | cpio -mdiv
# rpm2cpio upp-2008.1-1.fc9.i386.rpm | cpio -mdiv
Really, building a rpm each night is a waste of time. There is no need to test it on all distro each night, only on one distro like Ubuntu is enough. You could even build unstable U++ with TheIDE from the stable release.
Be that as it may, I understood that you would like to create this build factory right now. So, to create this build environment for final release, I think OpenSuse source code from their "Factory system" will speed this process a lot.
[Updated on: Wed, 27 August 2008 20:44] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Does the provided upp.spec works for you and on which distro? [message #17897 is a reply to message #17525] |
Tue, 02 September 2008 14:07 |
mr_ped
Messages: 826
Registered: November 2005
Location: Czech Republic - Praha
|
Experienced Contributor |
|
|
EDIT: this was supposed to be reply to another post in I think different thread, but it somehow got lost/deleted/moved when I was posting this?
And you still didn't even hit the "contribute the code, get refused anyway" scenario. 
Well, keep contributing with ideas, discussing them, and your target is to make Mirek believe those changes are good and important. (Or "Uno" is your second change to change something in official U++, the third member of core U++ team does not show up at forums AFAIK)
But don't expect anything happen very fast, if it does not directly suit their needs. Patience. (many of us are going trough this, with complete finished source package it is usually easier to get included into U++, and even that takes lot of time and labor, with major concept changes like your proposals the resistance will be even higher)
Also most of us do use U++ for real projects. Even if those projects are just for fun or their are commercial, but we have very specific needs, etc... most of the time we are just trying to "make it work, eventually fix it in universal way", not the opposite way.
[Updated on: Tue, 02 September 2008 14:18] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue Apr 28 12:01:12 GMT+2 2026
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01817 seconds
|
U++ framework
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
