I am happy to say the last rpm I had to create was back during 2.5 development testing days. Now I would find it convenient to roll another, and I'm hoping there's by now a better tools to help create an rpm from scratch, something more intuitive than the man page in one window and vi in the other.
Is there?
Am 14.03.2013 20:43, schrieb Bill Davidsen:
I am happy to say the last rpm I had to create was back during 2.5 development testing days. Now I would find it convenient to roll another, and I'm hoping there's by now a better tools to help create an rpm from scratch, something more intuitive than the man page in one window and vi in the other.
Is there?
* rpmbuild * the sources * a SPEC file
https://www.google.at/search?q=fdora+rpmbuild http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package
* read the prepare steps * taje a existig src.rpm * unpack it * try to understand it * rpmbuild -bb specfile.spec * wise: rpmbuild -bs specfile.spec to have your won ".src.rpm" whiche can be installed with "rpm -ivh" on any hosts and any users rpmbuild-tree to reuse it and contains any sources, patches and the SPEC
DO NOT BUILD RPMS AS ROOT
i am dealing with this since years each day for override fedora packages or build unpacked things because my personal rule is "anything for which i can not build my own RPM is strictly not allowed on any of my machines"
Bill Davidsen <davidsen <at> tmr.com> writes:
I am happy to say the last rpm I had to create was back during 2.5 development testing days. Now I would find it convenient to roll another, and I'm hoping there's by now a better tools to help create an rpm from scratch, something more intuitive than the man page in one window and vi in the other.
Is there?
Maximum RPM is still the definitive work on how to build RPMs:
Be aware that rpm tends to evolve over time and rpmbuild is not necessarily "backwards compatible." You need to use the version of rpmbuild that matches the oldest distribution you want to install on. My last gig had a lot of people on RHEL 5.X so I had to build on an RHEL 5.X platform. The resulting rpm still worked on RHEL 6 and Fedora.
Cheers, Dave
Bill Davidsen wrote:
I am happy to say the last rpm I had to create was back during 2.5 development testing days. Now I would find it convenient to roll another, and I'm hoping there's by now a better tool to help create an rpm from scratch, something more intuitive than the man page in one window and vi in the other.
Is there?
Sounds like NO, there has been progress in documentation since 2.5 days, but sounds like it all has to be created by hand in terms of scripts, spec files, etc. Thanks, but if it hasn't gotten less time consuming in 12-15 years, let it be someone else's time.
Thanks much for the pointer to better documentation, that has improved.
Am 15.03.2013 17:52, schrieb Bill Davidsen:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
I am happy to say the last rpm I had to create was back during 2.5 development testing days. Now I would find it convenient to roll another, and I'm hoping there's by now a better tool to help create an rpm from scratch, something more intuitive than the man page in one window and vi in the other.
Is there?
Sounds like NO, there has been progress in documentation since 2.5 days, but sounds like it all has to be created by hand in terms of scripts, spec files, etc. Thanks, but if it hasn't gotten less time consuming in 12-15 years, let it be someone else's time.
Thanks much for the pointer to better documentation, that has improved
oh come on this is laughable
take a existing SPEC and change the sources leave the %files empty and after teh first build you get a complete list of unpacked files
start a new package by hand usausally takes 2-5 minutes
Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 15.03.2013 17:52, schrieb Bill Davidsen:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
I am happy to say the last rpm I had to create was back during 2.5 development testing days. Now I would find it convenient to roll another, and I'm hoping there's by now a better tool to help create an rpm from scratch, something more intuitive than the man page in one window and vi in the other.
Is there?
Sounds like NO, there has been progress in documentation since 2.5 days, but sounds like it all has to be created by hand in terms of scripts, spec files, etc. Thanks, but if it hasn't gotten less time consuming in 12-15 years, let it be someone else's time.
Thanks much for the pointer to better documentation, that has improved
oh come on this is laughable
take a existing SPEC and change the sources leave the %files empty and after teh first build you get a complete list of unpacked files
start a new package by hand usausally takes 2-5 minutes
Your use of "new package" and "existing SPEC" in the same answer makes me sure you haven't understood the question. Since "RPMcreator" isn't in any recent Redhat release I can find, nor on any of the usual other sites, I assume there is another tool used, I just want the name of the tool!
Several people in various chat rooms have said "use the GUI" in various ways, but can't remember the name of the tool. Search engines don't so well with "it was RPM-something" or "it's on the system menu, called create rpm" so I had hopes of a better answer.
Sorry I haven't explained it clearly, but I think most people understood and just didn't have the answer.
On 03/15/2013 06:02 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 15.03.2013 17:52, schrieb Bill Davidsen:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
I am happy to say the last rpm I had to create was back during 2.5 development testing days. Now I would find it convenient to roll another, and I'm hoping there's by now a better tool to help create an rpm from scratch, something more intuitive than the man page in one window and vi in the other.
Is there?
Sounds like NO, there has been progress in documentation since 2.5 days, but sounds like it all has to be created by hand in terms of scripts, spec files, etc. Thanks, but if it hasn't gotten less time consuming in 12-15 years, let it be someone else's time.
Thanks much for the pointer to better documentation, that has improved
oh come on this is laughable
take a existing SPEC and change the sources leave the %files empty and after teh first build you get a complete list of unpacked files
start a new package by hand usausally takes 2-5 minutes
Using PCLOS, I put rpm into the search function in Synaptic and came up with a whole batch of files. For building rpms, or helping to build rpms, some but not all files I found were: easy rpm builder, java-rpmbuild, multi-arch utils, perl-Youri-Package-RPM-Builder, perl-Youri-Package-RPM-generator. Haven't tried any of them, but I'm sure your distro must have some , or some others like them. Why not find what you can install, and then read the fine manual for each and see where you're at. Maybe that will answer the question.
--doug
Am 15.03.2013 23:02, schrieb Bill Davidsen:
Reindl Harald wrote:
Sounds like NO, there has been progress in documentation since 2.5 days, but sounds like it all has to be created by hand in terms of scripts, spec files, etc. Thanks, but if it hasn't gotten less time consuming in 12-15 years, let it be someone else's time.
Thanks much for the pointer to better documentation, that has improved
oh come on this is laughable
take a existing SPEC and change the sources leave the %files empty and after teh first build you get a complete list of unpacked files
start a new package by hand usausally takes 2-5 minutes
Your use of "new package" and "existing SPEC" in the same answer makes me sure you haven't understood the question
no you did not understand the answer!
take the simplest src.rpm, unapck it and made a few changes for whatever you want to package
Since "RPMcreator" isn't in any recent Redhat release I can find, nor on any of the usual other sites, I assume there is another tool used, I just want the name of the tool!
what the hell did you not understand in "rpmbuild"
[builduser@buildserver:~/SPECS]$ rpmbuild -bb webalizer-xtended.spec Ausführung(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.UtiePL + umask 022 + cd /home/builduser/rpmbuild/BUILD + LANG=C + export LANG + unset DISPLAY + cd /home/builduser/rpmbuild/BUILD + rm -rf webalizer-2.23-05-RB29 + /usr/bin/gzip -dc /home/builduser/rpmbuild/SOURCES/webalizer-2.23-05-RB29-src.tar.gz + /usr/bin/tar -xf - .......................... Requires: libGeoIP.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.7)(64bit) libgd.so.2()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libpng15.so.15()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Processing files: webalizer-xtended-debuginfo-2.23_05_RB29-7.fc17.20130316.rh.x86_64 Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files /home/builduser/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/webalizer-xtended-2.23_05_RB29-7.fc17.20130316.rh.x86_64 Wrote: /home/builduser/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/webalizer-xtended-2.23_05_RB29-7.fc17.20130316.rh.x86_64.rpm Wrote: /home/builduser/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/webalizer-xtended-debuginfo-2.23_05_RB29-7.fc17.20130316.rh.x86_64.rpm __________________________
[builduser@buildserver:~/SPECS]$ cat webalizer-xtended.spec %define ver 2.23 %define patchlevel 05 %define xtendedver RB29 %define _default_patch_fuzz 2
Name: webalizer-xtended Summary: A flexible Web server log file analysis program. Group: Applications/Internet Version: %{ver}_%{patchlevel}_%{xtendedver} Release: 7%{?dist} URL: http://www.patrickfrei.ch/webalizer/ License: GPL V2 BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-root Source0: http://www.patrickfrei.ch/webalizer/rb29/webalizer-%%7Bver%7D-%%7Bpatchlevel... BuildRequires: gd-devel BuildRequires: zlib-devel BuildRequires: libpng-devel BuildRequires: db4-devel BuildRequires: m4 BuildRequires: make BuildRequires: bzip2-devel BuildRequires: GeoIP-devel Requires: shadow-utils Requires: fileutils Requires: webserver Requires: bzip2 Requires: GeoIP Requires: db4 Provides: webalizer = %{version}-%{release} Provides: webalizer-xtended = %{version}-%{release}-%{xtendedver}
%description The Webalizer is a Web server log analysis program. It is designed to scan Web server log files in various formats and produce usage statistics in HTML format for viewing through a browser. It produces professional looking graphs which make analyzing when and where your Web traffic is coming from easy. Webalizer Xtended is a fork of this and has been developed by Patrick Frei (Frei Software Development)
%prep %setup -q -n webalizer-%{ver}-%{patchlevel}-%{xtendedver}
%build source /home/builduser/config.sh export CPPFLAGS="-I%{_includedir}/db4 -O2 -march=$RH_TUNE -mtune=$RH_TUNE -mmmx -msse2 -msse3 $RH_SSE4 -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions" export CFLAGS="-O2 -march=$RH_TUNE -mtune=$RH_TUNE -mmmx -msse2 -msse3 $RH_SSE4 -fopenmp -mfpmath=sse -pipe -fno-strict-aliasing -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -Wno-pointer-sign -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions" export CXXFLAGS="-O2 -march=$RH_TUNE -mtune=$RH_TUNE -mmmx -msse2 -msse3 $RH_SSE4 -fopenmp -mfpmath=sse -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions" %configure --with-language=german --enable-geoip --enable-dns=no --without-db %{__make} %{?_smp_mflags}
%install rm -fr $RPM_BUILD_ROOT mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_bindir} \ $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_mandir}/man1 \ $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc \ $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/var/www/usage \ $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/var/lib/webalizer cp webalizer.1* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_mandir}/man1/ cp webalizer $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_bindir}/ rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/webalizer.conf.sample
%clean rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%files %defattr(-,root,root) %doc README %{_mandir}/man1/webalizer.1* %{_bindir}/*
%changelog * Fri Apr 22 2011 Reindl Harald h.reindl@thelounge.net - Update to RB29
On 03/14/2013 02:43 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
I am happy to say the last rpm I had to create was back during 2.5 development testing days. Now I would find it convenient to roll another, and I'm hoping there's by now a better tools to help create an rpm from scratch, something more intuitive than the man page in one window and vi in the other.
Is there?
Maybe "RHN Power User Tips and Tricks: Packaging Software" at http://people.redhat.com/tcameron/ and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_A6U2nWntE might be helpful?
Thomas
On 03/15/2013 09:52 AM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Sounds like NO, there has been progress in documentation since 2.5 days, but sounds like it all has to be created by hand in terms of scripts, spec files, etc. Thanks, but if it hasn't gotten less time consuming in 12-15 years, let it be someone else's time.
I started using rpm and building packages back in '97. I'm sure that my inexperience made it more time consuming back then then it should have been, but I definitely think it's less time consuming now than it was.
I saw that you were given one of the links to Fedora's rpm documentation. There's a larger collection organized starting here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Package_Maintainers?rd=PackageMainta...
With the simple guide here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_a_GNU_Hello_RPM_package
The rpmdev tools simplify most of the boilerplate stuff. mock will help you keep devel packages out of your system, and help ensure various quality checks. There's a package named eclipse-rpm-editor which, if installed, will add spec file support to Eclipse (which will also be installed if it isn't currently).
You'll never get completely away from editing a text file (the spec) while working with rpm. I've worked with other installers, like NSIS, and to date I've never seen any that are notably easier to use than rpm. If you really want something simpler than rpm, consider:
./configure make install DESTDIR=/var/tmp/package-buildroot cd /var/tmp/package-buildroot tar Jcf /var/tmp/package-$(date +%Y%m%d).tar.xz .
Thomas Cameron wrote:
On 03/14/2013 02:43 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
I am happy to say the last rpm I had to create was back during 2.5 development testing days. Now I would find it convenient to roll another, and I'm hoping there's by now a better tools to help create an rpm from scratch, something more intuitive than the man page in one window and vi in the other.
Is there?
Maybe "RHN Power User Tips and Tricks: Packaging Software" at http://people.redhat.com/tcameron/ and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_A6U2nWntE might be helpful?
Thomas
There is a lot of highly useful information in that directory, and while I haven't watched the video on a phone, I expect to find it helpful as well. These are valuable resources and I thank you for pointing them out.
But it seems that not only is there nothing better than the old "RPMcreator," but nothing similar. It asked clear, concise, unambiguous questions, and after you answered it went off and ate resources and spit out an RPM. No downloading other source RPMs and editing them by hand, nothing like that. It wrote scripts (one for sed, one for yacc of all things) and configs in a working directory, ran them, and popped out the RPM.
Again, thanks, it appears that the good old days are gone. :-(
Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 03/15/2013 09:52 AM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Sounds like NO, there has been progress in documentation since 2.5 days, but sounds like it all has to be created by hand in terms of scripts, spec files, etc. Thanks, but if it hasn't gotten less time consuming in 12-15 years, let it be someone else's time.
I started using rpm and building packages back in '97. I'm sure that my inexperience made it more time consuming back then then it should have been, but I definitely think it's less time consuming now than it was.
I saw that you were given one of the links to Fedora's rpm documentation. There's a larger collection organized starting here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Package_Maintainers?rd=PackageMainta...
With the simple guide here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_a_GNU_Hello_RPM_package
The rpmdev tools simplify most of the boilerplate stuff. mock will help you keep devel packages out of your system, and help ensure various quality checks. There's a package named eclipse-rpm-editor which, if installed, will add spec file support to Eclipse (which will also be installed if it isn't currently).
You'll never get completely away from editing a text file (the spec) while working with rpm. I've worked with other installers, like NSIS, and to date I've never seen any that are notably easier to use than rpm. If you really want something simpler than rpm, consider:
./configure make install DESTDIR=/var/tmp/package-buildroot cd /var/tmp/package-buildroot tar Jcf /var/tmp/package-$(date +%Y%m%d).tar.xz .
Actually I'm spoiled using RPMcreator years ago, it just asked questions and did the rest.
But in this case, I'm dealing with people who didn't even have tar and make installed, and expect that if I donated the programming I should donate support, too. Oh, and they still remind me I haven't made a money donation this year.
On 03/16/2013 12:13 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
But in this case, I'm dealing with people who didn't even have tar and make installed, and expect that if I donated the programming I should donate support, too. Oh, and they still remind me I haven't made a money donation this year.
Send them a statement showing exactly how much your time and effort would cost if you were charging them and tell them that they can either accept what you're willing to give, or insist on cash, but if they want cash, they're not getting your time for free.
On 03/16/2013 12:13 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Actually I'm spoiled using RPMcreator years ago, it just asked questions and did the rest.
You would need to fill in the same text-box fields in a a GUI app that you would fill in a template spec file. In both cases, you'll need to supply the build commands. In both cases, you'll have to run an app (rpmbuild or RPMcreator) to build the package. It literally isn't any easier to use RPMcreator than it is to create a spec and build a package, which is why there's not much interest in creating or maintaining applications like that.
But in this case, I'm dealing with people who didn't even have tar and make installed, and expect that if I donated the programming I should donate support, too. Oh, and they still remind me I haven't made a money donation this year.
Wherever you had the tools to run RPMcreator, you can use make and tar to build and "package" the application.
I don't believe you can easily install a system with no "tar". it's required by redhat-lsb-core, and included in even "base" installs.
On 03/16/2013 03:13 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 03/15/2013 09:52 AM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Sounds like NO, there has been progress in documentation since 2.5 days, but sounds like it all has to be created by hand in terms of scripts, spec files, etc. Thanks, but if it hasn't gotten less time consuming in 12-15 years, let it be someone else's time.
I started using rpm and building packages back in '97. I'm sure that my inexperience made it more time consuming back then then it should have been, but I definitely think it's less time consuming now than it was.
I saw that you were given one of the links to Fedora's rpm documentation. There's a larger collection organized starting here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Package_Maintainers?rd=PackageMainta...
With the simple guide here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_a_GNU_Hello_RPM_package
The rpmdev tools simplify most of the boilerplate stuff. mock will help you keep devel packages out of your system, and help ensure various quality checks. There's a package named eclipse-rpm-editor which, if installed, will add spec file support to Eclipse (which will also be installed if it isn't currently).
You'll never get completely away from editing a text file (the spec) while working with rpm. I've worked with other installers, like NSIS, and to date I've never seen any that are notably easier to use than rpm. If you really want something simpler than rpm, consider:
./configure make install DESTDIR=/var/tmp/package-buildroot cd /var/tmp/package-buildroot tar Jcf /var/tmp/package-$(date +%Y%m%d).tar.xz .
Actually I'm spoiled using RPMcreator years ago, it just asked questions and did the rest.
But in this case, I'm dealing with people who didn't even have tar and make installed, and expect that if I donated the programming I should donate support, too. Oh, and they still remind me I haven't made a money donation this year.
Downloaded rpm1.0.0.078.i386.rpm Got dependency: rpmdevtools, so downloaded that and unpacked it to: rpmdevtools-6.4, whihc is still in Download directory. Tried again: rpm -Uvh rpm1*.rpm and still got [doug@linux1 Downloads]$ sudo rpm -Uvh rpm1*.rpm error: Failed dependencies: rpmdevtools is needed by RPMCreator-1.0-78.i386
so now what?
Thanx for the answer--doug
Am 16.03.2013 21:26, schrieb Doug:
Downloaded rpm1.0.0.078.i386.rpm Got dependency: rpmdevtools, so downloaded that and unpacked it to: rpmdevtools-6.4, whihc is still in Download directory. Tried again: rpm -Uvh rpm1*.rpm and still got [doug@linux1 Downloads]$ sudo rpm -Uvh rpm1*.rpm error: Failed dependencies: rpmdevtools is needed by RPMCreator-1.0-78.i386
so now what?
why using rpm directly? yum install rpm1.0.0.078.i386.rpm
yum was invited to resolve dpendencies, so use it
On 03/16/2013 04:37 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 16.03.2013 21:26, schrieb Doug:
Downloaded rpm1.0.0.078.i386.rpm Got dependency: rpmdevtools, so downloaded that and unpacked it to: rpmdevtools-6.4, whihc is still in Download directory. Tried again: rpm -Uvh rpm1*.rpm and still got [doug@linux1 Downloads]$ sudo rpm -Uvh rpm1*.rpm error: Failed dependencies: rpmdevtools is needed by RPMCreator-1.0-78.i386
so now what?
why using rpm directly? yum install rpm1.0.0.078.i386.rpm
yum was invited to resolve dpendencies, so use it
My distro doesn't have YUM. --doug
Doug wrote:
On 03/16/2013 03:13 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 03/15/2013 09:52 AM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Sounds like NO, there has been progress in documentation since 2.5 days, but sounds like it all has to be created by hand in terms of scripts, spec files, etc. Thanks, but if it hasn't gotten less time consuming in 12-15 years, let it be someone else's time.
I started using rpm and building packages back in '97. I'm sure that my inexperience made it more time consuming back then then it should have been, but I definitely think it's less time consuming now than it was.
I saw that you were given one of the links to Fedora's rpm documentation. There's a larger collection organized starting here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Package_Maintainers?rd=PackageMainta...
With the simple guide here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_a_GNU_Hello_RPM_package
The rpmdev tools simplify most of the boilerplate stuff. mock will help you keep devel packages out of your system, and help ensure various quality checks. There's a package named eclipse-rpm-editor which, if installed, will add spec file support to Eclipse (which will also be installed if it isn't currently).
You'll never get completely away from editing a text file (the spec) while working with rpm. I've worked with other installers, like NSIS, and to date I've never seen any that are notably easier to use than rpm. If you really want something simpler than rpm, consider:
./configure make install DESTDIR=/var/tmp/package-buildroot cd /var/tmp/package-buildroot tar Jcf /var/tmp/package-$(date +%Y%m%d).tar.xz .
Actually I'm spoiled using RPMcreator years ago, it just asked questions and did the rest.
But in this case, I'm dealing with people who didn't even have tar and make installed, and expect that if I donated the programming I should donate support, too. Oh, and they still remind me I haven't made a money donation this year.
Downloaded rpm1.0.0.078.i386.rpm Got dependency: rpmdevtools, so downloaded that and unpacked it to: rpmdevtools-6.4, whihc is still in Download directory. Tried again: rpm -Uvh rpm1*.rpm and still got [doug@linux1 Downloads]$ sudo rpm -Uvh rpm1*.rpm error: Failed dependencies: rpmdevtools is needed by RPMCreator-1.0-78.i386
Try rpm -Uvh rpm1*.rpmdevtools*
so now what?
Thanx for the answer--doug
On 03/16/2013 04:24 PM, Doug wrote:
My distro doesn't have YUM. --doug
What distro are you using? AFAIK, yum is used by "almost all" RedHat based distros, including Fedora. And, if you're not using Fedora, why are you asking on a Fedora mailing list instead of one for your own distro? (Not that you aren't welcome here, it's just that you might get better assistance elsewhere.)
Am 17.03.2013 00:24, schrieb Doug:
On 03/16/2013 04:37 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 16.03.2013 21:26, schrieb Doug:
Downloaded rpm1.0.0.078.i386.rpm Got dependency: rpmdevtools, so downloaded that and unpacked it to: rpmdevtools-6.4, whihc is still in Download directory. Tried again: rpm -Uvh rpm1*.rpm and still got [doug@linux1 Downloads]$ sudo rpm -Uvh rpm1*.rpm error: Failed dependencies: rpmdevtools is needed by RPMCreator-1.0-78.i386
so now what?
why using rpm directly? yum install rpm1.0.0.078.i386.rpm
yum was invited to resolve dpendencies, so use it
My distro doesn't have YUM
FEDORA HAS YUM and you are on the Fedora mailing-list so maybe you should consult th elist of your distro or AT LEAST state at the very first beginning that you are NOT using fedora and WHAt are you using
"man zypper" on SuSE or so might help
Am 17.03.2013 00:52, schrieb Reindl Harald:
Am 17.03.2013 00:24, schrieb Doug:
On 03/16/2013 04:37 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 16.03.2013 21:26, schrieb Doug:
Downloaded rpm1.0.0.078.i386.rpm Got dependency: rpmdevtools, so downloaded that and unpacked it to: rpmdevtools-6.4, whihc is still in Download directory. Tried again: rpm -Uvh rpm1*.rpm and still got [doug@linux1 Downloads]$ sudo rpm -Uvh rpm1*.rpm error: Failed dependencies: rpmdevtools is needed by RPMCreator-1.0-78.i386
so now what?
why using rpm directly? yum install rpm1.0.0.078.i386.rpm
yum was invited to resolve dpendencies, so use it
My distro doesn't have YUM
FEDORA HAS YUM and you are on the Fedora mailing-list so maybe you should consult th elist of your distro or AT LEAST state at the very first beginning that you are NOT using fedora and WHAt are you using
"man zypper" on SuSE or so might help
and by the way:
"Got dependency: rpmdevtools, so downloaded that and unpacked it to: rpmdevtools-6.4, whihc is still in Download directory" is bullshit on any distro because the package manager is not interested in randomly unpacked archives because it is a package manager
so maybe you should first read the manuals how to use the package manager at all before think about building packages for it
On 03/16/2013 07:43 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 03/16/2013 04:24 PM, Doug wrote:
My distro doesn't have YUM. --doug
What distro are you using? AFAIK, yum is used by "almost all" RedHat based distros, including Fedora. And, if you're not using Fedora, why are you asking on a Fedora mailing list instead of one for your own distro? (Not that you aren't welcome here, it's just that you might get better assistance elsewhere.)
I still read the fedora list--I used RedHat/fedora whatever it was called then about 10 years ago. I am using PCLinuxOs which is a KDE distro and uses the rpm format, but PCLOS doesn't have that particular file. It does have some of the other rpm creation tools, but this one was supposed to be easier to use, so I figured I'd download it and have it available. FWIW, I don't have anything _today_ I want to make into an rpm.
Thank you for your interest. It seems there is at least one other reader of this list who does not like me. So don't answer then, Harald.
--doug
Am 17.03.2013 01:14, schrieb Doug:
Thank you for your interest. It seems there is at least one other reader of this list who does not like me. So don't answer then, Harald
it has nothing to do with "like"
if you state at the very first beginning that you are not using Fedora some completly nonsense in the context of the for Fedora existing would have made sense and you can save anybody time if you provide a minimum of information
it is not that i not like YOU, i do not like the way you act
On 16.03.2013 19:21, Bill Davidsen wrote: ...
Again, thanks, it appears that the good old days are gone. :-(
http://asic-linux.com.mx/~izto/checkinstall/ ;)
poma
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 03/16/2013 03:13 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 03/15/2013 09:52 AM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Sounds like NO, there has been progress in documentation since 2.5 days, but sounds like it all has to be created by hand in terms of scripts, spec files, etc. Thanks, but if it hasn't gotten less time consuming in 12-15 years, let it be someone else's time.
I started using rpm and building packages back in '97. I'm sure that my inexperience made it more time consuming back then then it should have been, but I definitely think it's less time consuming now than it was.
I saw that you were given one of the links to Fedora's rpm documentation. There's a larger collection organized starting here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Package_Maintainers?rd=PackageMainta...
With the simple guide here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_a_GNU_Hello_RPM_package
The rpmdev tools simplify most of the boilerplate stuff. mock will help you keep devel packages out of your system, and help ensure various quality checks. There's a package named eclipse-rpm-editor which, if installed, will add spec file support to Eclipse (which will also be installed if it isn't currently).
You'll never get completely away from editing a text file (the spec) while working with rpm. I've worked with other installers, like NSIS, and to date I've never seen any that are notably easier to use than rpm. If you really want something simpler than rpm, consider:
./configure make install DESTDIR=/var/tmp/package-buildroot cd /var/tmp/package-buildroot tar Jcf /var/tmp/package-$(date +%Y%m%d).tar.xz .
Actually I'm spoiled using RPMcreator years ago, it just asked questions and did the rest.
But in this case, I'm dealing with people who didn't even have tar and make installed, and expect that if I donated the programming I should donate support, too. Oh, and they still remind me I haven't made a money donation this year.
Downloaded rpm1.0.0.078.i386.rpm Got dependency: rpmdevtools, so downloaded that and unpacked it to: rpmdevtools-6.4, whihc is still in Download directory. Tried again: rpm -Uvh rpm1*.rpm and still got [doug@linux1 Downloads]$ sudo rpm -Uvh rpm1*.rpm error: Failed dependencies: rpmdevtools is needed by RPMCreator-1.0-78.i386
Try rpm -Uvh rpm1*.rpmdevtools*
Sorry, something ate my space, it looked okay on the screen but not in my sent folder. I think the way you're doing it, it all must be on the same line: rpm -Uvh rpm1*.rpm devtools*.rpm
so now what?
Thanx for the answer--doug
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Bill Davidsen davidsen@tmr.com wrote:
Sounds like NO, there has been progress in documentation since 2.5 days, but sounds like it all has to be created by hand in terms of scripts, spec files, etc. Thanks, but if it hasn't gotten less time consuming in 12-15 years, let it be someone else's time.
Have you looked at the Packager's Guide in the Fedora Docs? It's still in draft status, but seems to be a very nice modern refresh of the RPM documentation. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora_Draft_Documentation/0.1/html/Pac...
-- Jared Smith
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Reindl Harald h.reindl@thelounge.net wrote:
what the hell did you not understand in "rpmbuild"
Your tone is not appropriate... it sounds like the original poster either doesn't have a spec file to begin with, or doesn't understand it. There's no reason to talk down to him like this.
-- Jared Smith
Am 18.03.2013 18:30, schrieb Jared K. Smith:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Reindl Harald h.reindl@thelounge.net wrote:
what the hell did you not understand in "rpmbuild"
Your tone is not appropriate... it sounds like the original poster either doesn't have a spec file to begin with, or doesn't understand it. There's no reason to talk down to him like this
the problem was that the OP did even not have Fedora and YUM and if he would state this at the very first begin of the thread i would not have answered in the whole thread because i do not know how tu build RPM's on other distributions nor i am interested in do it
either doesn't have a spec file to begin with
well, and that is why i started with "unpack a existing src.rpm" and look at the SPEC file which is cleraly doable for packages which are only a few KB small and have SPEC files with lower than 100 lines
On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 18:37:16 +0100 Reindl Harald h.reindl@thelounge.net wrote:
the problem was that the OP did even not have Fedora and YUM and if he would state this at the very first begin of the thread i would not have answered in the whole thread because i do not know how tu build RPM's on other distributions nor i am interested in do it
Bill is the OP, Doug doesn't use Fedora.
poma wrote:
On 16.03.2013 19:21, Bill Davidsen wrote: ...
Again, thanks, it appears that the good old days are gone. :-(
Thanks, I'll take a look at that.
Jared K. Smith wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Bill Davidsen davidsen@tmr.com wrote:
Sounds like NO, there has been progress in documentation since 2.5 days, but sounds like it all has to be created by hand in terms of scripts, spec files, etc. Thanks, but if it hasn't gotten less time consuming in 12-15 years, let it be someone else's time.
Have you looked at the Packager's Guide in the Fedora Docs? It's still in draft status, but seems to be a very nice modern refresh of the RPM documentation. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora_Draft_Documentation/0.1/html/Pac...
Thank you, I confess that I generally assume Draft Documentation is more intended to be read by those who know the topic and can catch technical errors. I will take a look, since the nice tool which made the process easy seems not readily available. For one group, I confess I probably would do as well to build static binaries independent of their shortcomings.
Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 18.03.2013 18:30, schrieb Jared K. Smith:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Reindl Harald h.reindl@thelounge.net wrote:
what the hell did you not understand in "rpmbuild"
Your tone is not appropriate... it sounds like the original poster either doesn't have a spec file to begin with, or doesn't understand it. There's no reason to talk down to him like this
the problem was that the OP did even not have Fedora and YUM and if he would state this at the very first begin of the thread i would not have answered in the whole thread because i do not know how tu build RPM's on other distributions nor i am interested in do it
I can't imagine why you would think I wasn't using Fedora, other than perhaps confusing Doug and I through lack of attention to detail.
either doesn't have a spec file to begin with
well, and that is why i started with "unpack a existing src.rpm" and look at the SPEC file which is cleraly doable for packages which are only a few KB small and have SPEC files with lower than 100 lines
As I said before, there is no existing SPEC for this package. Since I have used a tool which asked questions in human readable form so you could go through it quickly, I was looking for a similar tool, which I'm now willing to assume is no longer maintained.
On 21.03.2013 01:20, Bill Davidsen wrote:
poma wrote:
On 16.03.2013 19:21, Bill Davidsen wrote: ...
Again, thanks, it appears that the good old days are gone. :-(
Thanks, I'll take a look at that.
wget -c http://asic-linux.com.mx/~izto/checkinstall/files/source/checkinstall-1.6.2.... tar xf checkinstall-1.6.2.tar.gz cd checkinstall-1.6.2/ patch -p1 < ../checkinstall-1.6.2.novus.patch[1] make su make install /usr/local/sbin/checkinstall -R [-y] --fstrans=no --exclude=/sys rpm -ivh /root/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/checkinstall-1.6.2-1.x86_64.rpm
Checkinstall is an ad hoc packaging solution, not related to the Fedora packaging guidelines.
poma
[1] http://www.patrickmin.com/linux/tip.php?name=checkinstall_fedora_13
Am 21.03.2013 01:37, schrieb Bill Davidsen:
Reindl Harald wrote:
well, and that is why i started with "unpack a existing src.rpm" and look at the SPEC file which is cleraly doable for packages which are only a few KB small and have SPEC files with lower than 100 lines
As I said before, there is no existing SPEC for this package
do you really not understand what i am saying?
http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/powertop/2.3/1.fc18/src/powertop...
unpack it and you have the SPEC file below this is really really simple to adopt for ANY own package _______________________________
Name: powertop Version: 2.3 Release: 1%{?dist} Summary: Power consumption monitor
Group: Applications/System License: GPLv2 URL: http://01.org/powertop/ Source0: http://01.org/powertop/sites/default/files/downloads/%%7Bname%7D-%%7Bversion...
# Sent upstream Patch0: powertop-2.3-always-create-params.patch
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) BuildRequires: gettext, ncurses-devel, pciutils-devel, zlib-devel, libnl3-devel
%description PowerTOP is a tool that finds the software component(s) that make your computer use more power than necessary while it is idle.
%prep %setup -q %patch0 -p1 -b .always-create-params
# remove left over object files find . -name "*.o" -exec rm {} ;
%build %configure make %{?_smp_mflags} CFLAGS="%{optflags}"
%install rm -rf %{buildroot} make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install -Dd %{buildroot}%{_localstatedir}/cache/powertop touch %{buildroot}%{_localstatedir}/cache/powertop/{saved_parameters.powertop,saved_results.powertop} %find_lang %{name}
%post # Hack for powertop not to show warnings on first start touch %{_localstatedir}/cache/powertop/{saved_parameters.powertop,saved_results.powertop}
%clean rm -rf %{buildroot}
%files -f %{name}.lang %defattr(-,root,root,-) %doc COPYING README TODO %dir %{_localstatedir}/cache/powertop %ghost %{_localstatedir}/cache/powertop/saved_parameters.powertop %ghost %{_localstatedir}/cache/powertop/saved_results.powertop %{_sbindir}/powertop %{_mandir}/man8/powertop.8*
%changelog * Wed Mar 20 2013 Jaroslav Å karvada jskarvad@redhat.com - 2.3-1
poma wrote:
On 21.03.2013 01:20, Bill Davidsen wrote:
poma wrote:
On 16.03.2013 19:21, Bill Davidsen wrote: ...
Again, thanks, it appears that the good old days are gone. :-(
Thanks, I'll take a look at that.
wget -c http://asic-linux.com.mx/~izto/checkinstall/files/source/checkinstall-1.6.2.... tar xf checkinstall-1.6.2.tar.gz cd checkinstall-1.6.2/ patch -p1 < ../checkinstall-1.6.2.novus.patch[1] make su make install /usr/local/sbin/checkinstall -R [-y] --fstrans=no --exclude=/sys rpm -ivh /root/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/checkinstall-1.6.2-1.x86_64.rpm
Checkinstall is an ad hoc packaging solution, not related to the Fedora packaging guidelines.
poma
[1] http://www.patrickmin.com/linux/tip.php?name=checkinstall_fedora_13
Thanks, will take a look.
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 2:06 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 21.03.2013 01:37, schrieb Bill Davidsen:
Reindl Harald wrote:
well, and that is why i started with "unpack a existing src.rpm" and look at the SPEC file which is cleraly doable for packages which are only a few KB small and have SPEC files with lower than 100 lines
As I said before, there is no existing SPEC for this package
do you really not understand what i am saying?
Having just read through the entire thread, it seems clear that you don't understand what *he* is saying.
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 09:11:08AM -0700, Alan Evans wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 2:06 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 21.03.2013 01:37, schrieb Bill Davidsen:
Reindl Harald wrote:
well, and that is why i started with "unpack a existing src.rpm" and look at the SPEC file which is cleraly doable for packages which are only a few KB small and have SPEC files with lower than 100 lines
As I said before, there is no existing SPEC for this package
do you really not understand what i am saying?
Having just read through the entire thread, it seems clear that you don't understand what *he* is saying.
Let me give it a shot. Bill wants to package an application that does not have an existing source rpm. Hence there is no existing spec file. He wants a utility that will help him write a spec file from scratch.
Hope this helps,
Am 21.03.2013 19:55, schrieb Suvayu Ali:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 09:11:08AM -0700, Alan Evans wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 2:06 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 21.03.2013 01:37, schrieb Bill Davidsen:
Reindl Harald wrote:
well, and that is why i started with "unpack a existing src.rpm" and look at the SPEC file which is cleraly doable for packages which are only a few KB small and have SPEC files with lower than 100 lines
As I said before, there is no existing SPEC for this package
do you really not understand what i am saying?
Having just read through the entire thread, it seems clear that you don't understand what *he* is saying.
Let me give it a shot. Bill wants to package an application that does not have an existing source rpm. Hence there is no existing spec file. He wants a utility that will help him write a spec file from scratch
so what - and i showed a simply example SPEC which is adopetd within 5 minutes to build your own one - no utility needed except a text editor
and yes this is how i learned to build RPMS which is now one of my daily-business jobs in our own infrastructure
How about an intermediate solution:
# yum install rpmdevtools
$ rpmdev-newspec -t <type> <package name>.spec
That will take care of the heavy lifting...
Richard
-
Alan Evans -
Bill Davidsen -
David G. Miller (aka DaveAtFraud) -
Doug -
Frank Murphy -
Gordon Messmer -
Jared K. Smith -
Joe Zeff -
poma -
Reindl Harald -
Richard Shaw -
Suvayu Ali -
thomas cameron