[rosa-devel] Mass migration of packages to 'pkgconfig' BRs

Matthew Dawkins mattydaw at gmail.com
Mon May 13 16:57:31 MSK 2013


I'm curious why rosa LTS devel pkgs wouldnt have a pkgconfig provide? These
provides have been successfully detected and provided in RPM for years now.

Is it that a newer version of a specific pkg maybe now providing a
pkgconfig file?



On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 6:45 AM, symbianflo <symbianflo at mandrivausers.ro>wrote:

> **
> That's awesome , if it works is really awesome , but I have a problem...
> since a lot of my builds are based on specfiles that are  cross -rosa
> version
> meaning that I have a bcond that ask for pkgconfig(foo) %if %{mdvver} >=
> 201210
> else foo-devel where the foo don't generate a foo.pc file in LTS ( for
> various reasons),
> my question is all this spec files would be affected ?
> If yes that's bad.... a lot of specs  should be rewritten manually then....
> with hope that this tool will not overwrite ounce more foo-devel.
> I use to have single spec file per build for both rosa release ( and since
> this week
> I had in mind RELS too ...)  so finger cross....
> IMHO this would generate a lot of dead retrocompat. specs...and to keep
> one spec per %{mdvver}
> is double work ( for now , with newer rosa releases, more than double...)
> or we just forget about LTS
> (witch would be bad , we don't have yet 5 years passed..) and move on to
> fresh?
>
>
> greetings
>
>
>
> Il giorno lun, 13/05/2013 alle 16.24 +0400, Denis Silakov ha scritto:
>
> Hi all,
>
> As many of you likely know, many lib*-devel packages have several
> "Provides" entries that can be used to identify them - traditional
> 'libfoo-devel' and something like 'pkgconfig(foo)' (in case when library
> provides *pc files for pkgconfig).
> Quite long ago it was decided that if you want to add BuildRequires on
> libfoo, the preferred way is to use 'pkgconfig(foo)', not libfoo-devel.
> One of the reasons is that pkgconfig() provides are generated
> automatically, while libfoo-devel should be added manually. For many
> libraries 'libfoo-devel' provides are missing now, but not all of the
> packages are switched to pkgconfig() BRs (though maintainers have spent
> a lot of time on this). This is one of the often reasons of package
> build failures, and we even have a rpmlint check to detect old-style BRs
> ("invalid-build-requires").
>
> The good news is that as a part of FBA (http://fba.rosalinux.ru/)
> development, we've recently created an automated tool to fix
> "invalid-build-requires" errors which tries to transform 'libfoo-devel'
> to appropriate 'pkgconfig()' entries.
>
> The tool has been launched for a first time not long ago and is working
> right now. I expect ~350 packages to be fixed (~350 in cooker and ~350
> in rosa2012.1). To ensure that nothing is broken after the tool work,
> rebuild of every package is triggered, so abf will be a little busy in
> the nearest hours. Sorry for inconvenience, but this is a necessary step
> which will allow us to avoid many problems in future.
>
> Updated packages will be automatically published for cooker/main,
> cooker/contrib and rosa2012.1/contrib. Packages for rosa2012.1/main will
> not be published, since formally we need to start QA process for them,
> but I don't think it makes much sense (since there is no change in
> functionality, we only need to ensure that new BRs work).
>
>
>
>   --
>  <http://www.mandrivausers.ro/>
>            ***MandrivaUsers Romania Backports<http://mrb.mandrivausers.ro/>
> ***
>                                    ***Rosalinux.ro<http://www.rosalinux.ro/>
> ***
> *     I do thank you for your time , have a doable day*
> *                                           SymbianFlo<http://my.opera.com/symbianflo/blog/>
> *
>
> _______________________________________________
> rosa-devel mailing list
> rosa-devel at lists.rosalab.ru
> http://lists.rosalab.ru/mailman/listinfo/rosa-devel
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rosalab.ru/pipermail/rosa-devel/attachments/20130513/9c689b0c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: log_site_2_0.1.png
Type: image/png
Size: 41636 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.rosalab.ru/pipermail/rosa-devel/attachments/20130513/9c689b0c/attachment.png>


More information about the rosa-devel mailing list