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

symbianflo symbianflo at mandrivausers.ro
Mon May 13 17:18:36 MSK 2013


I'm not good enough , and I don't know the rpm history ,to answer
you ,but here is a very quick example:
[ symbianflo @ symbianflo ] - [ Mandrivausers.ro ] 
[ MRB:aint-no-shit $]: urpmq lib64freeglut-devel --provides
glut-devel[== 3.7]
freeglut-devel[== 2.8.0-2]
devel(libglut(64bit))
lib64freeglut-devel[== 2.8.0-2:2012.0]

can you do this in 2012.1 and you got pkgconfig(glut) provided,
so my spec would be something like .

%if %{mdvver} >= 201210
Buildrequires: pkgconfig(glut)
%else
Buildrequires: freeglut-devel
%endif


and many other..., maybe because the old versions of the foo don't 
provide foo.pc? I don't know.

You should know better.

greetings

Il giorno lun, 13/05/2013 alle 06.57 -0600, Matthew Dawkins ha scritto:
> 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).
>         > 
>         
>         
>         
>         
>         -- 
>         
>                    ***MandrivaUsers Romania Backports***
>                                            ***Rosalinux.ro***
>              I do thank you for your time , have a doable day
>                                                    SymbianFlo
>         
>         
>         _______________________________________________
>         rosa-devel mailing list
>         rosa-devel at lists.rosalab.ru
>         http://lists.rosalab.ru/mailman/listinfo/rosa-devel
>         
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rosa-devel mailing list
> rosa-devel at lists.rosalab.ru
> http://lists.rosalab.ru/mailman/listinfo/rosa-devel


-- 

           ***MandrivaUsers Romania Backports***
                                   ***Rosalinux.ro***
     I do thank you for your time , have a doable day
                                           SymbianFlo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rosalab.ru/pipermail/rosa-devel/attachments/20130513/6a745f6e/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/20130513/6a745f6e/attachment.png>
-------------- 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/20130513/6a745f6e/attachment-0001.png>


More information about the rosa-devel mailing list