You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com> on 2011/11/15 17:00:43 UTC
[CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
Hi,
i am currently trying to build with a system available epm tool. And i
am right now building on a Ubuntu 11.10 with epm 4.2. Does anybody have
built with a system epm on a Linux system?
Juergen
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
Hi,
latest update!
epm is now handled similar to dmake and can be seen as a prerequisite.
1. epm is searched on the path and has to be a patched version of epm 3.7
2. --with-epm=<path_to_epm> where the path has to point to a patched
version of epm 3.7
3. --with-epm-url=<url_to_epm-3.7-sources> for example
"http://ftp.easysw.com/pub/epm/3.7/epm-3.7-source.tar.gz"
The original source package is downloaded and build if explicitly
triggered by using this configure switch. "configure --help" will
provide the link to the original source.
4. --disable-epm, disables epm and on platforms where epm is required no
packages are build.
Long term solution is to adapt the packaging process to work with an
unpatched system epm or find another packaging solution.
Juergen
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
On 11/23/11 2:47 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
> Hi Jürgen,
>
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 02:10:38PM +0100, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> the hint with rpmbuild was good, it seems that my built epm (no
>> special configure switches) haven't found rpmbuild during the
>> configure step and switched back to rpm. I will check this but i
>> assume i will run in the same problems as Ariel then.
>
> you're right, you must have rpmbuild installed according to epm's
> configure.in:
>
> if test "x$RPMBUILD" != x; then
> AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED(EPM_RPMBUILD, "$RPMBUILD")
> AC_DEFINE(EPM_RPMTOPDIR)
> else
> if test "x$RPM" != x; then
> AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED(EPM_RPMBUILD, "$RPM")
> else
> AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED(EPM_RPMBUILD, "rpm")
> fi
> fi
>
i solved this, after a rebuild of epm it worked
But i got the same error as you now
>
> yesterday I was trying to debug epm to see how it works, just in case
> anyone tries this, --enable-debug is useless because binaries are
> stripped when installed, you have to hack Makefile.am and remove all the
> lines invoking $(STRIP).
>
>
> Packaging debs with epm 4.2 is also broken here on Fedora16:
>
> Success: Executed
> "LD_PRELOAD=/mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/solver/340/unxlngx6/bin/getuid.so
> /home/ariel/src/devel/epm/epm-4.2/INST/bin/epm -f deb
> ooobasis3.4-ogltrans
> /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/deb/listfile/en-US/epm_gid_Module_Optional_OGLTrans.lst
> --output-dir DEBS -v9 2>&1 |" successfully!
>
> Moved directory from
> /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US_inprogress
> to
> /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US_witherror
>
> Removing directory /tmp/ooopackaging/i_60551321544337
>
> ***************************************************************
> ERROR: More than one new package in directory
> /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US_inprogress/DEBS
> ( /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US_inprogress/DEBS/ooobasis3.4-ogltrans-3.4.0-1-linux-3.1-x86_64
> /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US_inprogress/DEBS/ooobasis3.4-ogltrans-3.4.0-1-linux-3.1-x86_64.deb)
> in function: determine_new_packagename (packagepool)
> ***************************************************************
>
disable the packagepool process
In instsetoo_native/util/openoffice.lst look for POOLPRODUCT=1 and set
it to 0.
Juergen
>
> Regards
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
Posted by Ariel Constenla-Haile <ar...@apache.org>.
Hi Jürgen,
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 02:10:38PM +0100, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> the hint with rpmbuild was good, it seems that my built epm (no
> special configure switches) haven't found rpmbuild during the
> configure step and switched back to rpm. I will check this but i
> assume i will run in the same problems as Ariel then.
you're right, you must have rpmbuild installed according to epm's
configure.in:
if test "x$RPMBUILD" != x; then
AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED(EPM_RPMBUILD, "$RPMBUILD")
AC_DEFINE(EPM_RPMTOPDIR)
else
if test "x$RPM" != x; then
AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED(EPM_RPMBUILD, "$RPM")
else
AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED(EPM_RPMBUILD, "rpm")
fi
fi
yesterday I was trying to debug epm to see how it works, just in case
anyone tries this, --enable-debug is useless because binaries are
stripped when installed, you have to hack Makefile.am and remove all the
lines invoking $(STRIP).
Packaging debs with epm 4.2 is also broken here on Fedora16:
Success: Executed
"LD_PRELOAD=/mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/solver/340/unxlngx6/bin/getuid.so
/home/ariel/src/devel/epm/epm-4.2/INST/bin/epm -f deb
ooobasis3.4-ogltrans
/mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/deb/listfile/en-US/epm_gid_Module_Optional_OGLTrans.lst
--output-dir DEBS -v9 2>&1 |" successfully!
Moved directory from
/mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US_inprogress
to
/mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US_witherror
Removing directory /tmp/ooopackaging/i_60551321544337
***************************************************************
ERROR: More than one new package in directory
/mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US_inprogress/DEBS
( /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US_inprogress/DEBS/ooobasis3.4-ogltrans-3.4.0-1-linux-3.1-x86_64
/mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US_inprogress/DEBS/ooobasis3.4-ogltrans-3.4.0-1-linux-3.1-x86_64.deb)
in function: determine_new_packagename (packagepool)
***************************************************************
Regards
--
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
the hint with rpmbuild was good, it seems that my built epm (no special
configure switches) haven't found rpmbuild during the configure step and
switched back to rpm. I will check this but i assume i will run in the
same problems as Ariel then.
Juergen
On 11/23/11 1:58 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> and of course rpmbuild would understand the parameters --bb --buildroot=
>
> mmh, strange i will check it ones more and will try to understand why
> rpm is called instead of rpmbuild.
>
> Any hints are welcome.
>
> Juergen
>
> On 11/23/11 1:54 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> On 11/22/11 11:18 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:25:43PM +0100, Michael Stahl wrote:
>>>> On 22.11.2011 11:57, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>> I stumbled over problems using a downloaded epm 4.2
>>>>> (http://www.epmhome.org), build and install it on a Fedora 16 system
>>>>> (rpm based).
>>>>>
>>>>> The epm call failed to build the rpm packages. It seems that epm
>>>>> triggers /bin/rpm with some parameters that are not accepted. I don't
>>>>> understand why at the moment.
>>>>
>>>> /bin/rpm on a recent Fedora can not build packages, it can only do the
>>>> things necessary on a running system: install etc.; there is an extra
>>>> package "rpm-build" with a /usr/bin/rpmbuild program that is used to
>>>> build
>>>> packages.
>>>
>>> epm executes rpmbuild here (Fedora 16):
>>>
>>> /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/listfile/en-US/epm_gid_Module_Root_Files_Images.lst
>>>
>>>
>>> --output-dir RPMS -v9 2>&1 |
>>> Building target platforms: x86_64
>>> Building for target x86_64
>>> Processing files: ooobasis3.4-images-3.4.0-9584.x86_64
>>> Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames)<= 3.0.4-1
>>> rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix)<= 4.0-1
>>> Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files
>>> /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/buildroot
>>>
>>>
>>> Wrote:
>>> /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/RPMS/x86_64/ooobasis3.4-images-3.4.0-9584.x86_64.rpm
>>>
>>>
>>> Executing(%clean): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG
>>> + umask 022
>>> + cd
>>> /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/BUILD
>>>
>>>
>>> /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG: line 27: cd:
>>> /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/BUILD:
>>>
>>>
>>> No such file or directory
>>> PROBLEM: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG (%clean)
>>>
>>>
>>> The error is clear: when trying to clean, it cds into a
>>> non-existent directory and thus aborts.
>>> /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG is also clear about it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Looking at RPMS folder while generating the first package, there is no
>>> BUILD
>>> folder inside.
>>> With the patched epm 3.7 the BUILD folder is there, and removed after
>>> the package is built.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure where the issue is here, the whole thing does not look very
>>> rpmbuild standard.
>>> In a standard rpmbuild you have a root folder, usually ~/rpmbuild with
>>> the following content:
>>>
>>> RPMS
>>> BUILD
>>> SOURCES
>>> SPECS
>>> SRPMS
>>>
>>> and packages are built inside ~/rpmbuild/BUILD, that's why rpmbuild
>>> tries to cd there and clean.
>>>
>> i am now confused where you see that rpmbuild is used?
>>
>> When i try to use a fresh downloaded unpatched version of epm 4.2 and
>> check the output and the log file i can only see that epm is called with
>>
>> /usr/bin/epm -f rpm ooobasis3.4-gnome-integration
>> /home/jsc/dev/git/currentwork/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6.pro/OpenOffice/rpm/listfile/en-US/epm_gid_Module_Optional_Gnome.lst
>>
>> --output-dir RPMS -v2 2>&1 |
>>
>> and in the log file i can see that epm triggers rpm (well it looks that
>> epm trigger this)
>> ....
>> Building RPM binary distribution...
>> /bin/rpm -bb --buildroot
>> "/home/jsc/dev/git/currentwork/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6.pro/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/buildroot"
>>
>> --target x86_64 RPMS/ooobasis3.4-gnome-integration.spec
>>
>> I haven't noticed any call of rpmbuild.
>>
>>
>> Juergen
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
and of course rpmbuild would understand the parameters --bb --buildroot=
mmh, strange i will check it ones more and will try to understand why
rpm is called instead of rpmbuild.
Any hints are welcome.
Juergen
On 11/23/11 1:54 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 11/22/11 11:18 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:25:43PM +0100, Michael Stahl wrote:
>>> On 22.11.2011 11:57, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>> I stumbled over problems using a downloaded epm 4.2
>>>> (http://www.epmhome.org), build and install it on a Fedora 16 system
>>>> (rpm based).
>>>>
>>>> The epm call failed to build the rpm packages. It seems that epm
>>>> triggers /bin/rpm with some parameters that are not accepted. I don't
>>>> understand why at the moment.
>>>
>>> /bin/rpm on a recent Fedora can not build packages, it can only do the
>>> things necessary on a running system: install etc.; there is an extra
>>> package "rpm-build" with a /usr/bin/rpmbuild program that is used to
>>> build
>>> packages.
>>
>> epm executes rpmbuild here (Fedora 16):
>>
>> /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/listfile/en-US/epm_gid_Module_Root_Files_Images.lst
>>
>> --output-dir RPMS -v9 2>&1 |
>> Building target platforms: x86_64
>> Building for target x86_64
>> Processing files: ooobasis3.4-images-3.4.0-9584.x86_64
>> Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames)<= 3.0.4-1
>> rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix)<= 4.0-1
>> Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files
>> /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/buildroot
>>
>> Wrote:
>> /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/RPMS/x86_64/ooobasis3.4-images-3.4.0-9584.x86_64.rpm
>>
>> Executing(%clean): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG
>> + umask 022
>> + cd
>> /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/BUILD
>>
>> /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG: line 27: cd:
>> /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/BUILD:
>>
>> No such file or directory
>> PROBLEM: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG (%clean)
>>
>>
>> The error is clear: when trying to clean, it cds into a
>> non-existent directory and thus aborts.
>> /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG is also clear about it.
>>
>>
>> Looking at RPMS folder while generating the first package, there is no
>> BUILD
>> folder inside.
>> With the patched epm 3.7 the BUILD folder is there, and removed after
>> the package is built.
>>
>> I'm not sure where the issue is here, the whole thing does not look very
>> rpmbuild standard.
>> In a standard rpmbuild you have a root folder, usually ~/rpmbuild with
>> the following content:
>>
>> RPMS
>> BUILD
>> SOURCES
>> SPECS
>> SRPMS
>>
>> and packages are built inside ~/rpmbuild/BUILD, that's why rpmbuild
>> tries to cd there and clean.
>>
> i am now confused where you see that rpmbuild is used?
>
> When i try to use a fresh downloaded unpatched version of epm 4.2 and
> check the output and the log file i can only see that epm is called with
>
> /usr/bin/epm -f rpm ooobasis3.4-gnome-integration
> /home/jsc/dev/git/currentwork/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6.pro/OpenOffice/rpm/listfile/en-US/epm_gid_Module_Optional_Gnome.lst
> --output-dir RPMS -v2 2>&1 |
>
> and in the log file i can see that epm triggers rpm (well it looks that
> epm trigger this)
> ....
> Building RPM binary distribution...
> /bin/rpm -bb --buildroot
> "/home/jsc/dev/git/currentwork/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6.pro/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/buildroot"
> --target x86_64 RPMS/ooobasis3.4-gnome-integration.spec
>
> I haven't noticed any call of rpmbuild.
>
>
> Juergen
>
>
>
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
On 11/22/11 11:18 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:25:43PM +0100, Michael Stahl wrote:
>> On 22.11.2011 11:57, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>> I stumbled over problems using a downloaded epm 4.2
>>> (http://www.epmhome.org), build and install it on a Fedora 16 system
>>> (rpm based).
>>>
>>> The epm call failed to build the rpm packages. It seems that epm
>>> triggers /bin/rpm with some parameters that are not accepted. I don't
>>> understand why at the moment.
>>
>> /bin/rpm on a recent Fedora can not build packages, it can only do the
>> things necessary on a running system: install etc.; there is an extra
>> package "rpm-build" with a /usr/bin/rpmbuild program that is used to build
>> packages.
>
> epm executes rpmbuild here (Fedora 16):
>
> /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/listfile/en-US/epm_gid_Module_Root_Files_Images.lst
> --output-dir RPMS -v9 2>&1 |
> Building target platforms: x86_64
> Building for target x86_64
> Processing files: ooobasis3.4-images-3.4.0-9584.x86_64
> Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames)<= 3.0.4-1
> rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix)<= 4.0-1
> Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files
> /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/buildroot
> Wrote:
> /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/RPMS/x86_64/ooobasis3.4-images-3.4.0-9584.x86_64.rpm
> Executing(%clean): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG
> + umask 022
> + cd
> /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/BUILD
> /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG: line 27: cd:
> /mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/BUILD:
> No such file or directory
> PROBLEM: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG (%clean)
>
>
> The error is clear: when trying to clean, it cds into a
> non-existent directory and thus aborts.
> /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG is also clear about it.
>
>
> Looking at RPMS folder while generating the first package, there is no BUILD
> folder inside.
> With the patched epm 3.7 the BUILD folder is there, and removed after
> the package is built.
>
> I'm not sure where the issue is here, the whole thing does not look very
> rpmbuild standard.
> In a standard rpmbuild you have a root folder, usually ~/rpmbuild with
> the following content:
>
> RPMS
> BUILD
> SOURCES
> SPECS
> SRPMS
>
> and packages are built inside ~/rpmbuild/BUILD, that's why rpmbuild
> tries to cd there and clean.
>
i am now confused where you see that rpmbuild is used?
When i try to use a fresh downloaded unpatched version of epm 4.2 and
check the output and the log file i can only see that epm is called with
/usr/bin/epm -f rpm ooobasis3.4-gnome-integration
/home/jsc/dev/git/currentwork/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6.pro/OpenOffice/rpm/listfile/en-US/epm_gid_Module_Optional_Gnome.lst
--output-dir RPMS -v2 2>&1 |
and in the log file i can see that epm triggers rpm (well it looks that
epm trigger this)
....
Building RPM binary distribution...
/bin/rpm -bb --buildroot
"/home/jsc/dev/git/currentwork/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6.pro/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/buildroot"
--target x86_64 RPMS/ooobasis3.4-gnome-integration.spec
I haven't noticed any call of rpmbuild.
Juergen
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
Posted by Ariel Constenla-Haile <ar...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:25:43PM +0100, Michael Stahl wrote:
> On 22.11.2011 11:57, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> > I stumbled over problems using a downloaded epm 4.2
> > (http://www.epmhome.org), build and install it on a Fedora 16 system
> > (rpm based).
> >
> > The epm call failed to build the rpm packages. It seems that epm
> > triggers /bin/rpm with some parameters that are not accepted. I don't
> > understand why at the moment.
>
> /bin/rpm on a recent Fedora can not build packages, it can only do the
> things necessary on a running system: install etc.; there is an extra
> package "rpm-build" with a /usr/bin/rpmbuild program that is used to build
> packages.
epm executes rpmbuild here (Fedora 16):
/mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/listfile/en-US/epm_gid_Module_Root_Files_Images.lst
--output-dir RPMS -v9 2>&1 |
Building target platforms: x86_64
Building for target x86_64
Processing files: ooobasis3.4-images-3.4.0-9584.x86_64
Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files
/mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/buildroot
Wrote:
/mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/RPMS/x86_64/ooobasis3.4-images-3.4.0-9584.x86_64.rpm
Executing(%clean): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG
+ umask 022
+ cd
/mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/BUILD
/var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG: line 27: cd:
/mnt/build/openoffice/apache/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/OpenOffice/rpm/install/en-US_inprogress/RPMS/BUILD:
No such file or directory
PROBLEM: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG (%clean)
The error is clear: when trying to clean, it cds into a
non-existent directory and thus aborts.
/var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TNTmTG is also clear about it.
Looking at RPMS folder while generating the first package, there is no BUILD
folder inside.
With the patched epm 3.7 the BUILD folder is there, and removed after
the package is built.
I'm not sure where the issue is here, the whole thing does not look very
rpmbuild standard.
In a standard rpmbuild you have a root folder, usually ~/rpmbuild with
the following content:
RPMS
BUILD
SOURCES
SPECS
SRPMS
and packages are built inside ~/rpmbuild/BUILD, that's why rpmbuild
tries to cd there and clean.
Regards
--
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
Posted by eric b <er...@free.fr>.
Hi Michael,
Le 22 nov. 11 à 22:25, Michael Stahl a écrit :
> On 22.11.2011 11:57, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> I stumbled over problems using a downloaded epm 4.2 (http://
>> www.epmhome.org), build and install it on a Fedora 16 system (rpm
>> based).
>>
>> The epm call failed to build the rpm packages. It seems that epm
>> triggers /bin/rpm with some parameters that are not accepted. I
>> don't understand why at the moment.
>
> /bin/rpm on a recent Fedora can not build packages, it can only do
> the things necessary on a running system: install etc.; there is an
> extra package "rpm-build" with a /usr/bin/rpmbuild program that is
> used to build packages.
Thanks, I didn't remember the exact name :)
> [ i have no idea why we use a "patched" epm, or whether an
> unpatched epm
> would work ]
>
There is a beginning of answer in main/solenv/bin/
make_installer.pl , around line 1642
+ more information in main/solenv/modules/installer/epmfile.pm
(around line 859)
Regards,
Eric
--
qɔᴉɹə
Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page
L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org
Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
Posted by Michael Stahl <ms...@openoffice.org>.
On 22.11.2011 11:57, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> I stumbled over problems using a downloaded epm 4.2
> (http://www.epmhome.org), build and install it on a Fedora 16 system
> (rpm based).
>
> The epm call failed to build the rpm packages. It seems that epm
> triggers /bin/rpm with some parameters that are not accepted. I don't
> understand why at the moment.
/bin/rpm on a recent Fedora can not build packages, it can only do the
things necessary on a running system: install etc.; there is an extra
package "rpm-build" with a /usr/bin/rpmbuild program that is used to build
packages.
IIRC i once changed configure to complain if you have a /bin/rpm that
cannot build and no rpmbuild, perhaps that check bitrotted...
[ i have no idea why we use a "patched" epm, or whether an unpatched epm
would work ]
regards,
michael
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
Posted by eric b <er...@free.fr>.
Le 22 nov. 11 à 11:57, Jürgen Schmidt a écrit :
> Hi,
>
Hi,
> i would like to gave a short update.
>
> I stumbled over problems using a downloaded epm 4.2 (http://
> www.epmhome.org), build and install it on a Fedora 16 system (rpm
> based).
>
> The epm call failed to build the rpm packages. It seems that epm
> triggers /bin/rpm with some parameters that are not accepted. I
> don't understand why at the moment.
>
I remember an issue caused by rpmbuild (or buildrpm maybe) missing.
Maybe you hit it ? FYI, the rpm thing is detected at configure time
Eric
--
qɔᴉɹə
Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page
L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org
Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
Posted by eric b <er...@free.fr>.
Le 22 nov. 11 à 14:33, Jürgen Schmidt a écrit :
> Hi Pedro,
>
> On 11/22/11 1:52 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>
>> Hmmm ...
>>
>> Nevermind, OpenPKG is rather bulky.
>> Unfortunately portable packagers seem not
>> to be too common anymore.
>
> the point is simply that we have to understand the whole packaging
> process better. I thought it was worse to check if it's possible to
> use a system epm. Sometimes things become easier over time or even
> obsolete. But in this case it seems that we have to stick with the
> 3.7 epm and the patches we have because they are very specific for
> OOo.
>
I don't think so : system epm *should* work out of the box, if not,
we need to fix the issue.
I'll try a build tonight on Linux, and if broken, I'll have a look.
> I hope that we can simplify this packaging process in the future a
> little bit because we can concentrate on one product only.
Sure. That's exactly what I did with OOo4Kids.
Most of the options are given at configure time. The result is
environment variables.
At the end, the packaging is done using perl scripts, all located in
solenv/bin. setup_native will produce the Control files, and only
sysui has another process, to build the menu entries.
> In the past all processes here were designed to make it possible to
> build a StarOffice/Oracle Office version on top of it.
>
> The problem is that we have to analyze the whole process to
> understand how it works. In the past one developer worked full-time
> on this packaging stuff ...
>
I'd suggest to document it on the wiki. We are several to know well
the build process on this list.
What is your issue ? Do you have a log ?
Lat but not least, I really think we should make IRC ClassRoom, and
invite newcomers to try building Apache OpenOffice.org (sorry, I'll
keep the .org) : 10 or + builders, means the most little issue is
immediately detected, and often, directly fixed.
Eric
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
Hi Pedro,
On 11/22/11 1:52 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>
> Hmmm ...
>
> Nevermind, OpenPKG is rather bulky.
> Unfortunately portable packagers seem not
> to be too common anymore.
the point is simply that we have to understand the whole packaging
process better. I thought it was worse to check if it's possible to use
a system epm. Sometimes things become easier over time or even obsolete.
But in this case it seems that we have to stick with the 3.7 epm and the
patches we have because they are very specific for OOo.
I hope that we can simplify this packaging process in the future a
little bit because we can concentrate on one product only. In the past
all processes here were designed to make it possible to build a
StarOffice/Oracle Office version on top of it.
The problem is that we have to analyze the whole process to understand
how it works. In the past one developer worked full-time on this
packaging stuff ...
Juergen
>
> Pedro.
>
> --- On Tue, 11/22/11, Pedro Giffuni<pf...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> From: Pedro Giffuni<pf...@apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2011, 7:24 AM
>> Hi Juergen;
>>
>> I dont have an easy solution for you but perhaps
>> you should try OpenPKG, as it produces RPM
>> and has a better license:
>> http://www.openpkg.net/
>>
>> And dont worry about FreeBSD as none of those
>> packagers work with the new pkgng format.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Pedro.
>>
>> --- On Tue, 11/22/11, Jürgen Schmidt<jo...@googlemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> From: Jürgen Schmidt<jo...@googlemail.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2011, 5:57 AM
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> i would like to gave a short update.
>>>
>>> I stumbled over problems using a downloaded epm 4.2
>> (http://www.epmhome.org), build and install it on a
>>> Fedora 16 system (rpm based).
>>>
>>> The epm call failed to build the rpm packages. It
>> seems
>>> that epm triggers /bin/rpm with some parameters that
>> are not
>>> accepted. I don't understand why at the moment.
>>>
>>> I expect also problems on other systems (e.g.
>> FreeBSD,
>>> solaris, ...). To move forward for now i plan to go
>> back to
>>> use the version 3.7 of epm and apply our patches.
>>>
>>> The plan is to handle it similar to dmake and
>> investigate
>>> to a later time in more detail into the packaging
>> process. I
>>> assume there is still some room for improvements ones
>> the
>>> process is understand completely.
>>>
>>> But at the moment i would like to focus and to move
>> forward
>>> with the IP clearance. Means epm is only a build tool
>> and
>>> not part of a binary release or a source release.
>>>
>>> The idea is to download the source directly from the
>>> homepage and apply our patches and use it.
>> Alternatively epm
>>> can be specified directly with the configure switch
>>> -with-epm.
>>>
>>> Any opinions or ideas. I highly appreciate any useful
>> idea
>>> that help us to move forward.
>>>
>>> Juergen
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/16/11 3:36 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>> On 11/15/11 5:00 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> i am currently trying to build with a system
>>> available epm tool. And i
>>>>> am right now building on a Ubuntu 11.10 with
>> epm
>>> 4.2. Does anybody have
>>>>> built with a system epm on a Linux system?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> a short update on this topic. I was able to build
>> an
>>> office on an Ubuntu
>>>> 11.10 using the system epm tool 4.2.
>>>>
>>>> With disabling a packagepool process in
>>> instsetoo_native the build
>>>> finished and i got my deb packages. The
>> difference
>>> compared to an
>>>> earlier build is that the package names has
>> changed a
>>> little bit and
>>>> that i have directories with the same name in
>> the
>>> .../DEPS folder which
>>>> were probably the base for the packages. But that
>> is a
>>> minor issue i
>>>> would say.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway the installed office works and i have not
>> yet
>>> identified a real
>>>> problem. But that was to easy and i expect more
>>> problems on other
>>>> platforms. Solaris (that i can't build) and a
>> rpm
>>> based Linux system, ...
>>>>
>>>> I am no expert in this packaging area on all the
>>> different systems and
>>>> may be we lose the relocation feature or
>> something
>>> else. So if anybody
>>>> has deep knowledge with epm or packing of deb or
>> rpm
>>> packages and is
>>>> interested to help, please contact me. Any kind
>> of
>>> help is appreciated.
>>>>
>>>> Juergen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
Hmmm ...
Nevermind, OpenPKG is rather bulky.
Unfortunately portable packagers seem not
to be too common anymore.
Pedro.
--- On Tue, 11/22/11, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
> From: Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2011, 7:24 AM
> Hi Juergen;
>
> I dont have an easy solution for you but perhaps
> you should try OpenPKG, as it produces RPM
> and has a better license:
> http://www.openpkg.net/
>
> And dont worry about FreeBSD as none of those
> packagers work with the new pkgng format.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pedro.
>
> --- On Tue, 11/22/11, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > From: Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
> > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2011, 5:57 AM
> > Hi,
> >
> > i would like to gave a short update.
> >
> > I stumbled over problems using a downloaded epm 4.2
> (http://www.epmhome.org), build and install it on a
> > Fedora 16 system (rpm based).
> >
> > The epm call failed to build the rpm packages. It
> seems
> > that epm triggers /bin/rpm with some parameters that
> are not
> > accepted. I don't understand why at the moment.
> >
> > I expect also problems on other systems (e.g.
> FreeBSD,
> > solaris, ...). To move forward for now i plan to go
> back to
> > use the version 3.7 of epm and apply our patches.
> >
> > The plan is to handle it similar to dmake and
> investigate
> > to a later time in more detail into the packaging
> process. I
> > assume there is still some room for improvements ones
> the
> > process is understand completely.
> >
> > But at the moment i would like to focus and to move
> forward
> > with the IP clearance. Means epm is only a build tool
> and
> > not part of a binary release or a source release.
> >
> > The idea is to download the source directly from the
> > homepage and apply our patches and use it.
> Alternatively epm
> > can be specified directly with the configure switch
> > -with-epm.
> >
> > Any opinions or ideas. I highly appreciate any useful
> idea
> > that help us to move forward.
> >
> > Juergen
> >
> >
> > On 11/16/11 3:36 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> > > On 11/15/11 5:00 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> i am currently trying to build with a system
> > available epm tool. And i
> > >> am right now building on a Ubuntu 11.10 with
> epm
> > 4.2. Does anybody have
> > >> built with a system epm on a Linux system?
> > >>
> > >
> > > a short update on this topic. I was able to build
> an
> > office on an Ubuntu
> > > 11.10 using the system epm tool 4.2.
> > >
> > > With disabling a packagepool process in
> > instsetoo_native the build
> > > finished and i got my deb packages. The
> difference
> > compared to an
> > > earlier build is that the package names has
> changed a
> > little bit and
> > > that i have directories with the same name in
> the
> > .../DEPS folder which
> > > were probably the base for the packages. But that
> is a
> > minor issue i
> > > would say.
> > >
> > > Anyway the installed office works and i have not
> yet
> > identified a real
> > > problem. But that was to easy and i expect more
> > problems on other
> > > platforms. Solaris (that i can't build) and a
> rpm
> > based Linux system, ...
> > >
> > > I am no expert in this packaging area on all the
> > different systems and
> > > may be we lose the relocation feature or
> something
> > else. So if anybody
> > > has deep knowledge with epm or packing of deb or
> rpm
> > packages and is
> > > interested to help, please contact me. Any kind
> of
> > help is appreciated.
> > >
> > > Juergen
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
Hi Juergen;
I dont have an easy solution for you but perhaps
you should try OpenPKG, as it produces RPM
and has a better license:
http://www.openpkg.net/
And dont worry about FreeBSD as none of those
packagers work with the new pkgng format.
Cheers,
Pedro.
--- On Tue, 11/22/11, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> From: Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>
> Subject: Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2011, 5:57 AM
> Hi,
>
> i would like to gave a short update.
>
> I stumbled over problems using a downloaded epm 4.2 (http://www.epmhome.org), build and install it on a
> Fedora 16 system (rpm based).
>
> The epm call failed to build the rpm packages. It seems
> that epm triggers /bin/rpm with some parameters that are not
> accepted. I don't understand why at the moment.
>
> I expect also problems on other systems (e.g. FreeBSD,
> solaris, ...). To move forward for now i plan to go back to
> use the version 3.7 of epm and apply our patches.
>
> The plan is to handle it similar to dmake and investigate
> to a later time in more detail into the packaging process. I
> assume there is still some room for improvements ones the
> process is understand completely.
>
> But at the moment i would like to focus and to move forward
> with the IP clearance. Means epm is only a build tool and
> not part of a binary release or a source release.
>
> The idea is to download the source directly from the
> homepage and apply our patches and use it. Alternatively epm
> can be specified directly with the configure switch
> -with-epm.
>
> Any opinions or ideas. I highly appreciate any useful idea
> that help us to move forward.
>
> Juergen
>
>
> On 11/16/11 3:36 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> > On 11/15/11 5:00 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> i am currently trying to build with a system
> available epm tool. And i
> >> am right now building on a Ubuntu 11.10 with epm
> 4.2. Does anybody have
> >> built with a system epm on a Linux system?
> >>
> >
> > a short update on this topic. I was able to build an
> office on an Ubuntu
> > 11.10 using the system epm tool 4.2.
> >
> > With disabling a packagepool process in
> instsetoo_native the build
> > finished and i got my deb packages. The difference
> compared to an
> > earlier build is that the package names has changed a
> little bit and
> > that i have directories with the same name in the
> .../DEPS folder which
> > were probably the base for the packages. But that is a
> minor issue i
> > would say.
> >
> > Anyway the installed office works and i have not yet
> identified a real
> > problem. But that was to easy and i expect more
> problems on other
> > platforms. Solaris (that i can't build) and a rpm
> based Linux system, ...
> >
> > I am no expert in this packaging area on all the
> different systems and
> > may be we lose the relocation feature or something
> else. So if anybody
> > has deep knowledge with epm or packing of deb or rpm
> packages and is
> > interested to help, please contact me. Any kind of
> help is appreciated.
> >
> > Juergen
> >
> >
>
>
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
Hi,
i would like to gave a short update.
I stumbled over problems using a downloaded epm 4.2
(http://www.epmhome.org), build and install it on a Fedora 16 system
(rpm based).
The epm call failed to build the rpm packages. It seems that epm
triggers /bin/rpm with some parameters that are not accepted. I don't
understand why at the moment.
I expect also problems on other systems (e.g. FreeBSD, solaris, ...). To
move forward for now i plan to go back to use the version 3.7 of epm and
apply our patches.
The plan is to handle it similar to dmake and investigate to a later
time in more detail into the packaging process. I assume there is still
some room for improvements ones the process is understand completely.
But at the moment i would like to focus and to move forward with the IP
clearance. Means epm is only a build tool and not part of a binary
release or a source release.
The idea is to download the source directly from the homepage and apply
our patches and use it. Alternatively epm can be specified directly with
the configure switch -with-epm.
Any opinions or ideas. I highly appreciate any useful idea that help us
to move forward.
Juergen
On 11/16/11 3:36 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 11/15/11 5:00 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> i am currently trying to build with a system available epm tool. And i
>> am right now building on a Ubuntu 11.10 with epm 4.2. Does anybody have
>> built with a system epm on a Linux system?
>>
>
> a short update on this topic. I was able to build an office on an Ubuntu
> 11.10 using the system epm tool 4.2.
>
> With disabling a packagepool process in instsetoo_native the build
> finished and i got my deb packages. The difference compared to an
> earlier build is that the package names has changed a little bit and
> that i have directories with the same name in the .../DEPS folder which
> were probably the base for the packages. But that is a minor issue i
> would say.
>
> Anyway the installed office works and i have not yet identified a real
> problem. But that was to easy and i expect more problems on other
> platforms. Solaris (that i can't build) and a rpm based Linux system, ...
>
> I am no expert in this packaging area on all the different systems and
> may be we lose the relocation feature or something else. So if anybody
> has deep knowledge with epm or packing of deb or rpm packages and is
> interested to help, please contact me. Any kind of help is appreciated.
>
> Juergen
>
>
Re: [CODE]: 118605 remove epm?
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
On 11/15/11 5:00 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> i am currently trying to build with a system available epm tool. And i
> am right now building on a Ubuntu 11.10 with epm 4.2. Does anybody have
> built with a system epm on a Linux system?
>
a short update on this topic. I was able to build an office on an Ubuntu
11.10 using the system epm tool 4.2.
With disabling a packagepool process in instsetoo_native the build
finished and i got my deb packages. The difference compared to an
earlier build is that the package names has changed a little bit and
that i have directories with the same name in the .../DEPS folder which
were probably the base for the packages. But that is a minor issue i
would say.
Anyway the installed office works and i have not yet identified a real
problem. But that was to easy and i expect more problems on other
platforms. Solaris (that i can't build) and a rpm based Linux system, ...
I am no expert in this packaging area on all the different systems and
may be we lose the relocation feature or something else. So if anybody
has deep knowledge with epm or packing of deb or rpm packages and is
interested to help, please contact me. Any kind of help is appreciated.
Juergen