To %make_install or to %makeinstall (spec-cleaner)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
13 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

To %make_install or to %makeinstall (spec-cleaner)

Joop Boonen-2
Hi all,

I have been using spec cleaner for while. What I notice it that it uses
macro %make_install instead of %makeinstall. Both macros are OK for
openSUSE but the first one breaks the build for SLE.

<quote>
+ %make_install
/var/tmp/rpm-tmp.59594: line 45: fg: no job control
</quote>

I wonder if this should be fixed, in either spec-cleaner (use%makeinstall
in stead of %make_install) or in the buildserver (add macro %make_install
for SLE)?

Regards,

Joop.

See also: https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712171

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [opensuse-buildservice] To %make_install or to %makeinstall (spec-cleaner)

Cristian Morales Vega-3
On 14 May 2012 16:07, Joop Boonen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I have been using spec cleaner for while. What I notice it that it uses
> macro %make_install instead of %makeinstall. Both macros are OK for
> openSUSE but the first one breaks the build for SLE.
>
> <quote>
> + %make_install
> /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.59594: line 45: fg: no job control
> </quote>
>
> I wonder if this should be fixed, in either spec-cleaner (use%makeinstall
> in stead of %make_install) or in the buildserver (add macro %make_install
> for SLE)?

The problem is rpm's %makeinstall is broken
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Why_the_.25makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used).
openSUSE overrides the original rpm definition with one equivalent to
%make_install, but that has not always been the case and other distros
don't do it. %make_install is the correct one, defined in upstream rpm
since version 4.8.0. Personally I favour cross-distro compatibility to
compatibility with old distros.

IMHO if someone wants to support old distros he should do the work
without interfering with the latests development (e.g.
http://pmbs.links2linux.org/package/rdiff?opackage=rpm&oproject=openSUSE.org%3AopenSUSE%3AEvergreen%3A11.1&package=rpm-11.1&project=Essentials)
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [opensuse-buildservice] To %make_install or to %makeinstall (spec-cleaner)

Claudio Freire
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Cristian Morales Vega
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> don't do it. %make_install is the correct one, defined in upstream rpm
> since version 4.8.0. Personally I favour cross-distro compatibility to
> compatibility with old distros.

Whether it's old or not depends on which version of SLE broke, I'd guess.

There it says SLE 11 SP1, which doesn't seem that old.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: To %make_install or to %makeinstall (spec-cleaner)

Pavol Rusnak
In reply to this post by Joop Boonen-2
On 14/05/12 17:07, Joop Boonen wrote:
> I wonder if this should be fixed, in either spec-cleaner (use%makeinstall
> in stead of %make_install) or in the buildserver (add macro %make_install
> for SLE)?

Spec cleaner was written to support only the latest distributions.

--
Best Regards / S pozdravom,

Pavol Rusnak
PGP 0xB9A02A3D
prusnak[at]opensuse.org
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: To %make_install or to %makeinstall (spec-cleaner)

Joop Boonen-2
On Mon, May 14, 2012 5:28 pm, Pavol Rusnak wrote:
> On 14/05/12 17:07, Joop Boonen wrote:
>> I wonder if this should be fixed, in either spec-cleaner
>> (use%makeinstall
>> in stead of %make_install) or in the buildserver (add macro
>> %make_install
>> for SLE)?
>
> Spec cleaner was written to support only the latest distributions.
>
I like spec cleaner a lot and I think it really helps cleaning up a spec
file.

Might it be option to translate into %makeinstall instead of %make_install?

I assume spec-cleaner is still developed?
> --
> Best Regards / S pozdravom,
>
> Pavol Rusnak
> PGP 0xB9A02A3D
> prusnak[at]opensuse.org
> --

Regards,

Joop.


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [opensuse-buildservice] Re: [opensuse-packaging] To %make_install or to %makeinstall (spec-cleaner)

Frank Lichtenheld
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joop Boonen [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 5:53 PM
> To: Pavol Rusnak
> Cc: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
> Subject: [opensuse-buildservice] Re: [opensuse-packaging] To
> %make_install or to %makeinstall (spec-cleaner)
>
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 5:28 pm, Pavol Rusnak wrote:
> > On 14/05/12 17:07, Joop Boonen wrote:
> >> I wonder if this should be fixed, in either spec-cleaner
> >> (use%makeinstall
> >> in stead of %make_install) or in the buildserver (add macro
> >> %make_install
> >> for SLE)?
> >
> > Spec cleaner was written to support only the latest distributions.
> >
> I like spec cleaner a lot and I think it really helps cleaning up a spec
> file.
>
> Might it be option to translate into %makeinstall instead of
> %make_install?

Using %makeinstall in a spec file is a bad idea. While it makes it work on SLE, it breaks it on Fedora where %makeinstall is still the old broken variant. Defining %make_install on SLE might be the better option.

I currently just replace %make_install directly with its first-level expansion, that seems to be only thing working across all OBS-supported Distros (but obviously might cause problems in the future).

Gruesse,
  Frank
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [opensuse-buildservice] Re: [opensuse-packaging] To %make_install or to %makeinstall (spec-cleaner)

Joop Boonen-2
On Mon, May 14, 2012 6:09 pm, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joop Boonen [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 5:53 PM
>> To: Pavol Rusnak
>> Cc: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
>> Subject: [opensuse-buildservice] Re: [opensuse-packaging] To
>> %make_install or to %makeinstall (spec-cleaner)
>>
>> On Mon, May 14, 2012 5:28 pm, Pavol Rusnak wrote:
>> > On 14/05/12 17:07, Joop Boonen wrote:
>> >> I wonder if this should be fixed, in either spec-cleaner
>> >> (use%makeinstall
>> >> in stead of %make_install) or in the buildserver (add macro
>> >> %make_install
>> >> for SLE)?
>> >
>> > Spec cleaner was written to support only the latest distributions.
>> >
>> I like spec cleaner a lot and I think it really helps cleaning up a spec
>> file.
>>
>> Might it be option to translate into %makeinstall instead of
>> %make_install?
>
> Using %makeinstall in a spec file is a bad idea. While it makes it work on
> SLE, it breaks it on Fedora where %makeinstall is still the old broken
> variant. Defining %make_install on SLE might be the better option.

Might Christopher Yeleighton purposed work around be a solution, for the
time being?

Workaround:

%if 0%{!?make_install:1}
%define make_install make install 'DESTDIR=%{buildroot}'
%endif

If so then would it be an option to add this define to spec-cleaner?

> I currently just replace %make_install directly with its first-level
> expansion, that seems to be only thing working across all OBS-supported
> Distros (but obviously might cause problems in the future).
>
> Gruesse,
>   Frank
> --
Regards,

Joop.


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [opensuse-buildservice] Re: [opensuse-packaging] To %make_install or to %makeinstall (spec-cleaner)

Pavol Rusnak
On 14/05/12 18:22, Joop Boonen wrote:
> Workaround:
>
> %if 0%{!?make_install:1}
> %define make_install make install 'DESTDIR=%{buildroot}'
> %endif
>
> If so then would it be an option to add this define to spec-cleaner?

Sorry. Spec-cleaner aims to remove cruft from spec files, not to add new
one.

--
Best Regards / S pozdravom,

Pavol Rusnak
PGP 0xB9A02A3D
prusnak[at]opensuse.org
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: To %make_install or to %makeinstall (spec-cleaner)

Philipp Thomas-3
On Mon, 14 May 2012 18:25:30 +0200, Pavol Rusnak
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>Sorry. Spec-cleaner aims to remove cruft from spec files, not to add new
>one.

And? What is so hard about simply adding a line that defines
make_install in terms of makeinstall if the former isn't present?
That's not what I call cruft. But couldn't the redefinition be done
done in the prjconf? That would IMHO be a usable compromise if
possible.

Philipp
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: To %make_install or to %makeinstall (spec-cleaner)

Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar
On Tue, 2012-09-04 at 23:22 +0200, Philipp Thomas wrote:

> And? What is so hard about simply adding a line that defines
> make_install in terms of makeinstall if the former isn't present?
> That's not what I call cruft. But couldn't the redefinition be done
> done in the prjconf? That would IMHO be a usable compromise if
> possible.

Could (and should preferably) be done on SUSE:SLE-11:SP[12] prjconf
directly.
Or even better: get SLE finally up to a level where it uses a bunch of
stuff others have been using for a while.

%make_install is for sure one thing...
pkgconfig() - Style BuildRequires would be another win in cross-distro
packaging (GNOME:Apps 'works' around this by mapping pkgconfig() to SLE
package names.. yaks).

Dominique

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: To %make_install or to %makeinstall (spec-cleaner)

Philipp Thomas-3
On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 23:31:52 +0200, Dimstar / Dominique Leuenberger
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>Could (and should preferably) be done on SUSE:SLE-11:SP[12] prjconf
>directly.

Care to post an example? I at least couldn't do it, but my knowledge
of such OSC internals is limited.

> Or even better: get SLE finally up to a level where it uses a bunch of
> stuff others have been using for a while.

That would, IMNSHO, indeed be the best solution. I'll see if I can at
least ask a few people.
Philipp
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: To %make_install or to %makeinstall (spec-cleaner)

Vincent Untz-5
Le mercredi 05 septembre 2012, à 01:16 +0200, Philipp Thomas a écrit :
> On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 23:31:52 +0200, Dimstar / Dominique Leuenberger
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >Could (and should preferably) be done on SUSE:SLE-11:SP[12] prjconf
> >directly.
>
> Care to post an example? I at least couldn't do it, but my knowledge
> of such OSC internals is limited.

osc meta prjconf GNOME:Apps

======
%if 0%{?suse_version} <= 1210 && !("%_repository" == "SLE_11_SP1")
# Do not require xz BuildRequires for xz tarballs (xz not in SP1, unfortunately) -- vuntz (2012-03-01)
Support: xz
%endif

%if "%_repository" == "SLE_11_SP1" || "%_repository" == "SLE_11_SP2"
# Work-around missing pkgconfig() Provides in SLE11 -- vuntz (2012-03-01)
Substitute: pkgconfig(dbus-glib-1) dbus-1-glib-devel=
...
%endif

Macros:

# Help SLE builds to also know make_install
%make_install make install DESTDIR=%{?buildroot}
======

Vincent

--
Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: To %make_install or to %makeinstall (spec-cleaner)

todd rme
In reply to this post by Philipp Thomas-3
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 1:16 AM, Philipp Thomas <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 23:31:52 +0200, Dimstar / Dominique Leuenberger
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Or even better: get SLE finally up to a level where it uses a bunch of
>> stuff others have been using for a while.
>
> That would, IMNSHO, indeed be the best solution. I'll see if I can at
> least ask a few people.
> Philipp

I already discussed the issue with someone from the SLE team a few
months ago, he said they would discuss it and possibly include it (and
a few other macros) in SLE11 SP3, but there wasn't a firm commitment.

-Todd
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]