"There's a hole in the bucket, Dear Liza, Dear Liza, ..."
I'm trying to build all the SRPMS from http://www.linux911.cl/GFS-CENTOS4/, and have found a real dependency mess, including some circular dependencies.
Has anyone found a clean way to bootstrap this collection of packages?
bash-3.00$ sudo rpm -Uhv /tmp/cman-1.0.1-0.i386.rpm /tmp/ccs- ccs-1.0.1-20050705200822.i386.rpm ccs-devel-1.0.1-20050705200822.i386.rpm bash-3.00$ sudo rpm -Uhv /tmp/cman-1.0.1-0.i386.rpm /tmp/ccs-1.0.1-20050705200822.i386.rpm error: Failed dependencies: magma-plugins is needed by ccs-1.0.1-20050705200822.i386 bash-3.00$ rpmbuild --rebuild magma-plugins-1.0.1-0.src.rpm Installing magma-plugins-1.0.1-0.src.rpm error: Failed build dependencies: gulm-devel is needed by magma-plugins-1.0.1-0.i386 dlm-devel is needed by magma-plugins-1.0.1-0.i386 bash-3.00$ sudo rpm -Uhv /tmp/dlm-devel-1.4.0.8-20050705200822.i386.rpm error: Failed dependencies: dlm = 1.4.0.8-20050705200822 is needed by dlm-devel-1.4.0.8-20050705200822.i386 bash-3.00$ sudo rpm -Uhv /tmp/dlm-devel-1.4.0.8-20050705200822.i386.rpm /tmp/dlm-1.4.0.8-20050705200822.i386.rpm error: Failed dependencies: cman is needed by dlm-1.4.0.8-20050705200822.i386 bash-3.00$ sudo rpm -Uhv /tmp/dlm-devel-1.4.0.8-20050705200822.i386.rpm /tmp/dlm-1.4.0.8-20050705200822.i386.rpm /tmp/cman-1.0.1-0.i386.rpm error: Failed dependencies: ccs is needed by cman-1.0.1-0.i386 bash-3.00$ sudo rpm -Uhv /tmp/dlm-devel-1.4.0.8-20050705200822.i386.rpm /tmp/dlm-1.4.0.8-20050705200822.i386.rpm /tmp/cman-1.0.1-0.i386.rpm /tmp/ccs-1.0.1-20050705200822.i386.rpm error: Failed dependencies: magma-plugins is needed by ccs-1.0.1-20050705200822.i386 bash-3.00$ rpmbuild --rebuild magma-plugins-1.0.1-0.src.rpm Installing magma-plugins-1.0.1-0.src.rpm error: Failed build dependencies: gulm-devel is needed by magma-plugins-1.0.1-0.i386 dlm-devel is needed by magma-plugins-1.0.1-0.i386 bash-3.00$
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005, Charlie Brady wrote:
Has anyone found a clean way to bootstrap this collection of packages?
I can answer myself here. The way to break out of the loop is to ignore the bogus dependency of dlm-devel on dlm (you need dlm-devel to build code which depends on dlm headers and libraries. You *don't* need to be running a distributed lock manager on every compile server). Install dlm-devel using --nodeps.
I've already tried and failed to convince RedHat that their pattern of having xxx-devel packages require xxx is wrong.
bash-3.00$ sudo rpm -Uhv /tmp/dlm-devel-1.4.0.8-20050705200822.i386.rpm error: Failed dependencies: dlm = 1.4.0.8-20050705200822 is needed by dlm-devel-1.4.0.8-20050705200822.i386 bash-3.00$
I suspect this dependency is bogus as well:
bash-3.00$ sudo rpm -Uhv /tmp/cman-1.0.1-0.i386.rpm /tmp/ccs-1.0.1-20050705200822.i386.rpm error: Failed dependencies: magma-plugins is needed by ccs-1.0.1-20050705200822.i386 bash-3.00$
--- Charlie
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 11:10:09AM -0400, Charlie Brady wrote:
I've already tried and failed to convince RedHat that their pattern of having xxx-devel packages require xxx is wrong.
Often they actually do, though.
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 11:10:09AM -0400, Charlie Brady wrote:
I've already tried and failed to convince RedHat that their pattern of having xxx-devel packages require xxx is wrong.
Often they actually do, though.
Would you care to explain, or give an example?
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 10:18:21PM -0400, Charlie Brady wrote:
I've already tried and failed to convince RedHat that their pattern of having xxx-devel packages require xxx is wrong.
Often they actually do, though.
Would you care to explain, or give an example?
Try to build an SDL program with SDL-devel installed but not SDL.
Matthew Miller wrote:
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 10:18:21PM -0400, Charlie Brady wrote:
I've already tried and failed to convince RedHat that their pattern of having xxx-devel packages require xxx is wrong.
Often they actually do, though.
Would you care to explain, or give an example?
Try to build an SDL program with SDL-devel installed but not SDL.
xxx packages frequently contain the libraries and the xxx-devel packages the C headers and what not.
Pretty much pointless in installing the C headers without installing the libraries also.
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Feizhou wrote:
xxx packages frequently contain the libraries and the xxx-devel packages the C headers and what not.
Pretty much pointless in installing the C headers without installing the libraries also.
Which is why *-devel packages should include the libraries. But I don't see why RedHat should coerce me into installing package-which-might-do-something-unnecessary-and-perhaps-nasty on my development box just so the libraries are available for package building.
--- Charlie
xxx packages frequently contain the libraries and the xxx-devel packages the C headers and what not.
Pretty much pointless in installing the C headers without installing the libraries also.
Which is why *-devel packages should include the libraries. But I don't see why RedHat should coerce me into installing package-which-might-do-something-unnecessary-and-perhaps-nasty on my development box just so the libraries are available for package building.
Charlie,
Get lost. What difference does it make if installing xxx-devel does the same thing as installing xxx and xxx-devel besides there being no need for a xxx rpm?
You still install 'something-unnecessary-and-perhaps-nasty' when you install the contains-everything xxx-devel rpm.
If you want to compile something that uses xxx, you very well NEED to install xxx.
Separating the C headers or whatever that is needed for building into a xxx-devel rpm allows more control on what is installed.
Are you going to blast the MySQL guys too? If you install MySQL-devel, you will have to install MySQL-shared.
RedHat is not coercing you into anything.
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 07:33:22AM +0800, Feizhou wrote:
Get lost. What difference does it make if installing xxx-devel does the
^^^^^^^^
Wow, that seems a little unnecessarily hostile....
Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 07:33:22AM +0800, Feizhou wrote:
Get lost. What difference does it make if installing xxx-devel does the
^^^^^^^^
Wow, that seems a little unnecessarily hostile....
Sorry, I have seen too much RedHat bashing for completely false reasons.
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 07:33:22AM +0800, Feizhou wrote:
Get lost. What difference does it make if installing xxx-devel does the
^^^^^^^^
Wow, that seems a little unnecessarily hostile....
I think so too.
If Feizhou could go to the start of the thread, he can see that there is a *real* problem. It is impossible to build the RHCS packages from source - unless one has the intuition to install a particular package with --nodeps.
My complaint is not gratuitous. I think RedHat is great, but not perfect. Just like you and me.
Regards
--- Charlie
Charlie Brady wrote:
If Feizhou could go to the start of the thread, he can see that there is a *real* problem. It is impossible to build the RHCS packages from source - unless one has the intuition to install a particular package with --nodeps.
The csgfs testing packages posted for CentOS4, were built on the regular buildsystem. Nothing was force installed, neither were any .spec files changed.
Everything built out of the same pool, with justbuilt packages made available in a local repo. You might want to take look at the logs provided.
- KB
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Karanbir Singh wrote:
The csgfs testing packages posted for CentOS4, were built on the regular buildsystem. Nothing was force installed, neither were any .spec files changed.
Everything built out of the same pool, with justbuilt packages made available in a local repo. You might want to take look at the logs provided.
Where can they be found, please?
--- Charlie
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Charlie Brady wrote:
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Karanbir Singh wrote:
The csgfs testing packages posted for CentOS4, were built on the regular buildsystem. Nothing was force installed, neither were any .spec files changed.
Everything built out of the same pool, with justbuilt packages made available in a local repo. You might want to take look at the logs provided.
Where can they be found, please?
Thanks, I found them. Do you have a list of packages which were installed on the buildsystem? In what order did you build and install all of the packages, in order to satisfy all the dependencies? I'm curious to know what I've done wrong.
Thanks --- Charlie
Charlie Brady wrote:
The csgfs testing packages posted for CentOS4, were built on the regular buildsystem. Nothing was force installed, neither were any .spec files changed.
Thanks, I found them. Do you have a list of packages which were installed on the buildsystem? In what order did you build and install all of the packages, in order to satisfy all the dependencies? I'm curious to know what I've done wrong.
The build runs through lib*, perl* and then runs through descending order of filenames.src.rpm . Looking at the build date tag on the rpm tree, you should get an exact idea of the order they were built in.
The build root itself starts with the base, core, development stuff installed. And will install BuildRequires from a bunch of yum repos ( which include the entire CentOS tree for that arch, as well as packages that are just built )
- KB
If Feizhou could go to the start of the thread, he can see that there is a *real* problem. It is impossible to build the RHCS packages from source - unless one has the intuition to install a particular package with --nodeps.
I am sorry but perhaps you missed my post on the CentOS list. I have built the RHCS and the RHGFS packages from the source rpms without encountering your problem and I announced the availability of the rpms there.
My complaint is not gratuitous. I think RedHat is great, but not perfect. Just like you and me.
There is a difference between not perfect and making statements about others on faulty premises.
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Feizhou wrote:
If Feizhou could go to the start of the thread, he can see that there is a *real* problem. It is impossible to build the RHCS packages from source
- unless one has the intuition to install a particular package with
--nodeps.
I am sorry but perhaps you missed my post on the CentOS list.
I'm not subscribed to that list.
I have built the RHCS and the RHGFS packages from the source rpms without encountering your problem and I announced the availability of the rpms there.
If you go to the start of this thread, I said:
I'm trying to build all the SRPMS from http://www.linux911.cl/GFS-CENTOS4/, and have found a real dependency mess, including some circular dependencies.
The circular dependency problem seems to have been introduced in ccs between 1.0.0 and 1.0.1 (ccs-1.0.0-0 does not require magma-plugins). Perhaps you didn't encounter the problem because it wasn't there in the version you built. The problem isn't there in the version which Karanbir Singh has built, and published at http://rpm.karan.org/el4/csgfs/SRPMS/.
I will report the problem to RH bugzilla.
My complaint is not gratuitous. I think RedHat is great, but not perfect. Just like you and me.
There is a difference between not perfect and making statements about others on faulty premises.
My statements do not have a faulty premise (and I do not think they were personal, as you seem to reply). Please check facts before casting aspersions. Perhaps if you just take a few deep breaths and relax ...
--- Charlie
I have built the RHCS and the RHGFS packages from the source rpms without encountering your problem and I announced the availability of the rpms there.
If you go to the start of this thread, I said:
I'm trying to build all the SRPMS from http://www.linux911.cl/GFS-CENTOS4/, and have found a real dependency mess, including some circular dependencies.
...that is hardly an authoritative source for RedHat source rpms...
The circular dependency problem seems to have been introduced in ccs between 1.0.0 and 1.0.1 (ccs-1.0.0-0 does not require magma-plugins). Perhaps you didn't encounter the problem because it wasn't there in the version you built. The problem isn't there in the version which Karanbir Singh has built, and published at http://rpm.karan.org/el4/csgfs/SRPMS/.
I will report the problem to RH bugzilla.
The version Karanbir built is the same one I built. I assume then that we both got it from the same source, ie, ftp.redhat.com whereas you got yours from a different source.
I take it that you don't have a RHEL 4 GFS/RHCS subscription.
You've been barking up the wrong tree trying to build from a different set of source rpms that is obviously NOT provided by RedHat. Then you go filing bugzilla reports to RedHat for stuff they never released. Plus your really unique proposition that xxx-devel must not depend on xxx whereas the all Linux distributions do just that and even those who just provide rpm packaged software do the same or similar as in the case of MySQL.
Coercion indeed.
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Feizhou wrote:
If you go to the start of this thread, I said:
I'm trying to build all the SRPMS from http://www.linux911.cl/GFS-CENTOS4/, and have found a real dependency mess, including some circular dependencies.
...that is hardly an authoritative source for RedHat source rpms...
Not authoritative, but it's clear that the SRPMS were build directly from RedHat CVS.
You've been barking up the wrong tree trying to build from a different set of source rpms that is obviously NOT provided by RedHat.
I've suggested previously that you should check facts before casting aspersions.
Plus your really unique proposition that xxx-devel must not depend on xxx whereas the all Linux distributions do just that ...
Having xxx-devel depend on xxx is not even consistent within RHEL4. See, e.g. kudzu and kudzu-devel.
Rather than attack me personally, or appeal to authority, perhaps you could consider whether a "dependency" is logical or not. But never mind, please just let this issue lie.
--- Charlie
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 10:18:21PM -0400, Charlie Brady wrote:
I've already tried and failed to convince RedHat that their pattern of having xxx-devel packages require xxx is wrong.
Often they actually do, though.
Would you care to explain, or give an example?
Try to build an SDL program with SDL-devel installed but not SDL.
All that indicates to me is that there is a bug in the SDL-devel package.
I haven't tried to build an SDL program, since I don't think it's necessary for the sake of argument - you can tell us what will happen if I were to try. Perhaps the problem is that SDL-devel does not include the libSDL shared library. IMO, shared libraries should be included in both xxx and xxx-devel packages. AIUI, rpm can handle that adequately.
--- Charlie
Charlie Brady wrote:
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 10:18:21PM -0400, Charlie Brady wrote:
I've already tried and failed to convince RedHat that their pattern of having xxx-devel packages require xxx is wrong.
Often they actually do, though.
Would you care to explain, or give an example?
Try to build an SDL program with SDL-devel installed but not SDL.
All that indicates to me is that there is a bug in the SDL-devel package.
I haven't tried to build an SDL program, since I don't think it's necessary for the sake of argument - you can tell us what will happen if I were to try. Perhaps the problem is that SDL-devel does not include the libSDL shared library. IMO, shared libraries should be included in both xxx and xxx-devel packages. AIUI, rpm can handle that adequately.
Just FYI, the SDL rpm contains ONLY the shared library files and documentation. Those documentation files could very well go into a SDL-doc rpm too. Debian does something like this and they have more deb files per software package than there are rpm files for the same software package in other Linux distributions. They don't lump everything into one deb file or duplicate files across deb files.
Your opinion therefore runs contrary to the Linux distribution with the best packaging system available.
-
Charlie Brady -
Feizhou -
Karanbir Singh -
Matthew Miller