Hello, all -
I wanted to know your guys' success rate when installing and rebuilding RPMs in CentOS (specifically 4.0) that have come from Dag's Repositories (http://dag.wieers.com/packages/).
I have noticed a number of these packages stalling at various points throughout an rpmbuild process, and I can't quite get it. It looks almost as if they were all built for RHEL4.0, but if CentOS is supposed to follow so close in RHEL's footsteps, why would this be a problem?
I'll give Dag an email and see if he has anything to say about that. Once I get enough information, I'll just go ahead and hack up the RPMs so that they work properly on my systems - but I thought I'd ask beforehand, as to not re-invent the wheel.
Thanks! -dant
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005, dan.trainor wrote:
I wanted to know your guys' success rate when installing and rebuilding RPMs in CentOS (specifically 4.0) that have come from Dag's Repositories (http://dag.wieers.com/packages/).
I have noticed a number of these packages stalling at various points throughout an rpmbuild process, and I can't quite get it. It looks almost as if they were all built for RHEL4.0, but if CentOS is supposed to follow so close in RHEL's footsteps, why would this be a problem?
I'll give Dag an email and see if he has anything to say about that. Once I get enough information, I'll just go ahead and hack up the RPMs so that they work properly on my systems - but I thought I'd ask beforehand, as to not re-invent the wheel.
Having the buildlog is essential to finding the cause. I provide buildlogs of my packages so if you have problems, you can always compare your output with mine. It's not impossible that there are missing build requirements or something else is different in the build environment.
Kind regards, -- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
Dag Wieers wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005, dan.trainor wrote:
I wanted to know your guys' success rate when installing and rebuilding RPMs in CentOS (specifically 4.0) that have come from Dag's Repositories (http://dag.wieers.com/packages/).
I have noticed a number of these packages stalling at various points throughout an rpmbuild process, and I can't quite get it. It looks almost as if they were all built for RHEL4.0, but if CentOS is supposed to follow so close in RHEL's footsteps, why would this be a problem?
I'll give Dag an email and see if he has anything to say about that. Once I get enough information, I'll just go ahead and hack up the RPMs so that they work properly on my systems - but I thought I'd ask beforehand, as to not re-invent the wheel.
Having the buildlog is essential to finding the cause. I provide buildlogs of my packages so if you have problems, you can always compare your output with mine. It's not impossible that there are missing build requirements or something else is different in the build environment.
Kind regards, -- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
Hey, speak of the Devil ;) Thanks for responding.
I, too, have had wonderful success using your RPMs, they have been extremely helpful. However, I have only been using them for a short time. With that being said, I was not aware that a buildlog was created - this I will look for, and bring back to the list here in a short while.
I know you're busy, but I just wanted to say thanks for responding.
-dant
I wanted to know your guys' success rate when installing and rebuilding RPMs in CentOS (specifically 4.0) that have come from Dag's Repositories (http://dag.wieers.com/packages/).
dag's rpms have been 99.9999999999% flawless for me on both centos and RHEL
I have noticed a number of these packages stalling at various points throughout an rpmbuild process, and I can't quite get it. It looks almost as if they were all built for RHEL4.0, but if CentOS is supposed to follow so close in RHEL's footsteps, why would this be a problem?
I suspect something in your build system is possibly screwed. I've not had any issues rebuilding the few packages I've needed to.
I'll give Dag an email and see if he has anything to say about that. Once I get enough information, I'll just go ahead and hack up the RPMs so that they work properly on my systems - but I thought I'd ask beforehand, as to not re-invent the wheel.
Rebuilding the prebuilt packages would seem to me to be reinventing the wheel. Is there a reason that you need to rebuild them?
-- Jim Perrin System Administrator Ft. Gordon & US Army Signal Center
Jim Perrin wrote:
I wanted to know your guys' success rate when installing and rebuilding
<snip>
Rebuilding the prebuilt packages would seem to me to be reinventing the wheel. Is there a reason that you need to rebuild them?
Most likely to configure it differently (compiler optimizations, configure options, etc...)
-- Jim Perrin System Administrator Ft. Gordon & US Army Signal Center
Ugo Bellavance wrote:
Jim Perrin wrote:
I wanted to know your guys' success rate when installing and rebuilding
<snip>
Rebuilding the prebuilt packages would seem to me to be reinventing the wheel. Is there a reason that you need to rebuild them?
Most likely to configure it differently (compiler optimizations, configure options, etc...)
-- Jim Perrin System Administrator Ft. Gordon & US Army Signal Center
Jim, Ugo -
For that, too, Jim.
Honestly, I just like to be more informed as to how the install is done. I love RPM for it's transactional ability, i.e. knowing where files are, how big, what kind, yada yada - but dislike it for it's sometimes cryptic nature. I've been doing a LOT of RPM exploration over the past few weeks, and found the process of actually creating an RPM to be a somewhat cumbersome and at times poorly documented system. I don't want to start rants over that one, but that's my firm belief.
However, things have been coming together lately.
Thanks! -dant
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 03:11:38PM -0700, dan.trainor wrote:
cryptic nature. I've been doing a LOT of RPM exploration over the past few weeks, and found the process of actually creating an RPM to be a somewhat cumbersome and at times poorly documented system. I don't want
Tell it, brother!
I spent three hours figuring out how to write a spec file to create an RPM that doesn't do anything other than tell the RPM database that such and such a capability is installed (some java app didn't think i have "java" since sun's rpms didn't tell RPM it was there).
ugh.
danno -- dan pritts - systems administrator - internet2 734/352-4953 office 734/834-7224 mobile
Quoting Dan Pritts danno@internet2.edu:
I spent three hours figuring out how to write a spec file to create an RPM that doesn't do anything other than tell the RPM database that such and such a capability is installed (some java app didn't think i have "java" since sun's rpms didn't tell RPM it was there).
Lots of info about RPM. With entire chapter describing spec files and how to create RPM packages:
The "template" spec file for Fedora:
http://www.fedora.us/docs/spec.html
---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 12:03:29PM -0500, alex@milivojevic.org wrote:
I am pretty sure I looked at this site while putting together the "fakejava" spec file - and was misled by it. Unfortunately I don't remember details.
Just double checked this - its copyright date is 2000. Things have changed.
The "template" spec file for Fedora:
cool. thanks.
danno -- dan pritts - systems administrator - internet2 734/352-4953 office 734/834-7224 mobile
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Dan Pritts wrote:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 12:03:29PM -0500, alex@milivojevic.org wrote:
I am pretty sure I looked at this site while putting together the "fakejava" spec file - and was misled by it. Unfortunately I don't remember details.
Just double checked this - its copyright date is 2000. Things have changed.
not really, and I _do_ follow the details closely and have for years; I update it as it falls out of date, but leave it alone when it is stable -- and the 'hints and kinks' sub-page is full of the relevant post MaxRPM exceptions.
- Russ Herrold, RPM.org site editor
Thanks for the followup, Russ.
I know I looked at the site during this experience - but probably whatever misled me was from some ancient article i found via google. Sorry to impugn your work.
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 11:11:31PM -0400, R P Herrold wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Dan Pritts wrote:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 12:03:29PM -0500, alex@milivojevic.org wrote:
I am pretty sure I looked at this site while putting together the "fakejava" spec file - and was misled by it. Unfortunately I don't remember details.
Just double checked this - its copyright date is 2000. Things have changed.
not really, and I _do_ follow the details closely and have for years; I update it as it falls out of date, but leave it alone when it is stable -- and the 'hints and kinks' sub-page is full of the relevant post MaxRPM exceptions.
- Russ Herrold, RPM.org site editor
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
danno -- dan pritts - systems administrator - internet2 734/352-4953 office 734/834-7224 mobile
Quoting Dan Pritts danno@internet2.edu:
(some java app didn't think i have "java" since sun's rpms didn't tell RPM it was there).
Which is the smallest problem with Sun'S Java. They don't do "alternatives" either (you have to set them up manually, if you want to have GCC's Java in parallel). And Sun's license doesn't allow anybody to repackage it so that it blends with the rest of the particular distribution (basically, fixing the problem you had and the alternatives issue).
---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
-
alex＠milivojevic.org -
Dag Wieers -
Dan Pritts -
dan.trainor -
Jim Perrin -
R P Herrold -
Ugo Bellavance