fredag 11 mars 2005 17:47 skrev James Yonan:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Matthias Andree wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, TomWalsh wrote:
> > > >True, but SuSE and RH/Fedora both use "lzo" and "lzo-devel" as the
> > > >provider names. That seems reasonable, as prepending a "lib" to the
> > > >provider n
Matthias Andree wrote:
RPM appears to, at least on Red Hat and Novell/SUSE derived machines,
support the libraries' ELF SONAME, too, which is what my former
suggestion has been about, and AFAICS, the soname is the same on all
machines, namely liblzo.so.1 (use readelf -d to figure).
Wouldn't
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Matthias Andree wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, TomWalsh wrote:
>
> > >True, but SuSE and RH/Fedora both use "lzo" and "lzo-devel" as the
> > >provider names. That seems reasonable, as prepending a "lib" to the
> > >provider names for all libraries would render most RPM .spec
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, TomWalsh wrote:
> >True, but SuSE and RH/Fedora both use "lzo" and "lzo-devel" as the
> >provider names. That seems reasonable, as prepending a "lib" to the
> >provider names for all libraries would render most RPM .spec files
> >incompatible.
> >
> >Any guidance from LSB?
>
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, TomWalsh wrote:
> James Yonan wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, TomWalsh wrote:
> >
> >
> >>James Yonan wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, TomWalsh wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> James Yonan wrote:
>
>
> >>I will let the package maintainer of liblzo1 of the pr
James Yonan wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, TomWalsh wrote:
James Yonan wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, TomWalsh wrote:
James Yonan wrote:
I will let the package maintainer of liblzo1 of the problem of it not
saying it provides "liblzo" while the liblzo1-devel does say that.
The correct stat
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, TomWalsh wrote:
> James Yonan wrote:
> > On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, TomWalsh wrote:
> >
> >
> >>James Yonan wrote:
> >>
> I will let the package maintainer of liblzo1 of the problem of it not
> saying it provides "liblzo" while the liblzo1-devel does say that.
>
> >>>
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, TomWalsh wrote:
> James Yonan wrote:
> > On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, TomWalsh wrote:
> >
> >
> >>As long as we are on the subject of "Requires" in the openvpn.spec file,
> >>shouldn't there also be a:
> >>
> >>Requires: bridge-utils >= 0.9.7
> >
> >
> > Why is this required? Wh
James Yonan wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, TomWalsh wrote:
James Yonan wrote:
I will let the package maintainer of liblzo1 of the problem of it not
saying it provides "liblzo" while the liblzo1-devel does say that.
The correct statement which works around the Mandrake 10.1 problem would be:
James Yonan wrote:
On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, TomWalsh wrote:
As long as we are on the subject of "Requires" in the openvpn.spec file,
shouldn't there also be a:
Requires: bridge-utils >= 0.9.7
Why is this required? What if you are not bridging?
James
Ok, my view on an RPM is that the pack
James Yonan wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, TomWalsh wrote:
James Yonan wrote:
I will let the package maintainer of liblzo1 of the problem of it not
saying it provides "liblzo" while the liblzo1-devel does say that.
The correct statement which works around the Mandrake 10.1 problem would be:
=
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, TomWalsh wrote:
> James Yonan wrote:
> >>I will let the package maintainer of liblzo1 of the problem of it not
> >>saying it provides "liblzo" while the liblzo1-devel does say that.
> >>
> >>The correct statement which works around the Mandrake 10.1 problem would be:
> >>
> >>
On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, TomWalsh wrote:
> As long as we are on the subject of "Requires" in the openvpn.spec file,
> shouldn't there also be a:
>
> Requires: bridge-utils >= 0.9.7
Why is this required? What if you are not bridging?
James
On Sun, 06 Mar 2005, TomWalsh wrote:
> As long as we are on the subject of "Requires" in the openvpn.spec file,
> shouldn't there also be a:
>
> Requires: bridge-utils >= 0.9.7
Is 0.9.7 the minimum required version? SuSE 9.1 (hence, the current SuSE
Linux Enterprise Server, too) for instance s
As long as we are on the subject of "Requires" in the openvpn.spec file,
shouldn't there also be a:
Requires: bridge-utils >= 0.9.7
?
I know that this is not part of a default installation under Mandrake.
TomW
--
Tom Walsh - WN3L - Embedded Systems Consultant
email at http://openhardware.n
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, TomWalsh wrote:
> James Yonan wrote:
> >>I will let the package maintainer of liblzo1 of the problem of it not
> >>saying it provides "liblzo" while the liblzo1-devel does say that.
> >>
> >>The correct statement which works around the Mandrake 10.1 problem would be:
> >>
> >
James Yonan wrote:
I will let the package maintainer of liblzo1 of the problem of it not
saying it provides "liblzo" while the liblzo1-devel does say that.
The correct statement which works around the Mandrake 10.1 problem would be:
fix
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005, James Yonan wrote:
> The problem I have with this patch is that it assumes that Mandrake will
> continue to follow the broken behavior. The ideal solution would be one
> which doesn't break when Mandrake gets around to using the same standard
> LZO RPM spec which everyone els
> I will let the package maintainer of liblzo1 of the problem of it not
> saying it provides "liblzo" while the liblzo1-devel does say that.
>
> The correct statement which works around the Mandrake 10.1 problem would be:
>
> fix ===
> %if
Matthias Andree wrote:
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005, TomWalsh wrote:
Hmm, although the build of the RPM will succeed, the package won't
install. Doing a mere "urpmi openvpn" results in:
== error
[root@localhost root]# urpmi openvpn
Some package requested cannot b
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005, TomWalsh wrote:
> Hmm, although the build of the RPM will succeed, the package won't
> install. Doing a mere "urpmi openvpn" results in:
>
> == error
> [root@localhost root]# urpmi openvpn
> Some package requested cannot be installed:
>
TomWalsh wrote:
James Yonan wrote:
What if you use this instead for the Mandrake section:
%{!?without_lzo:BuildRequires: liblzo-devel >= 1.07}
%{!?without_lzo:Requires: liblzo >= 1.07}
James
Hmm, although the build of the RPM will succeed, the package won't
install. Doing
TomWalsh wrote:
James Yonan wrote:
What if you use this instead for the Mandrake section:
%{!?without_lzo:BuildRequires: liblzo-devel >= 1.07}
%{!?without_lzo:Requires: liblzo >= 1.07}
James
Still fails.
Err, I got something mixed up here. It did work that time using the
"
James Yonan wrote:
What if you use this instead for the Mandrake section:
%{!?without_lzo:BuildRequires: liblzo-devel >= 1.07}
%{!?without_lzo:Requires: liblzo >= 1.07}
James
Still fails.
--
Tom Walsh - WN3L - Embedded Systems Consultant
email at http://openhardware.net?file=e
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005, TomWalsh wrote:
> Just a note to say that the openvpn.spec file seems to have a problem
> building an RPM on a Mandrake system. The build system info:
>
> Mandrake 10.1 Official PowerPack (stock distro, not upgraded).
> RPM version 4.2.2
>
>
> The problem seems to be wit
Just a note to say that the openvpn.spec file seems to have a problem
building an RPM on a Mandrake system. The build system info:
Mandrake 10.1 Official PowerPack (stock distro, not upgraded).
RPM version 4.2.2
The problem seems to be with rpmbuild incorrectly identifying / seeing
liblzo-d
26 matches
Mail list logo
