cd platform-master
After this line, you are within your personal build tree below %_builddir
as set up during %prep.
To change into that build directory is an automatic step at the beginning
of every spec file section.
You've given the name of that directory as the -n option to %aut
akerpm/rpmbuild
+ mkdir -p src/github.com/mattermost
+ cd src/github.com/mattermost
+ ln -s /home/makerpm/rpmbuild/platform-master platform
--
May you give me the correct syntax you would use for these lines?
>
> The %setup and %autosetup macros define the top
eed to use the %_builddir macro.
> In most cases, you don't need to use it at all.
>
> The %setup and %autosetup macros define the top-level build directory
> below %_builddir, and at the start of every spec file section (e.g. %build,
> %install, %check, even %files), that bu
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 18:53:30 +, arnaud gaboury wrote:
> In fact, I realize I am totally confused between the "old" method I used to
> build .rpm and this new wiki using fedpkg. Before, I used to have BUILD,
> BUILDROOT, SOURCES etc folders inside rpmbuild. Now, I am not sure how to
> setup my
e the top-level build directory
below %_builddir, and at the start of every spec file section (e.g. %build,
%install, %check, even %files), that build directory is entered automatically.
It may also be cleaned up automatically depending on your rpmbuild option
and the default %clean section.
Create
gt;
>
> YES
>
> If so, it has not reached the %files processing section it seems.
>
>
>
> Uploading the full spec file or even the src.rpm would have been a great
> idea.
>
>
> Here it goes:
>
>
>
>
>
> %prep
> %autosetup -n platfor
; > error: Bad file:
> > /home/makerpm/build_package/mattermost/mattermost-user.conf: No such file
> > or directory
>
> You've not given enough information, unfortunately. Does the output end
> there?
>
>
> YES
>
> If so, it has not reached the %files pro
rmost/mattermost-user.conf: No such file
> > or directory
>
> You've not given enough information, unfortunately. Does the output end
> there?
YES
> If so, it has not reached the %files processing section it seems.
>
> Uploading the full spec file or even the src.rpm wo
n enough information, unfortunately. Does the output end
there? If so, it has not reached the %files processing section it seems.
Uploading the full spec file or even the src.rpm would have been a great
idea.
Tell a bit about the "build_package" directory below $HOME.
/home/makerpm is the ho
I am writing a spec file. Everything build fine until the very last. Make
throw an error and I don't understand why.
Part of the spec file:
cd %{_builddir}
install -Dm755 bin/platform %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/%{name}/bin/platform
install -Dm755 mattermost.sh %{buildroot}%{_b
On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 8:56 AM Matthias Runge
wrote:
> On 08/11/16 15:59, arnaud gaboury wrote:
> > I am writing a .spec file for an app built with go[0].
> > I first made a build following the official doc, then write a .spec file
> > and built with it .rpm. Everything
On 08/11/16 15:59, arnaud gaboury wrote:
> I am writing a .spec file for an app built with go[0].
> I first made a build following the official doc, then write a .spec file
> and built with it .rpm. Everything is OK but I have some doubts when I
> look at some other .spec files for
I am writing a .spec file for an app built with go[0].
I first made a build following the official doc, then write a .spec file
and built with it .rpm. Everything is OK but I have some doubts when I look
at some other .spec files for application writen in GO, or create a spec
file for my app using
>> For the academic sake only, does a facility exist to defer evaluation
>> for this use case?
>
>It would get kinda ugly, but you could re-expand the macro body:
>
>%global foo-bar_dir %{expand:%(ls -d
>%{_builddir}/%{name}-%{version}/foo-bar-*-baz |grep -o '[^/]*$')}
Thanks Michael,
jlc
--
use
On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 21:57:21 +, Joseph L. Casale wrote:
> For the academic sake only, does a facility exist to defer evaluation
> for this use case?
It would get kinda ugly, but you could re-expand the macro body:
%global foo-bar_dir %{expand:%(ls -d
%{_builddir}/%{name}-%{version}/foo-bar-
> That approach sounds too complicated. %setup is a macro in the %prep
> section, where you can run more commands to _set up_ your builddir. The
> most obvious choice IMO would be to _rename_ the versioned dir to something
> unique. You could also avoid the second invocation of %setup and extract
>
On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 03:16:24 +, Joseph L. Casale wrote:
> I have a spec with two source files where I do not create the second, it's
> not mine:
>
> Source0:%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
> Source1:foo-bar.tar.xz
>
> My prep sections looks like:
>
> %setup -q
> %setup -q -T -D -
I have a spec with two source files where I do not create the second, it's not
mine:
Source0:%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
Source1:foo-bar.tar.xz
My prep sections looks like:
%setup -q
%setup -q -T -D -a 1
The tar.xz for Source1 has an unversioned name however it unpacks to a
versi
On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 10:28 AM, arnaud gaboury
wrote:
> To build successfully a rpm package from my .spec file I need alias a command.
> The alias command is not taken into account in the .spec file. I can
> of course run it in my shell before the build, but I would like to
> include
To build successfully a rpm package from my .spec file I need alias a command.
The alias command is not taken into account in the .spec file. I can
of course run it in my shell before the build, but I would like to
include the process in .spec file.
The link[1] is confusing. Something like:
pm
On Sat, 8 Mar 2014, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hi
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 7:22 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> does that make sense? as i said, not a big deal and certainly
> doesn't affect operation, just wanting to clarify that i'm reading the
Hi
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 7:22 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> does that make sense? as i said, not a big deal and certainly
> doesn't affect operation, just wanting to clarify that i'm reading the
> spec file correctly and understanding how it would have been written
ly
curious, i popped over to the package git repo:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/isdn4k-utils.git/tree/
and took a look at the spec file to see what was happening:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/isdn4k-utils.git/tree/isdn4k-utils.spec
and the relevant parts seem to be, first this at
/bin/smolder_smoke_signal
/usr/share/man/man1/smolder_smoke_signal.1.gz
This is what is in my spec file:
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc Changes CREDITS examples KNOWN_BUGS META.json pm pod README.md swig TODO
xs xt
%{perl_vendorarch}/auto/*
%{perl_vendorarch}/Math*
%{_mandir}/man3
On 02/24/13 02:10, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 02:03:32 +0100, poma wrote:
>
>> Well, as always, defaults matter, not optflags in rpmrc. ;)
>> And within config.mk default is CFLAGS = -O1.
>> Let Hartlich comments, it's his code.
>
> Rest assured, we (= deco maintainer at Fedora
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 02:03:32 +0100, poma wrote:
> Well, as always, defaults matter, not optflags in rpmrc. ;)
> And within config.mk default is CFLAGS = -O1.
> Let Hartlich comments, it's his code.
Rest assured, we (= deco maintainer at Fedora and me) have been in contact
with him earlier today a
On 02/24/13 01:27, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 00:54:29 +0100, poma wrote:
>
>> On 02/23/13 14:03, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> […]
>>> Nevertheless, building from source isn't a safe fix either, since it only
>>> uses different compiler flags. The crash is due to uninitialized poi
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 00:54:29 +0100, poma wrote:
> On 02/23/13 14:03, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> […]
> > Nevertheless, building from source isn't a safe fix either, since it only
> > uses different compiler flags. The crash is due to uninitialized pointers
> > -> bug 914659
> >
> > So, don't blame
On 02/23/13 14:03, Michael Schwendt wrote:
[…]
> Nevertheless, building from source isn't a safe fix either, since it only
> uses different compiler flags. The crash is due to uninitialized pointers
> -> bug 914659
>
> So, don't blame the packaging alone. The C source isn't pretty.
>
So simple
On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 10:03:24 +0100, poma wrote:
> On 02/23/13 04:45, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 8:00 PM, poma wrote:
> >> deco grub2-2.00-16.fc19.src.rpm
> >> 13020 blocks
> > [backtrace cut]
> >> Aborted
> >> --
> >
> > Hmm, the crash does not happen here. How reproducible
On 02/23/13 04:45, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 8:00 PM, poma wrote:
>> deco grub2-2.00-16.fc19.src.rpm
>> 13020 blocks
> [backtrace cut]
>> Aborted
>> --
>
> Hmm, the crash does not happen here. How reproducible is this? Can you debug?
>
Installed from source - PREFIX = /usr
firefox.sh.in
> firefox-duckduckgo.patch firefox.spec
> firefox-install-dir.patch sources
> firefox-mozconfig
>
> So you get the spec file and all of the patches. The "sources" file contains
> the checksums of the source files in the buildsystem's
On 02/22/13 10:19, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:36:43AM +0100, poma wrote:
>> Shouldn't the default be an '-a'(anonymous) check out via git?
>
> Whoops, sorry; forgot about that. I don't think the default should change
> since, since I think the most common use is active Fedo
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:36:43AM +0100, poma wrote:
> Shouldn't the default be an '-a'(anonymous) check out via git?
Whoops, sorry; forgot about that. I don't think the default should change
since, since I think the most common use is active Fedora contributors. If
you find yourself using this a
On Feb 21, 2013 2:39 AM, "Matthew Miller" wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 07:16:08PM -0600, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
> > I was wondering if it is possible to download a spec file using yum
> > or rpm only (without downloading the rpm)?
>
> No, but there's
On 02/22/13 01:21, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:36 PM, poma wrote:
>>
>> Shouldn't the default be an '-a'(anonymous) check out via git?
>>
>
> I think it should too. Maybe there are good reasons behind not making so.
> Meanwhile you can do
> $ yumdownloader --source pkgname
>
On 02/21/13 10:39, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 07:16:08PM -0600, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
>> I was wondering if it is possible to download a spec file using yum
>> or rpm only (without downloading the rpm)?
>
> No, but there's a better way! All of our s
Maitra issued this missive:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> I was wondering if it is possible to download a spec file using yum
>>>>> or rpm only (without downloading the rpm)?
>>>>
>>>> Don't think so. The spec files
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 01:01:58 -0600, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
> > yumdownloader --source foobar
> > and extract it:
> > rpm2cpio foobar*.src.rpm | cpio -idmuv *.spec
> >
>
> Thanks very much for the detailed descriptions! I was wondering also:
> is it possible to pull the .tar.gz (and/or the patches)
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 07:16:08PM -0600, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
> I was wondering if it is possible to download a spec file using yum
> or rpm only (without downloading the rpm)?
No, but there's a better way! All of our spec files are available in git,
and the "fedpkg" comm
> >>> I was wondering if it is possible to download a spec file using yum
> >>> or rpm only (without downloading the rpm)?
> >>
> >> Don't think so. The spec files are part of the srpm generally, so
> >> you'd need to grab that, install
On 02/21/13 02:47, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 17:30:50 -0800 Rick Stevens
> wrote:
>
>> On 02/20/2013 05:16 PM, Ranjan Maitra issued this missive:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I was wondering if it is possible to download a spec file using yum
&g
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 17:30:50 -0800 Rick Stevens
wrote:
> On 02/20/2013 05:16 PM, Ranjan Maitra issued this missive:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I was wondering if it is possible to download a spec file using yum
> > or rpm only (without downloading the rpm)?
>
> Don&#x
On 02/20/2013 05:16 PM, Ranjan Maitra issued this missive:
Hello,
I was wondering if it is possible to download a spec file using yum
or rpm only (without downloading the rpm)?
Don't think so. The spec files are part of the srpm generally, so
you'd need to grab that, install the srp
Hello,
I was wondering if it is possible to download a spec file using yum
or rpm only (without downloading the rpm)?
Many thanks and best wishes,
Ranjan
--
Important Notice: This mailbox is ignored: e-mails are set to be
deleted on receipt. For those needing to send personal or professional
e
scm-enable option
> > to get the packages from git. The spec file in the repository is buggy,
> > so I would like to use the spec file used for Fedora builds with small
> > modifications, however that seems to be not possible.
> >
> > Am I wrong, or did I miss something
On 11 November 2012 01:38, Suvayu Ali wrote:
> Hello again,
>
> I mentioned in another thread that I have been trying to build git
> snapshots for a few packages I use. I tried mock's --scm-enable option
> to get the packages from git. The spec file in the repository is bugg
Hello again,
I mentioned in another thread that I have been trying to build git
snapshots for a few packages I use. I tried mock's --scm-enable option
to get the packages from git. The spec file in the repository is buggy,
so I would like to use the spec file used for Fedora builds with
48 matches
Mail list logo
