[Dev] Tizen RPM macros now defines %suse_version : good or not ?

Stéphane Desneux stephane.desneux at open.eurogiciel.org
Thu Aug 7 13:15:28 GMT 2014


Hi Chanho,

I forgot to mention that python-yaml shouldn't be submitted as there's a
conflict with python-PyYAML. See errors here:
https://build.tizen.org/project/monitor?blocked=0&building=0&dispatching=0&finished=0&project=home%3Aprerelease%3ATizen%3ACommon%3Asubmit%3Atizen%3A20140807.124405&scheduled=0&signing=0&succeeded=0

Can you please resubmit on another group submission without python-yaml
? (there's no way to remove a package from a group submission).

Use the above URL to check the new submission state (adjust the project
name with the new submission tag). This way, you'll see if anything
breaks in the build.

Feel free to contact me directly if you have any problem.

Thanks.
-- 
Stéphane Desneux
Intel OTC - Vannes/FR
gpg:1CA35726/DFA9B0232EF80493AF2891FA24E3A2841CA35726

On 07/08/2014 15:05, Chanho Park wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Chanho Park [mailto:chanho61.park at samsung.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2014 9:51 PM
>> To: 'Stéphane Desneux'; 'Dev at lists.tizen.org'
>> Cc: 'Yury Usishchev'
>> Subject: RE: [Dev] Tizen RPM macros now defines %suse_version : good or
>> not ?
>>
>> Hi Stephane,
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Stéphane Desneux [mailto:stephane.desneux at open.eurogiciel.org]
>>> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2014 9:32 PM
>>> To: Chanho Park; Dev at lists.tizen.org
>>> Cc: 'Yury Usishchev'
>>> Subject: Re: [Dev] Tizen RPM macros now defines %suse_version : good
>> or
>>> not ?
>>>
>>> On 07/08/2014 13:05, Chanho Park wrote:
>>>> Hi Stephane,
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Dev [mailto:dev-bounces at lists.tizen.org] On Behalf Of
>> Stephane
>>>>> Desneux
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2014 7:09 PM
>>>>> To: Dev at lists.tizen.org
>>>>> Subject: [Dev] Tizen RPM macros now defines %suse_version : good or
>>> not ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> Recently, Yury Usishchev added a patch over the rpm package:
>>>>> https://review.tizen.org/gerrit/#/c/25292/
>>>>>
>>>>> This patch adds the %suse_version definition to rpm-tizen_macros.
>>>>>
>>>>> This broke the build for some packages that use %suse_version in
>>>>> Tizen:Common and I opened a bug for that:
>>>>> https://bugs.tizen.org/jira/browse/TC-1474
>>>>>
>>>>> I see two cases:
>>>>> - a package must be built into Tizen and into openSuse. Example:
>> mic,
>>>>> kickstarter, ... and maybe other tools that have a single spec file
>>> for
>>>>> multiple distros (including tizen)
>>>>
>>>> We didn't catch there is some packages to build by openSUSE.
>>>>
>>>>> - a package is specific to Tizen but the spec file was initially
>>> copied
>>>>> from openSUSE (and may contain some tests on %suse_version which
>>> should
>>>>> be removed).
>>>>>
>>>>> From what Yury told me, the base reason to add %suse_version was:
>>>>> "%suse_version macro is checked by 'build' script and enables
>>> cumulate
>>>>> install. It is believed to be a bit faster and reduces number of
>>> errors
>>>>> with msm.so." So it was added for good reasons. But maybe it's not
>>> the
>>>>> proper way to fix the base problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So my final question is simple: is it desirable to
>>> define %suse_version
>>>>> into Tizen ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> IMO, the answer should be *no* and we should rollback to the
>> previous
>>>>> state for all impacted packages (rpm, icecream, mic, kickstarter,
>>>>> python-yaml, ...). But this also means that the special ops done by
>>>>> 'build' when it detects the %suse_version macro should be done also
>>> when
>>>>> %tizen_version is defined. Is it something that the Tools team can
>>>>> investigate ?
>>>>
>>>> I've made a patch to fix this problem. Instead of defining the
>>> suse_version,
>>>> I set the DO_CUMULATIVE varables always TRUE because we'll always
>> use
>>> newer
>>>> suse version than 1220.
>>>> If the patch can resolve the issue, I'll revert all of my patches.
>>>>
>>>> https://review.tizen.org/gerrit/#/c/25635/
>>>
>>> LGTM !
>>>
>>> As soon as it's merged, please resubmit the previous group of packages
>>> in one single group (gbs submit -T <tag>) for:
>>> - rpm (to be fixed to remove %suse_version in macros)
>>> - build
>>>
>>> IIRC, the following packages should also be resubmitted in the same
>>> group with the previously accepted commits:
>>> - icecream
>>> - mic
>>> - kickstarter
>>> - python-yaml
>>> - zypper
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if this list is complete, but it's not far from the
>>> submissions you did to fix the build errors.
>>
>> I reverted all of the commits and requested them with group tag.
>>
>> Group tag : submit/tizen/20140807.124405
>> Packages:
>> python-pygments
>> mic
>> python-yaml
>> kickstarter
>> zipper
>> build
> 
> +icecream
> 
> I missed the icecream. So, I added it into the group tag.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Chanho Park
> 


More information about the Dev mailing list