Bugzilla – Bug 732763
PCP packaging is broken
Last modified: 2013-01-24 16:04:57 UTC
As reported by Ken McDonell: The package names for the libraries have been changed from pcp-libs and pcp-libs-devel to libpcp3 and libpcp-devel respectively ... besides being internally inconsistent (should be libpcp3-devel me thinks), the more serious problems are A. whoever did this did not send the patches up stream to the PCP maintainers, and (more importantly) B. there are no apparent Obsoletes rules to deal with upgrades, so installing PCP 3.5.9 from oss.sgi.com source on top of PCP 3.5.8 from openSUSE leads to a botched install and parts of both 3.5.8 and 3.5.9 installed
A common spec file has been proposed upstream, with conflicts in place to handle SUSE/RH package clashes: http://oss.sgi.com/archives/pcp/2012-06/msg00024.html
This is an autogenerated message for OBS integration: This bug (732763) was mentioned in https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/127011 Factory / pcp
This bug is now fixed in OpenSUSE:Factory, I'd like to merge the pcp and pcp-gui packages to openSUSE:12.2:Update. Both have been tested on openSUSE 12.2 Beta 2.
Hi David, could you do a maintenancerequest with the updated 12.2 package, please. We'll start an update.
Thanks Ben, I've proposed: https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/127094
Update is running. Thanks for the submission.
Just returning from holidays, I'll should get a chance to address Sascha's feedback soon: Far to many macros IMO. You can check for % [+]suse_version instead of %_vendor (it's more common). Doing "rm -rf %buildroot" in the %install section is a no-go (even if useful for rpmbuild), you can use a fedora check around if you really need it. AFAICS, the ldconfig calls should be done for the lib package. Lastly, there are a lot of rpmlint warnings and even errors. Please fix at least the latter. Thanks!
(In reply to comment #8) > Far to many macros IMO. You can check for % [+]suse_version instead of %_vendor > (it's more common). Doing "rm -rf %buildroot" in the %install section is a > no-go (even if useful for rpmbuild), you can use a fedora check around if you > really need it. AFAICS, the ldconfig calls should be done for the lib package. > Lastly, there are a lot of rpmlint warnings and even errors. Please fix at > least the latter. Thanks! I'll convert the %_vendor to %suse_version checks and remove the "rm -rf %buildroot". Regarding the complaint that there are too many macros, I'm firmly in favour of using macros rather than wrapping every use in %if (0%{?suse_version} > 0). The rpmlint errors are caused by the PMDA .h files packaged, and were also present in openSUSE 12.1. Quoting the explanation from RH: # Note: there are some headers (e.g. domain.h) and in a few cases some # C source files that rpmlint complains about. These are not devel files, # but rather they are (slightly obscure) PMDA config files.
(In reply to comment #9) > I'll convert the %_vendor to %suse_version checks and remove the "rm -rf > %buildroot". Great. > Regarding the complaint that there are too many macros, I'm firmly in favour of > using macros rather than wrapping every use in %if (0%{?suse_version} > 0). It was no complaint, rather a suggestion. I really don't see the need for several of them. AFAIR, Fedora uses SPDX style license strings too nowadays and why would RPM groups differ? Again, no hard issue, it just looks strange. > The rpmlint errors are caused by the PMDA .h files packaged, and were also > present in openSUSE 12.1. Quoting the explanation from RH: > # Note: there are some headers (e.g. domain.h) and in a few cases some > # C source files that rpmlint complains about. These are not devel files, > # but rather they are (slightly obscure) PMDA config files. But you could add a rpmlintrc with a proper comment to silence this one. This way, reviewers have at least a chance to rate this. Runlevel 4 in init scripts or perl-base missing dep are also fixable...
Thanks for your feedback Sascha. https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/129317 has been submitted to Factory with the following changes: + Do not remove the buildroot as part of %install + Use %suse_version rather than %_vendor + Add pcp-rpmlintrc script for devel-file-in-non-devel-package errors + Remove runlevel 4 references from init scripts + Add explicit perl version Requires
Maintenance update requested: https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/129468
accepted
Conflicts against upstream rhel packages are in place.
Update released for: libpcp3, pcp, pcp-debuginfo, pcp-debugsource, pcp-devel, pcp-import-iostat2pcp, pcp-import-mrtg2pcp, pcp-import-sar2pcp, pcp-import-sheet2pcp, perl-PCP-LogImport, perl-PCP-LogSummary, perl-PCP-MMV, perl-PCP-PMDA, permissions, permissions-debuginfo Products: SLE-DEBUGINFO 11-SP2 (i386, ia64, ppc64, s390x, x86_64) SLE-DESKTOP 11-SP2 (i386, x86_64) SLE-SDK 11-SP2 (i386, ia64, ppc64, s390x, x86_64) SLE-SERVER 11-SP2 (i386, ia64, ppc64, s390x, x86_64) SLES4VMWARE 11-SP2 (i386, x86_64)
Update released for: libpcp3, pcp, pcp-debuginfo, pcp-devel, pcp-import-iostat2pcp, pcp-import-mrtg2pcp, pcp-import-sar2pcp, pcp-import-sheet2pcp, perl-PCP-LogImport, perl-PCP-LogSummary, perl-PCP-MMV, perl-PCP-PMDA, permissions Products: SLE-DESKTOP 10-SP4 (i386, x86_64) SLE-SDK 10-SP4 (i386, ia64, ppc, s390x, x86_64) SLE-SERVER 10-SP4 (i386, ia64, ppc, s390x, x86_64)
Update released for: libpcp3, pcp, pcp-debuginfo, pcp-devel, pcp-import-iostat2pcp, pcp-import-mrtg2pcp, pcp-import-sar2pcp, pcp-import-sheet2pcp, perl-PCP-LogImport, perl-PCP-LogSummary, perl-PCP-MMV, perl-PCP-PMDA, permissions Products: SLE-SERVER 10-SP3-TERADATA (x86_64)