| Message ID | 55D70AF3.3050604@gmx.de |
|---|---|
| State | Rejected |
| Headers | show |
Dear Andreas, > diff -Naur a/package/rpm/rpm.mk b/package/rpm/rpm.mk > --- a/package/rpm/rpm.mk 2015-08-07 11:38:37.559148663 +0200 > +++ b/package/rpm/rpm.mk 2015-08-21 11:13:31.679042077 +0200 > @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ > RPM_DEPENDENCIES += pcre > RPM_CONF_OPTS += --with-pcre=external > else > -RPM_CONF_OPTS += --with-pcre=none > +RPM_CONF_OPTS += --with-pcre=internal > endif > > ifeq ($(BR2_PACKAGE_FILE),y) I cannot apply your patch: $ wget http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/509471/mbox/ -q -O - | git am Applying: Add missing config to RPM target package error: patch failed: package/rpm/rpm.mk:34 error: package/rpm/rpm.mk: patch does not apply Patch failed at 0001 Add missing config to RPM target package When you have resolved this problem run "git am --resolved". If you would prefer to skip this patch, instead run "git am --skip". To restore the original branch and stop patching run "git am --abort". Please make your patches using git, as stated in the Buildroot manual: http://buildroot.uclibc.org/downloads/manual/manual.html#submitting-patches Regards, Vincent.
Andreas, On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:26:43 +0200, universe II wrote: > building the RPM package for my remote target I found a misconfiguration > of the .mk file. > If the regular expression package pcre is enabled in buildroot, rpm will > use it. If not, nothing will be used and regular expression are not > available, making rpm unusable. But rpm has the ability to use an > internal pcre implementation if the external lib is not available. This > needs to be correctly activated before building and then rpm works fine > on the target. See the attached patch for more details. We generally don't want to use the internal copy of libraries, and prefer to use the system-provided library when possible, which is what is done here. So there are really two cases: 1 Either the regexp support in RPM is absolutely mandatory for RPM to be useful. If this is the case, then just make the pcre dependency a mandatory one, and always pass --with-pcre=external. 2 Or the regexp support in RPM is really optional, and useful only in certain situations. If this is the case, then what is done today is correct, and you should simply enable the pcre library. Consequently, I've marked your patch as Rejected in our patch tracking system. Do not hesitate to follow up with a different patch if we are in case (1) above. Thanks a lot! Thomas
Am 21.08.2015 um 15:41 schrieb Vicente Olivert Riera: > Dear Andreas, > >> diff -Naur a/package/rpm/rpm.mk b/package/rpm/rpm.mk >> --- a/package/rpm/rpm.mk 2015-08-07 11:38:37.559148663 +0200 >> +++ b/package/rpm/rpm.mk 2015-08-21 11:13:31.679042077 +0200 >> @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ >> RPM_DEPENDENCIES += pcre >> RPM_CONF_OPTS += --with-pcre=external >> else >> -RPM_CONF_OPTS += --with-pcre=none >> +RPM_CONF_OPTS += --with-pcre=internal >> endif >> >> ifeq ($(BR2_PACKAGE_FILE),y) > I cannot apply your patch: > > $ wget http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/509471/mbox/ -q -O - | git am > Applying: Add missing config to RPM target package > error: patch failed: package/rpm/rpm.mk:34 > error: package/rpm/rpm.mk: patch does not apply > Patch failed at 0001 Add missing config to RPM target package > When you have resolved this problem run "git am --resolved". > If you would prefer to skip this patch, instead run "git am --skip". > To restore the original branch and stop patching run "git am --abort". > > Please make your patches using git, as stated in the Buildroot manual: > > http://buildroot.uclibc.org/downloads/manual/manual.html#submitting-patches > > Regards, > > Vincent. Dear Vincent, I tried to make my patch using git according to the manual, but I always got an error. Maybe related to my inexperience with git. After 4 hours of different tries I gave up and sent the patch via email. Sorry for the inconvenience. Regards, Andreas
Thomas, in my first try I had no pcre support, so rpm package was built with --with-pcre=none Trying to install a binary rpm just containing one file on my target system failed at the very beginning when rpm was checking package dependencies. Setting --with-pcre=internal solved this problem. So it seems to me that pcre is necessary to to dependency checks which is in my opinion one of the main features or rpm. Isn't it? Arnout mentioned that he wants to change from rpm5 to rpm and this will solve my problem too. So let me know what you think and if I shall send the patch again (now in the right format) or not. Regards, Andreas Am 23.08.2015 um 20:06 schrieb Thomas Petazzoni: > Andreas, > > On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:26:43 +0200, universe II wrote: > >> building the RPM package for my remote target I found a misconfiguration >> of the .mk file. >> If the regular expression package pcre is enabled in buildroot, rpm will >> use it. If not, nothing will be used and regular expression are not >> available, making rpm unusable. But rpm has the ability to use an >> internal pcre implementation if the external lib is not available. This >> needs to be correctly activated before building and then rpm works fine >> on the target. See the attached patch for more details. > We generally don't want to use the internal copy of libraries, and > prefer to use the system-provided library when possible, which is what > is done here. > > So there are really two cases: > > 1 Either the regexp support in RPM is absolutely mandatory for RPM to > be useful. If this is the case, then just make the pcre dependency a > mandatory one, and always pass --with-pcre=external. > > 2 Or the regexp support in RPM is really optional, and useful only in > certain situations. If this is the case, then what is done today is > correct, and you should simply enable the pcre library. > > Consequently, I've marked your patch as Rejected in our patch tracking > system. Do not hesitate to follow up with a different patch if we are > in case (1) above. > > Thanks a lot! > > Thomas
Dear Andreas Ehmanns, On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:28:54 +0200, Andreas Ehmanns wrote: > in my first try I had no pcre support, so rpm package was built with > --with-pcre=none > Trying to install a binary rpm just containing one file on my target > system failed at the very beginning when rpm was checking package > dependencies. Setting --with-pcre=internal solved this problem. So it > seems to me that pcre is necessary to to dependency checks which is in > my opinion one of the main features or rpm. Isn't it? If that's indeed the case, then pcre support is really mandatory for RPM to be useful. Therefore, can you send a patch to make the pcre dependency a mandatory one? Don't forget to add a comment explaining why we're making it mandatory even if RPM makes it an optional dependency. Thanks, Thomas
Dear Thomas, unfortunately it took some time, but finally I cross-checked this topic. With the change from rpm5 to rpm the problem does not exist anymore and there is no need for a patch. Thanks for your support. Regards, Andreas Am 03.09.2015 um 21:19 schrieb Andreas Ehmanns: > Thomas, > I will first check if and how the change from rpm5 to rpm affects this > topic. > If the patch is then still necessary I will send it again. Since I'm > going on holiday right now it will take some time until you hear from > me again. > > Regards, > Andreas > > > Am 31.08.2015 um 16:32 schrieb Thomas Petazzoni: >> Dear Andreas Ehmanns, >> >> On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:28:54 +0200, Andreas Ehmanns wrote: >> >>> in my first try I had no pcre support, so rpm package was built with >>> --with-pcre=none >>> Trying to install a binary rpm just containing one file on my target >>> system failed at the very beginning when rpm was checking package >>> dependencies. Setting --with-pcre=internal solved this problem. So it >>> seems to me that pcre is necessary to to dependency checks which is in >>> my opinion one of the main features or rpm. Isn't it? >> If that's indeed the case, then pcre support is really mandatory for >> RPM to be useful. Therefore, can you send a patch to make the pcre >> dependency a mandatory one? Don't forget to add a comment explaining >> why we're making it mandatory even if RPM makes it an optional >> dependency. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Thomas >
Hello, On Fri, 4 Dec 2015 08:30:27 +0100, Andreas Ehmanns wrote: > unfortunately it took some time, but finally I cross-checked this topic. > With the change from rpm5 to rpm the problem does not exist anymore and > there is no need for a patch. Great, thanks for the follow-up. Best regards, Thomas
diff -Naur a/package/rpm/rpm.mk b/package/rpm/rpm.mk --- a/package/rpm/rpm.mk 2015-08-07 11:38:37.559148663 +0200 +++ b/package/rpm/rpm.mk 2015-08-21 11:13:31.679042077 +0200 @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ RPM_DEPENDENCIES += pcre RPM_CONF_OPTS += --with-pcre=external else -RPM_CONF_OPTS += --with-pcre=none +RPM_CONF_OPTS += --with-pcre=internal endif ifeq ($(BR2_PACKAGE_FILE),y)