yum, python 2.6 and Suse 11.1 - A sad tale

[p***@sagonet.com]

Hi Guys,

I would like to use yum on 11.1 - specifically yum-utils and the ability
to use yum localinstall, which I find extremely handy and which zypper
does not support.

(Yes, I know "You should just use zypper!" and "smart is better" and "why
would you ever want to use yum on Suse?" and all those wonder things, but
the bottom line is that there is still no way for zypper to install a
local rpm and handle the dependencies from the repos. Plus, I like yum.)

yum is not in 11.1 repo, and seems to have been removed due to python
being updated to 2.6 which does not play well with yum.

You can still get yum from the 11.0 repo, but there are the below issues
trying to get it to work with python

11.0 repo:
http://download.opensuse.org/distribution/11.0/repo/oss/suse/i586/yum-3.2.14-15.1.i586.rpm

Errors when installing as it needs Python < 2.4 and 2.6 is installed with
Suse 11.1

I tried a later version of Yum (3.2.22), for RHEL 5.0 from Pbone, but it
still required Python < 2.4 and had other dependency isssue as well.

No problem, let's just have both Python 2.4 and 2.6 installed right?

I downloaded Python and built Python 2.4 from

http://www.python.org/download/releases/2.4.6/
./configure
./make

I normally try to run checkinstall to make an rpm rather than 'make
install' - but this had a bug too, it just need a directory to be manually
created.
(What the heck is up with checkinstall having these issues lately?)

mkdir -p /usr/local/lib/python2.4/config
checkinstall

You now have a Python 2.4 RPM - yeah! And it looks good:
Callandor:~ # rpm -qpl Python-2.4.6-1.i386.rpm | less

Callandor:~ # rpm -Uvh yum-3.2.14-15.1.i586.rpm
error: Failed dependencies:
python-gpgme is needed by yum-3.2.14-15.1.i586
python < 2.6 is needed by yum-3.2.14-15.1.i586


I installed python-gpgme which resolved that dependency and then just
forced the install as Python 2.4 exists:

rpm -ivh --nodeps yum-3.2.14-15.1.i586.rpm

Callandor:~ #ln -s /usr/local/bin/python2.4 /usr/bin/python2.4
Callandor:~ # python -V
Python 2.4.6
Callandor:~ # python2.6 -V
Python 2.6

I edited /usr/bin/yum to specify using 2.4.6, which it is.

However, yum is still not working with python:

Callandor:~ # yum
There was a problem importing one of the Python modules
required to run yum. The error leading to this problem was:

No module named yum

Please install a package which provides this module, or
verify that the module is installed correctly.

It's possible that the above module doesn't match the
current version of Python, which is:
2.4.6 (#1, Apr 25 2009, 08:25:54)
[GCC 4.3.2 [gcc-4_3-branch revision 141291]]

If you cannot solve this problem yourself, please go to
the yum faq at:
http://wiki.linux.duke.edu/YumFaq

I found this there, but honestly it is not too helpful
http://wiki.linux.duke.edu/YumFaq#Q7

I tried importing yum in python, no errors but the same issue exists.

Any suggestions on how to finish this off and get yum working on 11.1?

Thanks!

Pete Eby

[p***@sagonet.com]

Hi Guys,

I would like to use yum on 11.1 - specifically yum-utils and the ability
to use yum localinstall, which I find extremely handy and which zypper
does not support.

(Yes, I know "You should just use zypper!" and "smart is better" and "why
would you ever want to use yum on Suse?" and all those wonder things, but
the bottom line is that there is still no way for zypper to install a
local rpm and handle the dependencies from the repos. Plus, I like yum.)

yum is not in 11.1 repo, and seems to have been removed due to python
being updated to 2.6 which does not play well with yum.

You can still get yum from the 11.0 repo, but there are the below issues
trying to get it to work with python

11.0 repo:
http://download.opensuse.org/distribution/11.0/repo/oss/suse/i586/yum-3.2.14-15.1.i586.rpm

Errors when installing as it needs Python < 2.4 and 2.6 is installed with
Suse 11.1

I tried a later version of Yum (3.2.22), for RHEL 5.0 from Pbone, but it
still required Python < 2.4 and had other dependency isssue as well.

No problem, let's just have both Python 2.4 and 2.6 installed right?

I downloaded Python and built Python 2.4 from

http://www.python.org/download/releases/2.4.6/
./configure
./make

I normally try to run checkinstall to make an rpm rather than 'make
install' - but this had a bug too, it just need a directory to be manually
created.
(What the heck is up with checkinstall having these issues lately?)

mkdir -p /usr/local/lib/python2.4/config
checkinstall

You now have a Python 2.4 RPM - yeah! And it looks good:
Callandor:~ # rpm -qpl Python-2.4.6-1.i386.rpm | less

Callandor:~ # rpm -Uvh yum-3.2.14-15.1.i586.rpm
error: Failed dependencies:
python-gpgme is needed by yum-3.2.14-15.1.i586
python < 2.6 is needed by yum-3.2.14-15.1.i586


I installed python-gpgme which resolved that dependency and then just
forced the install as Python 2.4 exists:

rpm -ivh --nodeps yum-3.2.14-15.1.i586.rpm

Callandor:~ #ln -s /usr/local/bin/python2.4 /usr/bin/python2.4
Callandor:~ # python -V
Python 2.4.6
Callandor:~ # python2.6 -V
Python 2.6

I edited /usr/bin/yum to specify using 2.4.6, which it is.

However, yum is still not working with python:

Callandor:~ # yum
There was a problem importing one of the Python modules
required to run yum. The error leading to this problem was:

No module named yum

Please install a package which provides this module, or
verify that the module is installed correctly.

It's possible that the above module doesn't match the
current version of Python, which is:
2.4.6 (#1, Apr 25 2009, 08:25:54)
[GCC 4.3.2 [gcc-4_3-branch revision 141291]]

If you cannot solve this problem yourself, please go to
the yum faq at:
http://wiki.linux.duke.edu/YumFaq

I found this there, but honestly it is not too helpful
http://wiki.linux.duke.edu/YumFaq#Q7

I tried importing yum in python, no errors but the same issue exists.

Any suggestions on how to finish this off and get yum working on 11.1?

Thanks!

Pete Eby

[Carlos E. R.]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Post by p***@sagonet.com
I normally try to run checkinstall to make an rpm rather than 'make
install' - but this had a bug too, it just need a directory to be manually
created.

I wrote a bugzilla about that problem time ago.

Post by p***@sagonet.com
(What the heck is up with checkinstall having these issues lately?)

The devs do not want to repair it, they prefer us to create a spec file by
hand, for which you need to be an expert, or worse, use the buildservice,
for which you need to be an even better expert. For them it is easy, so
they don't repair checkinstall. Impossible!

My hack for the above is:

- create each directory it wants, by hand, and rerun checkinstall. Maybe
a hundred cycles. Boresome.
- or install the previous rpm from the same package, which creates the
directories. Then run checkinstall (without install), remove the
previous rpm, install the new one.
- or first run a make install, then a checkinstall.


- --
Cheers,
Carlos E. R.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAknzKOYACgkQtTMYHG2NR9UvVwCggcq8XFe2NCpNdpvF1QrG7Uv9
k7kAn0T1fSaKadZKmDhjj6J2sUpS0gAU
=n1Wn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Rajko M.]

Post by p***@sagonet.com
Hi Guys,
I would like to use yum on 11.1 - specifically yum-utils and the ability
to use yum localinstall, which I find extremely handy and which zypper
does not support.

This should work:

zypper in <path/to/rpm/foo.rpm>

if not then:

man zypper

should tell why.

Post by p***@sagonet.com
(Yes, I know "You should just use zypper!" and "smart is better" and "why
would you ever want to use yum on Suse?" and all those wonder things, but
the bottom line is that there is still no way for zypper to install a
local rpm and handle the dependencies from the repos. Plus, I like yum.)

Let force be with you :-)

[p***@sagonet.com]

Post by Carlos E. R.

Post by p***@sagonet.com
I normally try to run checkinstall to make an rpm rather than 'make
install' - but this had a bug too, it just need a directory to be
manually
created.

I wrote a bugzilla about that problem time ago.

Post by p***@sagonet.com
(What the heck is up with checkinstall having these issues lately?)

The devs do not want to repair it, they prefer us to create a spec file by
hand, for which you need to be an expert, or worse, use the buildservice,
for which you need to be an even better expert. For them it is easy, so
they don't repair checkinstall. Impossible!

Wow - amazing the devs on checkinstall don't address it. What a pain. It
is such a great tool too. . .

Post by Carlos E. R.
- create each directory it wants, by hand, and rerun checkinstall. Maybe
a hundred cycles. Boresome.
- or install the previous rpm from the same package, which creates the
directories. Then run checkinstall (without install), remove the
previous rpm, install the new one.
- or first run a make install, then a checkinstall.
Cheers,

Those are some good idea, especially the last - simple, but will
accomplish the result. Who wants to make tons of directories by hand?

Thanks Carlos,

Pete

[p***@sagonet.com]

Post by Rajko M.

Post by p***@sagonet.com
Hi Guys,
I would like to use yum on 11.1 - specifically yum-utils and the ability
to use yum localinstall, which I find extremely handy and which zypper
does not support.

zypper in <path/to/rpm/foo.rpm>
Regards, Rajko

Argh - I see that does work (installing deps from repos) - last time I
tried that with zypper (some time ago) it was not supported. This works
and seems a good replacement for yum localinstall - thanks.

I would still like to resolve the issue with yum and the python < 2.4
issue though - why not. Do you have any idea about that?

Thanks,
Pete

[Anders Johansson]

Post by Carlos E. R.
- create each directory it wants, by hand, and rerun checkinstall.

This is a bug in the makefile, not a problem with checkinstall. If you're
creating an rpm, you don't want to put files in the real file system. Instead,
you pass an installation root directory to the makefile, using an environment
variable, and all directories are then supposed to be relative to it.

So if the installation wants to have a directory in the real file system, then
the makefile needs to be fixed. This would have tripped up rpm too

Incidentally, I don't see how it could ever be checkinstall's problem that a
directory doesn't get created. This is always the job of the makefile

Anders

[Anders Johansson]

Post by p***@sagonet.com
I would still like to resolve the issue with yum and the python < 2.4
issue though - why not. Do you have any idea about that?

This is an rpm dependency, and it can never be resolved without downgrading
python. The best you can hope to achieve is to install a python version that
yum likes and then tell rpm to ignore that particular dependency

On the other hand, you could try to use the yum in

http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/openSUSE:/Tools:/Devel/openSUSE_11.1

and see if it works without messing around with older versions of python

You can use zypper to install it :)

Anders

[Anders Johansson]

Post by Carlos E. R.

Post by p***@sagonet.com
I normally try to run checkinstall to make an rpm rather than 'make
install' - but this had a bug too, it just need a directory to be
manually created.

I wrote a bugzilla about that problem time ago.

My guess is that the makefile creates the directory relative to the
installation root, but then tries to install not relative to it, into the real
file system

Anders

[Carlos E. R.]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Post by Anders Johansson

Post by Carlos E. R.

Post by p***@sagonet.com
I normally try to run checkinstall to make an rpm rather than 'make
install' - but this had a bug too, it just need a directory to be
manually created.

I wrote a bugzilla about that problem time ago.

My guess is that the makefile creates the directory relative to the
installation root, but then tries to install not relative to it, into the real
file system

It happens with many Makefile files I have tried, I have no idea why. A
project would compile on openSUSE 10.3, then it failed in 11.0.

Example:

/usr/bin/install -c .libs/libdvdcss.a /usr/local/lib/libdvdcss.a
chmod 644 /usr/local/lib/libdvdcss.a
chmod: changing permissions of `/usr/local/lib/libdvdcss.a': No such file or directory
make[3]: *** [install-libLTLIBRARIES] Error 1
make[3]: Leaving directory


This is Bug 432497, if you are interested.

- --
Cheers,
Carlos E. R.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAknzQKcACgkQtTMYHG2NR9WqbgCfSDQVosXz46TTzjvwqQTwj6O3
5QkAn2FzR+txWupDmyP0XAjRorhcV3Xj
=NYt8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Anders Johansson]

Post by Carlos E. R.

Post by Anders Johansson

Post by Carlos E. R.

Post by p***@sagonet.com
I normally try to run checkinstall to make an rpm rather than 'make
install' - but this had a bug too, it just need a directory to be
manually created.

I wrote a bugzilla about that problem time ago.

My guess is that the makefile creates the directory relative to the
installation root, but then tries to install not relative to it, into the
real file system

It happens with many Makefile files I have tried, I have no idea why. A
project would compile on openSUSE 10.3, then it failed in 11.0.
/usr/bin/install -c .libs/libdvdcss.a /usr/local/lib/libdvdcss.a
chmod 644 /usr/local/lib/libdvdcss.a

Exactly. A hard coded path directly into the file system. This doesn't work
when you want to create an rpm, everything has to be relative to the
installation root.

This is a very common bug in makefiles

Post by Carlos E. R.
chmod: changing permissions of `/usr/local/lib/libdvdcss.a': No such file
or directory make[3]: *** [install-libLTLIBRARIES] Error 1
make[3]: Leaving directory
This is Bug 432497, if you are interested.

I am, but it is still a problem with the makefiles

Anders

[Anders Johansson]

Post by Carlos E. R.
/usr/bin/install -c .libs/libdvdcss.a /usr/local/lib/libdvdcss.a
chmod 644 /usr/local/lib/libdvdcss.a
chmod: changing permissions of `/usr/local/lib/libdvdcss.a': No such file
or directory make[3]: *** [install-libLTLIBRARIES] Error 1
make[3]: Leaving directory
This is Bug 432497, if you are interested.

OK, I was wrong. checkinstall doesn't work like rpm, it seems. Now that I look
at it, I see that it preloads a library called installwatch, which intercepts
calls to syscalls like chmod and redirects them to its temporary directory.

The bug here is that chmod doesn't actually use the syscall chmod, it uses
something called fchmodat, which the installwatch lib doesn't intercept, it
only does chmod and fchmod. It seems it needs to be updated with all the
newer calls

Anders

[Rajko M.]

Post by p***@sagonet.com
I would still like to resolve the issue with yum and the python < 2.4
issue though - why not. Do you have any idea about that?

I'm not sure about yum details, and I would be cautious.

I'm not sure how compatible is yum that you are trying to install with zypper.
You don't want 2 package management systems that store metadata in different
places, ie. have no idea what the other one installed. It is recipe for
problems.

Maybe yum that Anders pointed can help you.
It should be compatible with 11.1.

That is why I ended last post with Star Wars line "Let force be with you",
which highly probably will be the case if you check what is already in the
openSUSE Build Service:
http://software.opensuse.org/search
and
http://packages.opensuse-community.org/
before you resort to www search.

[Carlos E. R.]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Post by Anders Johansson

Post by Carlos E. R.
This is Bug 432497, if you are interested.

OK, I was wrong. checkinstall doesn't work like rpm, it seems. Now that I look
at it, I see that it preloads a library called installwatch, which intercepts
calls to syscalls like chmod and redirects them to its temporary directory.

Yes, I remember it uses a temporary directory and then removes it on exit;
one never sees it.

Post by Anders Johansson
The bug here is that chmod doesn't actually use the syscall chmod, it uses
something called fchmodat, which the installwatch lib doesn't intercept, it
only does chmod and fchmod. It seems it needs to be updated with all the
newer calls

Argh! Well, at least I have now an idea of what is happening. Thanks for
giving it a thought :-)

- --
Cheers,
Carlos E. R.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAknzaIAACgkQtTMYHG2NR9VUwwCfYRWADQwQmijpaCixCmj5AUET
XqYAn1PxeFQsEjhtAaShyWjx26+hkadz
=pSy3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Philipp Thomas]

Post by p***@sagonet.com
(What the heck is up with checkinstall having these issues lately?)

Most probably because newer software uses functions in glibc that
installwatch (part of the checkinstall package) doesn't know about and thus
doesn't redirect to its own versions before calling the glibc versions
(mostly all those *at functions. There is code in the checkinstall git that
adds these calls but that hasn't been released yet.

Besides, I'm rather determined to move checkinstall over to the openSUSE
buildservice and let someone from the community maintain it, but that's a
totally different story and would deserve an own thread.

Philipp

[Philipp Thomas]

Post by Carlos E. R.
The devs do not want to repair it,

Oh, I do want to repair it, but I won't invest weeks of coding time for
something that nobody inside suse is using! If you want something working,
check out the code from the checkinstall git repository ande compile it for
yourself.

*If* you want to complain to anyone do it upstreams to those that create
and maintain checkinstall. Ask them why they haven't yet released code that
works with newer glibc versions.

Post by Carlos E. R.
they prefer us to create a spec file by hand, for which you need to be an expert,

No, you don't need to be an expert to create a spec, there are literally
thousands of examples to go from.

Post by Carlos E. R.
or worse, use the buildservice, for which you need to be an even better
expert. For them it is easy, so they don't repair checkinstall. Impossible!

If fixing checkinstall would be so easy I would have done so long ago! The
point is that I would have to invest roughly at least a complete week to
get the code from the checkinstall git and integrate that into our version.
And that is much more time then I can invest in a package such as
checkinstall.

It's really time to drop checkinstall from the distribution, move it to the
buildservice and let someone else maintain the package! I put checkinstall
into the distribution because I thought it would be a service to the users
of back then SuSE Linux and would need little work to maintain. Now that we
have the buildservice there isn't any need anymore to have it maintained
inside Novell. If the community wants the package, someone from that
community ought to step up and maintain it.

Checkinstall is a gross hack and does not really fit into openSUSE as it
will happily create packages that defy all rules for this distribution.
Hmm, there's a project there, now that I think about it! How about having
checkinstall additionally call rpmlint like its done for openSUSE packages?
This would reject the packages based on the same rules that apply to all
openSUSE packages. Yes, I like that idea! I guess I'll spend a bit of my
scarce free time on that after I've returned from my holiday.

Philipp

[Hans-Peter Jansen]

Post by Rajko M.

Post by p***@sagonet.com
I would still like to resolve the issue with yum and the python < 2.4
issue though - why not. Do you have any idea about that?

I'm not sure about yum details, and I would be cautious.
I'm not sure how compatible is yum that you are trying to install with
zypper. You don't want 2 package management systems that store metadata
in different places, ie. have no idea what the other one installed. It is
recipe for problems.

Well, I haven't tested yum lately, but your claim doesn't hold true, because
zypper, smart and yum are all frontends to rpm...

The repo management "upwards" differ, the backend remains the same.

BTW, yum has a record and is designed for minimum risk package mgmt, for
this reason, there're no --force nor --nodeps options. OTOH, I even
bootstrapped some SuSE installations (for diskless clients) with it, a
custom script, and the rpms..

Pete

[Carlos E. R.]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Post by Philipp Thomas

Post by Carlos E. R.
The devs do not want to repair it,

Oh, I do want to repair it, but I won't invest weeks of coding time for
something that nobody inside suse is using!

But YOUR users are using it. There is no alternative. Are we openSUSE
members part of openSUSE or not?

Post by Philipp Thomas
If you want something working,
check out the code from the checkinstall git repository ande compile it for
yourself.
*If* you want to complain to anyone do it upstreams to those that create
and maintain checkinstall. Ask them why they haven't yet released code that
works with newer glibc versions.

I'd prefer somebody from SUSE/Novell doing that, as you know what is
wrong, and I don't.

Post by Philipp Thomas

Post by Carlos E. R.
they prefer us to create a spec file by hand, for which you need to be an expert,

No, you don't need to be an expert to create a spec, there are literally
thousands of examples to go from.

Examples that are from experts and for experts, and very much more
difficult than having it done automatically.

I just searched for "create spec file" in the openSUSE site, and only
found "http://en.opensuse.org/SUSE_Build_Tutorial". It starts with:

You should have a good understanding about the creation of RPMs.
This document is not aimed to be a replacement for RPM
documentation. There are already many HOWTOs, Guides and Books for
this see the resources paragraph for RPM related links.

Well, I have none. So, what do I do? I want to create an rpm as fast
as checkinstall does. I don't want to really do a seminar on creating
them. I don't really want to understand their insides in order to
create a private one.

Post by Philipp Thomas
of back then SuSE Linux and would need little work to maintain. Now that we
have the buildservice there isn't any need anymore to have it maintained
inside Novell. If the community wants the package, someone from that
community ought to step up and maintain it.

Again with the buildservice! Can you tell me what good is the
buildservice for a single build that is going to be used for a single
computer? I have no idea how to create an spec. How on earth would I use
the buildservice to build any package for my private use, under half an
hour, automatically?

The users of checkinstall do not want to distribute. We simply want to
keep the rpm database happy (in ignorance if need be).

And... would you allow us to build, say, libdvdcs in your buildservice? I
guess not.

Post by Philipp Thomas
Checkinstall is a gross hack and does not really fit into openSUSE as it
will happily create packages that defy all rules for this distribution.

I don't care. It fits our uses. Not yours, because you are a dev. Ours.

- --
Cheers,
Carlos E. R.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkn3mbsACgkQtTMYHG2NR9X5LgCfUPPwlqB1CWzbIT72cTshAlaN
voEAnRsASj0vfWMtwDbTsBmGb7UKuJEf
=tdy8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Philipp Thomas]

Post by Carlos E. R.
Again with the buildservice! Can you tell me what good is the
buildservice for a single build that is going to be used for a single
computer?

You misunderstood me. I meant someone from the community should step up to
maintain checkinstall as with the existance of the BS it's not necessary to
maintain checkinstall inside Novell.

Post by Carlos E. R.
I don't care.

If you don't care, why do you use openSUSE? Part of the work we did in the
past was ensuring that packages in the distribution stick to the rules
defined for the distribution, including the rules which compiler warnings
are unacceptable and which paths have to be used.

I really think I'll make checkinstall obey those rules as much as I can.
This would reject an rpm package based on the same rules every package in
openSUSE has to obey (including packages in the BS).

Post by Carlos E. R.
It fits our uses. Not yours, because you are a dev. Ours.

I really don't think that a package that ignores all the rules really fits
your uses. What about compiler warnings that we treat like errors because
most often it's a sign of broken coding that can lead to all kinds of
problems including silent data corruption? Building such packages in our
internal build system or in the OBS will fail because of such errors.

Building with checkinstall will succeed and you will have code that may
silently and unnoticed corrupts your system. Do you really want that?

Philipp

[John E. Perry]

Post by Carlos E. R.

Post by Philipp Thomas
Checkinstall is a gross hack and does not really fit into openSUSE as it
will happily create packages that defy all rules for this distribution.

I don't care. It fits our uses. Not yours, because you are a dev. Ours.

Carlos, if you don't care, why not just compile into a home directory
and put that directory into your path? That way you don't risk
corrupting the rest of the system, and you don't need checkinstall.

John Perry

[JB2]

Post by John E. Perry

Post by Carlos E. R.

Post by Philipp Thomas
Checkinstall is a gross hack and does not really fit into openSUSE as it
will happily create packages that defy all rules for this distribution.

I don't care. It fits our uses. Not yours, because you are a dev. Ours.

Carlos, if you don't care, why not just compile into a home directory
and put that directory into your path? That way you don't risk
corrupting the rest of the system, and you don't need checkinstall.

That defeats the purpose of the simplicity (and most of Carlos's post) of
checkinstall. Even suggesting this 'path' ad nausea makes for dulled over
eyes on new users to linux. Yes, cli is good to know, but if it has to be
*that* complicated to know how to change path and such!

[John E. Perry]

Post by JB2

Post by John E. Perry

Post by Carlos E. R.
I don't care. It fits our uses. Not yours, because you are a dev. Ours.

Carlos, if you don't care, why not just compile into a home directory
and put that directory into your path? That way you don't risk
corrupting the rest of the system, and you don't need checkinstall.

That defeats the purpose of the simplicity (and most of Carlos's post) of
checkinstall. Even suggesting this 'path' ad nausea makes for dulled over
eyes on new users to linux. Yes, cli is good to know, but if it has to be
*that* complicated to know how to change path and such!

Oops. Forgot that there was more to checkinstall (which I've never
used) than just compiling and installing into system directories.

Sorry.

jp

[Carlos E. R.]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Post by John E. Perry

Post by Carlos E. R.

Post by Philipp Thomas
Checkinstall is a gross hack and does not really fit into openSUSE as it
will happily create packages that defy all rules for this distribution.

I don't care. It fits our uses. Not yours, because you are a dev. Ours.

Carlos, if you don't care, why not just compile into a home directory
and put that directory into your path? That way you don't risk
corrupting the rest of the system, and you don't need checkinstall.

You can do that only if it is a package not already available to Yast. For
example, if you want to use your own compilation of "xinelib", you want
yours to replace the system one, so you remove the existing xinelib: and
then a bunch of apps complain there is no xinelib, even if you put your
compiled version, because the rpm database is not happy, and Yast will
want to remove those apps, too. So you need to create an rpm of your local
xinelib so that rpm knows there is something named xinelib in the system.


- --
Cheers,
Carlos E. R.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkn33qoACgkQtTMYHG2NR9UzoQCgjXdNy5uGTOqEa6XeKp+oT93v
HU0AoIkXYkuTim2xMg8v4T06082D6SCI
=od4P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Michael Schroeder]

Post by Hans-Peter Jansen
BTW, yum has a record and is designed for minimum risk package mgmt, for
this reason, there're no --force nor --nodeps options.

There's no need for those options in dependency solving package
managers like yum/smart/zypper.

M.