[aur-general] TU application / Searching a sponsor
Hello, I am Adam Hani Schakaki from south-west Germany and I think that this would be the right time to apply or rather to find a sponsor. I hope that there is no age restriction for becoming a TU because I am only 16 years old. Anyway, I got my first Mandriva Linux CD 7 years ago, after that I was using several distributions like Fedora, openSuSE, Ubuntu, Debian. I also tried Gentoo, but most of the time I used Ubuntu for desktops and Debian for servers. But around the beginning of this year I found the great ArchLinux and I loved it. I was/am programming a lot homepage related things in PHP and I also got pretty good programming skills in Java and surely bash. Currently, beside school, I am involved in a project ordered by a school for pupils and companies that every pupil can easily find a job training and the teachers can supervise it. It looks like I will finish school in two years and after that I want to study Software Engineering in London. I am maintaining 103 packages in the AUR, most of them are go-openoffice language packs. But those language packs are all outdated because at the moment I am providing binary version in my repository unless anyone requests a source version for the AUR. One of my goals would be to bring those language pack to the community repo, since there are already openoffice, go-openoffice and openoffice language packs, but no go-openoffice language packs. But the primary goal will ever be to improve ArchLinux and I want to help as much as I can. I hope that I did not forget anything and I would be proud if I found a sponsor. Adam Hani Schakaki
On 21 August 2010 22:47, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch@krzd.net> wrote:
Hello, I am Adam Hani Schakaki from south-west Germany and I think that this would be the right time to apply or rather to find a sponsor. I hope that there is no age restriction for becoming a TU because I am only 16 years old. Anyway, I got my first Mandriva Linux CD 7 years ago, after that I was using several distributions like Fedora, openSuSE, Ubuntu, Debian. I also tried Gentoo, but most of the time I used Ubuntu for desktops and Debian for servers. But around the beginning of this year I found the great ArchLinux and I loved it. I was/am programming a lot homepage related things in PHP and I also got pretty good programming skills in Java and surely bash. Currently, beside school, I am involved in a project ordered by a school for pupils and companies that every pupil can easily find a job training and the teachers can supervise it. It looks like I will finish school in two years and after that I want to study Software Engineering in London. I am maintaining 103 packages in the AUR, most of them are go-openoffice language packs. But those language packs are all outdated because at the moment I am providing binary version in my repository unless anyone requests a source version for the AUR. One of my goals would be to bring those language pack to the community repo, since there are already openoffice, go-openoffice and openoffice language packs, but no go-openoffice language packs. But the primary goal will ever be to improve ArchLinux and I want to help as much as I can. I hope that I did not forget anything and I would be proud if I found a sponsor.
Hi Adam Age is never a factor on the Internet. If you are able to do something well, you will be equally recognised and appreciated. The age of technology is upon us and I am pretty sure we have 8-year-old Archers these days. I myself taught my siblings (5-year-old brother and 11-year-old sister) last year to use programs from the commandline. They are now fans of mplayer -loop 0 and ping -c 10. Anyway, I feel it is still too early for you to become a Trusted User. Hundreds of internationalisation packages are not very indicative of your proficiency. I have checked just a couple of your non-i18n packages and although they are OK, I cannot tell how competent and confident you are or will be when it comes to the actual "maintenance" of these software packages. Often, potential applicants tend to cite other areas of involvement, like participation in the wiki, forums, internal or external projects. Since you did not mention anything related to those, it is even harder for me to assess you. I would encourage you to search for a sponsor again in a few months' time (the Bylaws have no influence in this case since you have yet to apply) when and if you feel you have become well-acquainted with the Arch Way, the Arch Build System, Arch Linux packaging and the community in general. But of course, this is only my opinion and advice; none of us (want to) have the final authority. Any other TU is free to sponsor you, so, good luck! -- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
On 22 August 2010 00:28, Ray Rashif <schivmeister@gmail.com> wrote:
Hundreds of internationalisation packages are not very indicative of your proficiency.
s/Hundreds/Tens/ -- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch@krzd.net> wrote:
Hello, I am Adam Hani Schakaki from south-west Germany and I think that this would be the right time to apply or rather to find a sponsor. I hope that there is no age restriction for becoming a TU because I am only 16 years old.
To start off. I think that it's great that your so young and this involved in the community.
Anyway, I got my first Mandriva Linux CD 7 years ago, after that I was using several distributions like Fedora, openSuSE, Ubuntu, Debian. I also tried Gentoo, but most of the time I used Ubuntu for desktops and Debian for servers. But around the beginning of this year I found the great ArchLinux and I loved it. I was/am programming a lot homepage related things in PHP and I also got pretty good programming skills in Java and surely bash. Currently, beside school, I am involved in a project ordered by a school for pupils and companies that every pupil can easily find a job training and the teachers can supervise it. It looks like I will finish school in two years and after that I want to study Software Engineering in London. I am maintaining 103 packages in the AUR, most of them are go-openoffice language packs. But those language packs are all outdated because at the moment I am providing binary version in my repository unless anyone requests a source version for the AUR.
The 90+ language packs could be a good candidate for a split PKGBUILD, possibly reducing a lot of maintenance. But AUR doesn't support split packages yet, afaik. You can probably base the split PKGBUILD off of openoffice's split PKGBUILD. Another note about those lang-packs, couldn't you just use the file which contains all the translations for all the components instead of just downloading each individual one? This would probably make it simpler to maintain. Also, if someone marks it outdated in the AUR, I would assume that they want an updated PKGBUILD which you haven't provided. Contrary to what you said. Another thing that annoyed me is that you probably removed the #contributor tags from the previous contributors and only included yourself in j and gnome-scan (all the packages not submitted this year). I could be wrong though.
One of my goals would be to bring those language pack to the community repo, since there are already openoffice, go-openoffice and openoffice language packs, but no go-openoffice language packs. But the primary goal will ever be to improve ArchLinux and I want to help as much as I can. Some of the language packs I hope that I did not forget anything and I would be proud if I found a sponsor.
Adam Hani Schakaki
I think that you need some more experience to become a TU. If you have any other contributions please mention them. I think you are off to a good start :) Just my 2 cents. Cheers!
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 11:34:21 -0500 Thomas Dziedzic <gostrc@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch@krzd.net> wrote:
Hello, I am Adam Hani Schakaki from south-west Germany and I think that this would be the right time to apply or rather to find a sponsor. I hope that there is no age restriction for becoming a TU because I am only 16 years old.
To start off. I think that it's great that your so young and this involved in the community.
Anyway, I got my first Mandriva Linux CD 7 years ago, after that I was using several distributions like Fedora, openSuSE, Ubuntu, Debian. I also tried Gentoo, but most of the time I used Ubuntu for desktops and Debian for servers. But around the beginning of this year I found the great ArchLinux and I loved it. I was/am programming a lot homepage related things in PHP and I also got pretty good programming skills in Java and surely bash. Currently, beside school, I am involved in a project ordered by a school for pupils and companies that every pupil can easily find a job training and the teachers can supervise it. It looks like I will finish school in two years and after that I want to study Software Engineering in London. I am maintaining 103 packages in the AUR, most of them are go-openoffice language packs. But those language packs are all outdated because at the moment I am providing binary version in my repository unless anyone requests a source version for the AUR.
The 90+ language packs could be a good candidate for a split PKGBUILD, possibly reducing a lot of maintenance. But AUR doesn't support split packages yet, afaik. You can probably base the split PKGBUILD off of openoffice's split PKGBUILD. Another note about those lang-packs, couldn't you just use the file which contains all the translations for all the components instead of just downloading each individual one? This would probably make it simpler to maintain. This would be good, but as you said there seems no support yet for split packages. The problem with the file which contains all files needed is that those aren't available for all language, only for around 30 languages.
Also, if someone marks it outdated in the AUR, I would assume that they want an updated PKGBUILD which you haven't provided. Contrary to what you said. The real reason was that I was too lazy. But I just updated those altough I need to find a way to get the md5 hash sums. In the previous version there was a md5sums.txt file which made that easy but there is no such file in the current version's repository.
Another thing that annoyed me is that you probably removed the #contributor tags from the previous contributors and only included yourself in j and gnome-scan (all the packages not submitted this year). I could be wrong though. Oh, I feel sorry for this fault. I must have been overlooked that, may be because I didn't knew that one should do so. I guess I should have read the Packaging Standard more carefully, what I just did. Sorry again.
One of my goals would be to bring those language pack to the community repo, since there are already openoffice, go-openoffice and openoffice language packs, but no go-openoffice language packs. But the primary goal will ever be to improve ArchLinux and I want to help as much as I can. Some of the language packs I hope that I did not forget anything and I would be proud if I found a sponsor.
Adam Hani Schakaki
I think that you need some more experience to become a TU. If you have any other contributions please mention them. I think you are off to a good start :) Just my 2 cents. Unfortunatly, I don't have much contribution related to (Arch)Linux to mention. May be I will find more things to improve in the Wiki etc. in the future.
Cheers!
Adam Hani Schakaki
On 22 August 2010 00:56, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch@krzd.net> wrote:
I need to find a way to get the md5 hash sums.
You just need to use makepkg -s to generate them: But of course, you need to verify that your own download is sane, else, you will be distributing the wrong checksums. Not to worry, as long as your download completed fine I would say there is no need to check with an upstream hash file. -- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 01:37:33 +0800 Ray Rashif <schivmeister@gmail.com> wrote:
On 22 August 2010 00:56, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch@krzd.net> wrote:
I need to find a way to get the md5 hash sums.
You just need to use makepkg -s to generate them: But of course, you need to verify that your own download is sane, else, you will be distributing the wrong checksums. Not to worry, as long as your download completed fine I would say there is no need to check with an upstream hash file.
-- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD Sure, this would be the normal way. But I need two different sets of hash sums. One for the 32bits files and one for the 64bits files. That's the problem.
Excerpt of the current PKGBUILD: _source_x86_64=( ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-base-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-binfilter-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-calc-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-draw-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-help-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-impress-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-math-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-res-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-writer-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/3.2.1/openoffice.org3-af-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ) _source_x86=( ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-base-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-binfilter-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-calc-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-draw-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-help-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-impress-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-math-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-res-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-writer-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/3.2.1/openoffice.org3-af-${_intver}.i586.rpm ) _md5sums_x86_64=() _md5sums_x86=() source=(${_source_x86[@]}) md5sums=(${_md5sums_x86[@]}) Adam Hani Schakaki
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch@krzd.net> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 01:37:33 +0800 Ray Rashif <schivmeister@gmail.com> wrote:
On 22 August 2010 00:56, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch@krzd.net> wrote:
I need to find a way to get the md5 hash sums.
You just need to use makepkg -s to generate them: But of course, you need to verify that your own download is sane, else, you will be distributing the wrong checksums. Not to worry, as long as your download completed fine I would say there is no need to check with an upstream hash file.
-- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD Sure, this would be the normal way. But I need two different sets of hash sums. One for the 32bits files and one for the 64bits files. That's the problem.
Excerpt of the current PKGBUILD: _source_x86_64=( ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-base-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-binfilter-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-calc-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-draw-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-help-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-impress-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-math-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-res-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-writer-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/3.2.1/openoffice.org3-af-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ) _source_x86=( ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-base-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-binfilter-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-calc-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-draw-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-help-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-impress-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-math-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-res-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-writer-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/3.2.1/openoffice.org3-af-${_intver}.i586.rpm )
_md5sums_x86_64=() _md5sums_x86=() source=(${_source_x86[@]}) md5sums=(${_md5sums_x86[@]})
Adam Hani Schakaki
What are the differences between the two arch packages? Do they contain any arch dependent files?
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 13:18:01 -0500 Thomas Dziedzic <gostrc@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch@krzd.net> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 01:37:33 +0800 Ray Rashif <schivmeister@gmail.com> wrote:
On 22 August 2010 00:56, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch@krzd.net> wrote:
I need to find a way to get the md5 hash sums.
You just need to use makepkg -s to generate them: But of course, you need to verify that your own download is sane, else, you will be distributing the wrong checksums. Not to worry, as long as your download completed fine I would say there is no need to check with an upstream hash file.
-- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD Sure, this would be the normal way. But I need two different sets of hash sums. One for the 32bits files and one for the 64bits files. That's the problem.
Excerpt of the current PKGBUILD: _source_x86_64=( ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-base-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-binfilter-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-calc-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-draw-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-help-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-impress-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-math-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-res-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-writer-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/3.2.1/openoffice.org3-af-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ) _source_x86=( ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-base-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-binfilter-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-calc-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-draw-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-help-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-impress-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-math-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-res-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-writer-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/3.2.1/openoffice.org3-af-${_intver}.i586.rpm )
_md5sums_x86_64=() _md5sums_x86=() source=(${_source_x86[@]}) md5sums=(${_md5sums_x86[@]})
Adam Hani Schakaki
What are the differences between the two arch packages? Do they contain any arch dependent files? It seems like that since the files got different md5 hashes. They also contain binary files.
Adam Hani Schakaki
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch@krzd.net> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 13:18:01 -0500 Thomas Dziedzic <gostrc@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch@krzd.net> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 01:37:33 +0800 Ray Rashif <schivmeister@gmail.com> wrote:
On 22 August 2010 00:56, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch@krzd.net> wrote:
I need to find a way to get the md5 hash sums.
You just need to use makepkg -s to generate them: But of course, you need to verify that your own download is sane, else, you will be distributing the wrong checksums. Not to worry, as long as your download completed fine I would say there is no need to check with an upstream hash file.
-- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD Sure, this would be the normal way. But I need two different sets of hash sums. One for the 32bits files and one for the 64bits files. That's the problem.
Excerpt of the current PKGBUILD: _source_x86_64=( ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-base-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-binfilter-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-calc-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-draw-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-help-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-impress-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-math-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-res-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-writer-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/3.2.1/openoffice.org3-af-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ) _source_x86=( ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-base-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-binfilter-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-calc-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-draw-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-help-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-impress-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-math-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-res-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-writer-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/3.2.1/openoffice.org3-af-${_intver}.i586.rpm )
_md5sums_x86_64=() _md5sums_x86=() source=(${_source_x86[@]}) md5sums=(${_md5sums_x86[@]})
Adam Hani Schakaki
What are the differences between the two arch packages? Do they contain any arch dependent files? It seems like that since the files got different md5 hashes. They also contain binary files.
Adam Hani Schakaki
Not necessarily. An easy way to check that is namcap.
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 13:28:32 -0500 Thomas Dziedzic <gostrc@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch@krzd.net> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 13:18:01 -0500 Thomas Dziedzic <gostrc@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch@krzd.net> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 01:37:33 +0800 Ray Rashif <schivmeister@gmail.com> wrote:
On 22 August 2010 00:56, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch@krzd.net> wrote:
I need to find a way to get the md5 hash sums.
You just need to use makepkg -s to generate them: But of course, you need to verify that your own download is sane, else, you will be distributing the wrong checksums. Not to worry, as long as your download completed fine I would say there is no need to check with an upstream hash file.
-- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD Sure, this would be the normal way. But I need two different sets of hash sums. One for the 32bits files and one for the 64bits files. That's the problem.
Excerpt of the current PKGBUILD: _source_x86_64=( ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-base-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-binfilter-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-calc-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-draw-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-help-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-impress-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-math-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-res-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-writer-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/3.2.1/openoffice.org3-af-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ) _source_x86=( ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-base-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-binfilter-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-calc-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-draw-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-help-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-impress-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-math-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-res-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-writer-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/3.2.1/openoffice.org3-af-${_intver}.i586.rpm )
_md5sums_x86_64=() _md5sums_x86=() source=(${_source_x86[@]}) md5sums=(${_md5sums_x86[@]})
Adam Hani Schakaki namcap -i go-openoffice-de-3.2.1-1-*.pkg.tar.xz go-openoffice-de W: Dependency included and not needed ('go-openoffice') go-openoffice-de I: Depends as namcap sees them: depends=() go-openoffice-de W: Dependency included and not needed ('go-openoffice') go-openoffice-de I: Depends as namcap sees them: depends=()
What are the differences between the two arch packages? Do they contain any arch dependent files? It seems like that since the files got different md5 hashes. They also contain binary files.
Adam Hani Schakaki
Not necessarily.
An easy way to check that is namcap. I don't know how namcap can help to check that. This is the output I get:
namcap -i go-openoffice-de-3.2.1-1-*.pkg.tar.xz go-openoffice-de W: Dependency included and not needed ('go-openoffice') go-openoffice-de I: Depends as namcap sees them: depends=() go-openoffice-de W: Dependency included and not needed ('go-openoffice') go-openoffice-de I: Depends as namcap sees them: depends=() namcap PKGBUILD PKGBUILD (go-openoffice-de) E: Missing checksums Adam Hani Schakaki
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch@krzd.net> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 13:28:32 -0500 Thomas Dziedzic <gostrc@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch@krzd.net> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 13:18:01 -0500 Thomas Dziedzic <gostrc@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch@krzd.net> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 01:37:33 +0800 Ray Rashif <schivmeister@gmail.com> wrote:
On 22 August 2010 00:56, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch@krzd.net> wrote: > I need to find a way to get the md5 hash sums.
You just need to use makepkg -s to generate them: But of course, you need to verify that your own download is sane, else, you will be distributing the wrong checksums. Not to worry, as long as your download completed fine I would say there is no need to check with an upstream hash file.
-- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD Sure, this would be the normal way. But I need two different sets of hash sums. One for the 32bits files and one for the 64bits files. That's the problem.
Excerpt of the current PKGBUILD: _source_x86_64=( ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-base-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-binfilter-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-calc-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-draw-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-help-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-impress-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-math-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-res-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-writer-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/3.2.1/openoffice.org3-af-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ) _source_x86=( ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-base-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-binfilter-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-calc-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-draw-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-help-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-impress-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-math-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-res-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-writer-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/3.2.1/openoffice.org3-af-${_intver}.i586.rpm )
_md5sums_x86_64=() _md5sums_x86=() source=(${_source_x86[@]}) md5sums=(${_md5sums_x86[@]})
Adam Hani Schakaki namcap -i go-openoffice-de-3.2.1-1-*.pkg.tar.xz go-openoffice-de W: Dependency included and not needed ('go-openoffice') go-openoffice-de I: Depends as namcap sees them: depends=() go-openoffice-de W: Dependency included and not needed ('go-openoffice') go-openoffice-de I: Depends as namcap sees them: depends=()
What are the differences between the two arch packages? Do they contain any arch dependent files? It seems like that since the files got different md5 hashes. They also contain binary files.
Adam Hani Schakaki
Not necessarily.
An easy way to check that is namcap. I don't know how namcap can help to check that. This is the output I get:
namcap -i go-openoffice-de-3.2.1-1-*.pkg.tar.xz go-openoffice-de W: Dependency included and not needed ('go-openoffice') go-openoffice-de I: Depends as namcap sees them: depends=() go-openoffice-de W: Dependency included and not needed ('go-openoffice') go-openoffice-de I: Depends as namcap sees them: depends=()
namcap PKGBUILD PKGBUILD (go-openoffice-de) E: Missing checksums
Adam Hani Schakaki
Hmm, I thought it was supposed to give a warning if it was an arch dependent package with no dependent on arch files. Take a look at what openoffice lang packs do (which are 'any') since I'm sure go-openoffice can do the same thing.
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 13:51:51 -0500 Thomas Dziedzic <gostrc@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch@krzd.net> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 13:28:32 -0500 Thomas Dziedzic <gostrc@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch@krzd.net> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 13:18:01 -0500 Thomas Dziedzic <gostrc@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch@krzd.net> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 01:37:33 +0800 Ray Rashif <schivmeister@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22 August 2010 00:56, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch@krzd.net> wrote: > > I need to find a way to get the md5 hash sums. > > You just need to use makepkg -s to generate them: But of course, you > need to verify that your own download is sane, else, you will be > distributing the wrong checksums. Not to worry, as long as your > download completed fine I would say there is no need to check with an > upstream hash file. > > > -- > GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD Sure, this would be the normal way. But I need two different sets of hash sums. One for the 32bits files and one for the 64bits files. That's the problem.
Excerpt of the current PKGBUILD: _source_x86_64=( ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-base-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-binfilter-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-calc-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-draw-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-help-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-impress-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-math-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-res-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-writer-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/3.2.1/openoffice.org3-af-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ) _source_x86=( ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-base-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-binfilter-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-calc-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-draw-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-help-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-impress-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-math-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-res-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-writer-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/3.2.1/openoffice.org3-af-${_intver}.i586.rpm )
_md5sums_x86_64=() _md5sums_x86=() source=(${_source_x86[@]}) md5sums=(${_md5sums_x86[@]})
Adam Hani Schakaki namcap -i go-openoffice-de-3.2.1-1-*.pkg.tar.xz go-openoffice-de W: Dependency included and not needed ('go-openoffice') go-openoffice-de I: Depends as namcap sees them: depends=() go-openoffice-de W: Dependency included and not needed ('go-openoffice') go-openoffice-de I: Depends as namcap sees them: depends=()
What are the differences between the two arch packages? Do they contain any arch dependent files? It seems like that since the files got different md5 hashes. They also contain binary files.
Adam Hani Schakaki
Not necessarily.
An easy way to check that is namcap. I don't know how namcap can help to check that. This is the output I get:
namcap -i go-openoffice-de-3.2.1-1-*.pkg.tar.xz go-openoffice-de W: Dependency included and not needed ('go-openoffice') go-openoffice-de I: Depends as namcap sees them: depends=() go-openoffice-de W: Dependency included and not needed ('go-openoffice') go-openoffice-de I: Depends as namcap sees them: depends=()
namcap PKGBUILD PKGBUILD (go-openoffice-de) E: Missing checksums
Adam Hani Schakaki
Hmm, I thought it was supposed to give a warning if it was an arch dependent package with no dependent on arch files. Take a look at what openoffice lang packs do (which are 'any') since I'm sure go-openoffice can do the same thing. In fact, those are the same language pack, they only go to different directories. In openoffice-i18n there is only x86 used for both architectures. So I guess I can remove the 64bits packages. But why do they create two packages if they both are the same and why have the rpms got different hashes? This is confuses me.
Adam Hani Schakaki
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch@krzd.net> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 13:51:51 -0500 Thomas Dziedzic <gostrc@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch@krzd.net> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 13:28:32 -0500 Thomas Dziedzic <gostrc@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch@krzd.net> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 13:18:01 -0500 Thomas Dziedzic <gostrc@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch@krzd.net> wrote: > On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 01:37:33 +0800 > Ray Rashif <schivmeister@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 22 August 2010 00:56, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch@krzd.net> wrote: >> > I need to find a way to get the md5 hash sums. >> >> You just need to use makepkg -s to generate them: But of course, you >> need to verify that your own download is sane, else, you will be >> distributing the wrong checksums. Not to worry, as long as your >> download completed fine I would say there is no need to check with an >> upstream hash file. >> >> >> -- >> GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD > Sure, this would be the normal way. But I need two different sets of hash sums. One for the 32bits files and one for the 64bits files. That's the problem. > > Excerpt of the current PKGBUILD: > _source_x86_64=( > ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm > ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-base-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm > ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-binfilter-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm > ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-calc-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm > ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-draw-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm > ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-help-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm > ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-impress-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm > ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-math-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm > ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-res-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm > ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-writer-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm > ${_srcurl}_64/3.2.1/openoffice.org3-af-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm > ) > _source_x86=( > ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-${_intver}.i586.rpm > ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-base-${_intver}.i586.rpm > ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-binfilter-${_intver}.i586.rpm > ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-calc-${_intver}.i586.rpm > ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-draw-${_intver}.i586.rpm > ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-help-${_intver}.i586.rpm > ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-impress-${_intver}.i586.rpm > ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-math-${_intver}.i586.rpm > ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-res-${_intver}.i586.rpm > ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-writer-${_intver}.i586.rpm > ${_srcurl}/3.2.1/openoffice.org3-af-${_intver}.i586.rpm > ) > > _md5sums_x86_64=() > _md5sums_x86=() > source=(${_source_x86[@]}) > md5sums=(${_md5sums_x86[@]}) > > Adam Hani Schakaki >namcap -i go-openoffice-de-3.2.1-1-*.pkg.tar.xz go-openoffice-de W: Dependency included and not needed ('go-openoffice') go-openoffice-de I: Depends as namcap sees them: depends=() go-openoffice-de W: Dependency included and not needed ('go-openoffice') go-openoffice-de I: Depends as namcap sees them: depends=()
What are the differences between the two arch packages? Do they contain any arch dependent files? It seems like that since the files got different md5 hashes. They also contain binary files.
Adam Hani Schakaki
Not necessarily.
An easy way to check that is namcap. I don't know how namcap can help to check that. This is the output I get:
namcap -i go-openoffice-de-3.2.1-1-*.pkg.tar.xz go-openoffice-de W: Dependency included and not needed ('go-openoffice') go-openoffice-de I: Depends as namcap sees them: depends=() go-openoffice-de W: Dependency included and not needed ('go-openoffice') go-openoffice-de I: Depends as namcap sees them: depends=()
namcap PKGBUILD PKGBUILD (go-openoffice-de) E: Missing checksums
Adam Hani Schakaki
Hmm, I thought it was supposed to give a warning if it was an arch dependent package with no dependent on arch files. Take a look at what openoffice lang packs do (which are 'any') since I'm sure go-openoffice can do the same thing. In fact, those are the same language pack, they only go to different directories. In openoffice-i18n there is only x86 used for both architectures. So I guess I can remove the 64bits packages. But why do they create two packages if they both are the same and why have the rpms got different hashes? This is confuses me.
Adam Hani Schakaki
I don't think rpm packages have an equivalent of 'any' like in archlinux. So important lesson, know what's in your PKGBUILDs ;) Cheers!
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 14:09:49 -0500 Thomas Dziedzic <gostrc@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch@krzd.net> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 13:51:51 -0500 Thomas Dziedzic <gostrc@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch@krzd.net> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 13:28:32 -0500 Thomas Dziedzic <gostrc@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch@krzd.net> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 13:18:01 -0500 Thomas Dziedzic <gostrc@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch@krzd.net> wrote: > > On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 01:37:33 +0800 > > Ray Rashif <schivmeister@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On 22 August 2010 00:56, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch@krzd.net> wrote: > >> > I need to find a way to get the md5 hash sums. > >> > >> You just need to use makepkg -s to generate them: But of course, you > >> need to verify that your own download is sane, else, you will be > >> distributing the wrong checksums. Not to worry, as long as your > >> download completed fine I would say there is no need to check with an > >> upstream hash file. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD > > Sure, this would be the normal way. But I need two different sets of hash sums. One for the 32bits files and one for the 64bits files. That's the problem. > > > > Excerpt of the current PKGBUILD: > > _source_x86_64=( > > ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm > > ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-base-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm > > ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-binfilter-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm > > ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-calc-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm > > ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-draw-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm > > ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-help-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm > > ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-impress-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm > > ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-math-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm > > ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-res-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm > > ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-writer-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm > > ${_srcurl}_64/3.2.1/openoffice.org3-af-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm > > ) > > _source_x86=( > > ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-${_intver}.i586.rpm > > ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-base-${_intver}.i586.rpm > > ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-binfilter-${_intver}.i586.rpm > > ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-calc-${_intver}.i586.rpm > > ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-draw-${_intver}.i586.rpm > > ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-help-${_intver}.i586.rpm > > ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-impress-${_intver}.i586.rpm > > ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-math-${_intver}.i586.rpm > > ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-res-${_intver}.i586.rpm > > ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-writer-${_intver}.i586.rpm > > ${_srcurl}/3.2.1/openoffice.org3-af-${_intver}.i586.rpm > > ) > > > > _md5sums_x86_64=() > > _md5sums_x86=() > > source=(${_source_x86[@]}) > > md5sums=(${_md5sums_x86[@]}) > > > > Adam Hani Schakaki > >namcap -i go-openoffice-de-3.2.1-1-*.pkg.tar.xz go-openoffice-de W: Dependency included and not needed ('go-openoffice') go-openoffice-de I: Depends as namcap sees them: depends=() go-openoffice-de W: Dependency included and not needed ('go-openoffice') go-openoffice-de I: Depends as namcap sees them: depends=() > > What are the differences between the two arch packages? Do they > contain any arch dependent files? It seems like that since the files got different md5 hashes. They also contain binary files.
Adam Hani Schakaki
Not necessarily.
An easy way to check that is namcap. I don't know how namcap can help to check that. This is the output I get:
namcap -i go-openoffice-de-3.2.1-1-*.pkg.tar.xz go-openoffice-de W: Dependency included and not needed ('go-openoffice') go-openoffice-de I: Depends as namcap sees them: depends=() go-openoffice-de W: Dependency included and not needed ('go-openoffice') go-openoffice-de I: Depends as namcap sees them: depends=()
namcap PKGBUILD PKGBUILD (go-openoffice-de) E: Missing checksums
Adam Hani Schakaki
Hmm, I thought it was supposed to give a warning if it was an arch dependent package with no dependent on arch files. Take a look at what openoffice lang packs do (which are 'any') since I'm sure go-openoffice can do the same thing. In fact, those are the same language pack, they only go to different directories. In openoffice-i18n there is only x86 used for both architectures. So I guess I can remove the 64bits packages. But why do they create two packages if they both are the same and why have the rpms got different hashes? This is confuses me.
Adam Hani Schakaki
I don't think rpm packages have an equivalent of 'any' like in archlinux. So important lesson, know what's in your PKGBUILDs ;)
Cheers!
Thanks for your help and lesson. Everything is in the AUR and works. Adam Hani Schakaki
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Thomas Dziedzic <gostrc@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't think rpm packages have an equivalent of 'any' like in archlinux.
Their equivalent to 'any' is 'noarch'. For an example, see python-mako [1]. ---- [1] http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/python-mako/devel/python-mako.spec?...
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Evangelos Foutras <foutrelis@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Thomas Dziedzic <gostrc@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't think rpm packages have an equivalent of 'any' like in archlinux.
Their equivalent to 'any' is 'noarch'. For an example, see python-mako [1].
---- [1] http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/python-mako/devel/python-mako.spec?...
Then I have no clue why they would not have that as noarch.
Excerpts from Thomas Dziedzic's message of 2010-08-21 14:51:51 -0400:
Hmm, I thought [namcap] was supposed to give a warning if it was an arch dependent package with no dependent on arch files. Take a look at what openoffice lang packs do (which are 'any') since I'm sure go-openoffice can do the same thing.
I submitted a patch[1] to do this check, but the patch does not appear to have been accepted yet. [1]: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2010-August/015183.html -- David Campbell
On 22/08/10 05:57, David Campbell wrote:
Excerpts from Thomas Dziedzic's message of 2010-08-21 14:51:51 -0400:
Hmm, I thought [namcap] was supposed to give a warning if it was an arch dependent package with no dependent on arch files. Take a look at what openoffice lang packs do (which are 'any') since I'm sure go-openoffice can do the same thing.
I submitted a patch[1] to do this check, but the patch does not appear to have been accepted yet.
[1]: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2010-August/015183.html
Yeah, sorry about the lack of response there... I have it flagged and on my TODO list, Allan
On 22 August 2010 01:50, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch@krzd.net> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 01:37:33 +0800 Ray Rashif <schivmeister@gmail.com> wrote:
On 22 August 2010 00:56, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch@krzd.net> wrote:
I need to find a way to get the md5 hash sums.
You just need to use makepkg -s to generate them: But of course, you need to verify that your own download is sane, else, you will be distributing the wrong checksums. Not to worry, as long as your download completed fine I would say there is no need to check with an upstream hash file.
-- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD Sure, this would be the normal way. But I need two different sets of hash sums. One for the 32bits files and one for the 64bits files. That's the problem.
Excerpt of the current PKGBUILD: _source_x86_64=( ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-base-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-binfilter-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-calc-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-draw-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-help-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-impress-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-math-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-res-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-writer-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/3.2.1/openoffice.org3-af-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ) _source_x86=( ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-base-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-binfilter-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-calc-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-draw-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-help-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-impress-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-math-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-res-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-writer-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/3.2.1/openoffice.org3-af-${_intver}.i586.rpm )
_md5sums_x86_64=() _md5sums_x86=() source=(${_source_x86[@]}) md5sums=(${_md5sums_x86[@]})
s/makepkg -s/makepkg -g/ A lot of typos today. Well, place: CARCH=x86_64 Somewhere before the source array on the second run. Then just copy and paste. if [ "$CARCH" = "x86_64" ]; then md5sums=(..) fi -- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 02:21:52 +0800 Ray Rashif <schivmeister@gmail.com> wrote:
On 22 August 2010 01:50, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch@krzd.net> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 01:37:33 +0800 Ray Rashif <schivmeister@gmail.com> wrote:
On 22 August 2010 00:56, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch@krzd.net> wrote:
I need to find a way to get the md5 hash sums.
You just need to use makepkg -s to generate them: But of course, you need to verify that your own download is sane, else, you will be distributing the wrong checksums. Not to worry, as long as your download completed fine I would say there is no need to check with an upstream hash file.
-- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD Sure, this would be the normal way. But I need two different sets of hash sums. One for the 32bits files and one for the 64bits files. That's the problem.
Excerpt of the current PKGBUILD: _source_x86_64=( ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-base-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-binfilter-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-calc-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-draw-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-help-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-impress-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-math-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-res-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-writer-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/3.2.1/openoffice.org3-af-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ) _source_x86=( ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-base-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-binfilter-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-calc-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-draw-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-help-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-impress-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-math-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-res-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-writer-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/3.2.1/openoffice.org3-af-${_intver}.i586.rpm )
_md5sums_x86_64=() _md5sums_x86=() source=(${_source_x86[@]}) md5sums=(${_md5sums_x86[@]})
s/makepkg -s/makepkg -g/
A lot of typos today.
Well, place:
CARCH=x86_64
Somewhere before the source array on the second run. Then just copy and paste.
if [ "$CARCH" = "x86_64" ]; then md5sums=(..) fi
-- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD No problem with one package, but a problem with around a hundred of them. I create them by script. So awk should do the job, but my skills aren't enough for that. So I have to figure out how exactly to do that. This is what I found in the forum: { rm PKGBUILD; awk '$0 ~ /^md5sums/ {i = 1; system("makepkg -g 2>/dev/null")}; !i {print}; $0 ~ /\)/ {i = 0}' > PKGBUILD; } < PKGBUILD Now I have to replace in the output of makepkg -g md5sums to md5sums_x86_64 and rerun that with CARCH="x86".
Adam Hani Schakaki
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch@krzd.net> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 02:21:52 +0800 Ray Rashif <schivmeister@gmail.com> wrote:
On 22 August 2010 01:50, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch@krzd.net> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 01:37:33 +0800 Ray Rashif <schivmeister@gmail.com> wrote:
On 22 August 2010 00:56, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch@krzd.net> wrote:
I need to find a way to get the md5 hash sums.
You just need to use makepkg -s to generate them: But of course, you need to verify that your own download is sane, else, you will be distributing the wrong checksums. Not to worry, as long as your download completed fine I would say there is no need to check with an upstream hash file.
-- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD Sure, this would be the normal way. But I need two different sets of hash sums. One for the 32bits files and one for the 64bits files. That's the problem.
Excerpt of the current PKGBUILD: _source_x86_64=( ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-base-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-binfilter-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-calc-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-draw-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-help-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-impress-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-math-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-res-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-writer-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/3.2.1/openoffice.org3-af-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ) _source_x86=( ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-base-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-binfilter-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-calc-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-draw-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-help-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-impress-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-math-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-res-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-writer-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/3.2.1/openoffice.org3-af-${_intver}.i586.rpm )
_md5sums_x86_64=() _md5sums_x86=() source=(${_source_x86[@]}) md5sums=(${_md5sums_x86[@]})
s/makepkg -s/makepkg -g/
A lot of typos today.
Well, place:
CARCH=x86_64
Somewhere before the source array on the second run. Then just copy and paste.
if [ "$CARCH" = "x86_64" ]; then md5sums=(..) fi
-- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD No problem with one package, but a problem with around a hundred of them. I create them by script. So awk should do the job, but my skills aren't enough for that. So I have to figure out how exactly to do that. This is what I found in the forum: { rm PKGBUILD; awk '$0 ~ /^md5sums/ {i = 1; system("makepkg -g 2>/dev/null")}; !i {print}; $0 ~ /\)/ {i = 0}' > PKGBUILD; } < PKGBUILD Now I have to replace in the output of makepkg -g md5sums to md5sums_x86_64 and rerun that with CARCH="x86".
Adam Hani Schakaki
Well, I'm asking you to run namcap on one package to see if you could avoid having to define two independent source arrays, because if one package contains only arch independent files, then you could just use one arch to create an 'any' package.
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 13:42:15 -0500 Thomas Dziedzic <gostrc@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch@krzd.net> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 02:21:52 +0800 Ray Rashif <schivmeister@gmail.com> wrote:
On 22 August 2010 01:50, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch@krzd.net> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 01:37:33 +0800 Ray Rashif <schivmeister@gmail.com> wrote:
On 22 August 2010 00:56, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch@krzd.net> wrote:
I need to find a way to get the md5 hash sums.
You just need to use makepkg -s to generate them: But of course, you need to verify that your own download is sane, else, you will be distributing the wrong checksums. Not to worry, as long as your download completed fine I would say there is no need to check with an upstream hash file.
-- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD Sure, this would be the normal way. But I need two different sets of hash sums. One for the 32bits files and one for the 64bits files. That's the problem.
Excerpt of the current PKGBUILD: _source_x86_64=( ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-base-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-binfilter-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-calc-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-draw-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-help-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-impress-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-math-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-res-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/${_ooobasis}-writer-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ${_srcurl}_64/3.2.1/openoffice.org3-af-${_intver}.x86_64.rpm ) _source_x86=( ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-base-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-binfilter-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-calc-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-draw-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-help-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-impress-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-math-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-res-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/${_ooobasis}-writer-${_intver}.i586.rpm ${_srcurl}/3.2.1/openoffice.org3-af-${_intver}.i586.rpm )
_md5sums_x86_64=() _md5sums_x86=() source=(${_source_x86[@]}) md5sums=(${_md5sums_x86[@]})
s/makepkg -s/makepkg -g/
A lot of typos today.
Well, place:
CARCH=x86_64
Somewhere before the source array on the second run. Then just copy and paste.
if [ "$CARCH" = "x86_64" ]; then md5sums=(..) fi
-- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD No problem with one package, but a problem with around a hundred of them. I create them by script. So awk should do the job, but my skills aren't enough for that. So I have to figure out how exactly to do that. This is what I found in the forum: { rm PKGBUILD; awk '$0 ~ /^md5sums/ {i = 1; system("makepkg -g 2>/dev/null")}; !i {print}; $0 ~ /\)/ {i = 0}' > PKGBUILD; } < PKGBUILD Now I have to replace in the output of makepkg -g md5sums to md5sums_x86_64 and rerun that with CARCH="x86".
Adam Hani Schakaki
Well, I'm asking you to run namcap on one package to see if you could avoid having to define two independent source arrays, because if one package contains only arch independent files, then you could just use one arch to create an 'any' package. Yes, I understood that but namcap doesn't tell me anything about that as posted before. No matter if I do that on a single package, on both packages or on the PKGBUILD.
(namcap -i go-openoffice-de-3.2.1-1-*.pkg.tar.xz go-openoffice-de W: Dependency included and not needed ('go-openoffice') go-openoffice-de I: Depends as namcap sees them: depends=() go-openoffice-de W: Dependency included and not needed ('go-openoffice') go-openoffice-de I: Depends as namcap sees them: depends=() namcap PKGBUILD PKGBUILD (go-openoffice-de) E: Missing checksums) Adam Hani Schakaki
participants (6)
-
Adam Hani Schakaki
-
Allan McRae
-
David Campbell
-
Evangelos Foutras
-
Ray Rashif
-
Thomas Dziedzic