[aur-general] TU application / Searching a sponsor

[Thomas Dziedzic]

On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch at krzd.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 13:51:51 -0500
> Thomas Dziedzic <gostrc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch at krzd.net> wrote:
>> > On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 13:28:32 -0500
>> > Thomas Dziedzic <gostrc at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch at krzd.net> wrote:
>> >> > On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 13:18:01 -0500
>> >> > Thomas Dziedzic <gostrc at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch at krzd.net> wrote:
>> >> >> > On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 01:37:33 +0800
>> >> >> > Ray Rashif <schivmeister at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> On 22 August 2010 00:56, Adam Hani Schakaki <arch at 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!