[aur-general] TU application / Searching a sponsor

[Adam Hani Schakaki]

On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 14:09:49 -0500
Thomas Dziedzic <gostrc at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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!

Thanks for your help and lesson.
Everything is in the AUR and works.

Adam Hani Schakaki