Overview
Request 563232 superseded
- Created by michalsrb
- In state superseded
- Supersedes 563057
- Superseded by 565807
-
Open review for
repo-checker
- Open review for openSUSE:Factory:Staging:M
with /etc/drirc in Mesa-32bit: won't Mesa conflict with Mesa-32bit then?
It seems that it does not conflict. I don't know why, maybe because it is %config, but it works. I can install both in any order and there are no complains. If I uninstall them in any order, the last one uninstalled deletes the file.
Would there be a better way to get the Mesa-32bit to be still generated even that Mesa no longer has any binaries? It is still needed so the various GL libraries can depend on it and the Mesa-dri and Mesa-gallium can supplement it.
hm.. the conflict might not trigger here as the files are equal; I somewhat recall there was some logic in that for rpm; not sure if zypp mimmicks this (did you install using zypper or plain rpm?)
An alternative might be for the package to put a README.%{_arch} into %doc - and take that file/directory as reference for baselibs.conf
Mesa-32bit would thus contain a README.i586 (since it is just a repackaged Mesa.i586 package) and Mesa would contain a Mesa.x86_64; granted, it's just a weird hack as well.
It worked with both rpm and zypper. By the way, it also works if I modify the /etc/drirc file before installing the second package.
You have more experience packaging than me, so if you think the alternative way with README.%{_arch} file would be better, I'll change it.
Also, so far we did not actually installed the /etc/drirc file in case when user installed only the Mesa-32bit (and its 32bit dependencies) and none of the native Mesa packages. That was broken and I realized when looking for a file to use to get Mesa-32bit. So in case we go the README way, Mesa-32bit will have to depend on Mesa for the /etc/drirc file.
It worked with both rpm and zypper. By the way, it also works if I modify the /etc/drirc file before installing the second package.
Ok, so the %config might indeed be the key in this case. Let's see what repo-checker comes back with in this case
Request History
michalsrb created request
licensedigger accepted review
ok
factory-auto added opensuse-review-team as a reviewer
Please review sources
factory-auto added repo-checker as a reviewer
Please review build success
factory-auto accepted review
Check script succeeded
dimstar_suse set openSUSE:Factory:Staging:M as a staging project
Being evaluated by staging project "openSUSE:Factory:Staging:M"
dimstar_suse accepted review
Picked openSUSE:Factory:Staging:M
dimstar accepted review
factory-repo-checker superseded request
superseded by 565807
sigh - I knew repo-checker would be complaining :(
I haven't followed the discussion about /etc/drirc and cannot find it any longer. :-(
In summary; after Mesa/Mesa-drivers split, the Mesa package no longer contains any binaries, only /etc/drirc and documentation. Because of that, the Mesa-32bit does not get generated. But we need it to exist because the 32bit OpenGL libraries require it and all the Mesa-dri and Mesa-gallium packages supplement it. So we needed to put some file in it.
Putting /etc/drirc in both Mesa and Mesa-32bit looked like natural choice. It has to be installed whether you have the 32 bit or 64 bit or both kind of packages installed. Having it in both works. I tested it, no conflicts, installation and uninstallation of both packages in any order works as expected.
Sadly repo-checker uses different logic to test for conflicts, so we must place some dummy file in Mesa-32bit.
FYI: repo-checker uses /usr/bin/installcheck (from libsolv-tools) - which is the one complaining about the conflict.
X11 fails to start on my system with this build. Here's the log:
https://paste.opensuse.org/22081084
It shows a seg fault near the bottom
Probably the same as: https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1075901
Bug is in llvm, manifests itself since Mesa 17.3.2.