Fix for #1627 #2053
Open
Fix for #1627 #2053
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
When packaging a deb sometimes the architecture comes through as part of the provides (not sure why) but this causes problems with the deb package as it seems to only ever expect one set of round brackets which is the version indicator
Gc6026
approved these changes
Mar 18, 2024
When packaging a deb sometimes a path to a binary comes into the requires field i.e. /bin/sh but this isn't valid for control files. Strip this out
When packaging a deb sometimes a path to a binary comes into the requires field i.e. /bin/sh but this isn't valid for control files. Strip this out
Strip rpmlib dependencies
|
I haven’t tested this, but the change seems like it’s a good solution. @JordanStopford you ok with me merging? |
|
We’ve done some testing internally (mainly Ubuntu on PowerPC little endian)
and it does fix the issue with our RPM conversion.
I found another similar issue today with dependency scanning and have
pushed some more commits to my repo. Do you want those in a separate PR?
These changes centered around two issues:
1. Dependencies on binaries (like /bin/sh) don’t seem to be allowed in dpkg
control files so these are now stripped out
2. RPM specific dependencies (like rpmlib) were being passed through and
shouldn’t be
…On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 at 20:54, Jordan Sissel ***@***.***> wrote:
I haven’t tested this, but the change seems like it’s a good solution.
@JordanStopford <https://github.com/JordanStopford> you ok with me
merging?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#2053 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADEN7W2V4FHDAVJG2CMQ2D3Y624ANAVCNFSM6AAAAABEMTAAL2VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDANZTGMZDEOBTGU>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
It’s ok 👍 to include multiple changes in a single PR. My request for keeping this one PR is to update the PR description to refer to the things you improve. Otherwise, yes, all changes look like good improvements :) |
|
@jordansissel I've amended the PR description above. Thanks for your feedback! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
When packaging a deb sometimes the architecture comes through as part of the provides (not sure why) but this causes problems with the deb package as it seems to only ever expect one set of round brackets which is the version indicator
Also fixed another issue where ppc64le packages from RPM wouldn't install properly on DEB based systems as they use ppc64el.
Also fixed another issue where invalid dependencies were being put in the control file (rpmlib dependencies and file path dependencies i.e. RPMs that depend on /bin/sh)
This has got fpm working for RPMs->DEBs on our systems for ppc64le packages. Appreciate that this fix might not be "complete" or comprehensive in any way, shape or form so any feedback is welcome.