Re: [Printing-architecture] [lsb-discuss] Distribution-independent printer driver package --first shot

Re: [Printing-architecture] [lsb-discuss] Distribution-independent printer driver package --first shot

[Till Kamppeter]

Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
> This error is real:
> 
>> Error: Didn't see expected dependency lsb=3.1
> 
> while you say "it should work on any modern distro fulfilling 
> LSB 3.1" pkgchk thinks you didn't build the package with that
> requirement.
>

I have intendedly left it out as the LSB Build Environment does not have 
an "lsb" package installed. It should have such a package 
(meta-package?) installed so that you can install LSB packages in it.

Why can I not use "Requires lsb >= 3.1", are the LSBs not backward 
compatible? A package made for LSB 3.1 should also work under LSB 3.2. 
Or will the LSB 3.2 package contain "Provides: lsb 3.1, lsb 3.0"?

    Till

Re: [Printing-architecture] [lsb-discuss] Distribution-independent printer driver package --first shot

[Till Kamppeter]

Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
>> I have intendedly left it out as the LSB Build Environment 
>> does not have an "lsb" package installed. It should have such a package
> 
>> (meta-package?) installed so that you can install LSB packages in it.
> 
> At least the lsb sample implementation (lsbsi) does or should
> have this.  I'm not sure of the thinking behind leaving it
> of the buildenv, if it wasn't just an omission. Wouldn't hurt
> to file a bug on this as a reminder.
>

On the sample implementation the RPM installation does not complain 
about missing PPDs, but about missing directories:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
bash-3.1# rpm -Uvh /tmp/work/splix-1.0.1-0.beta2.1lsb3.1.i486.rpm
error: Failed dependencies:
         /opt is needed by splix-1.0.1-0.beta2.1lsb3.1.i486
         /opt/lib/printdriver is needed by splix-1.0.1-0.beta2.1lsb3.1.i486
         /opt/share/ppd is needed by splix-1.0.1-0.beta2.1lsb3.1.i486
bash-3.1#
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once RPM should simply create the directories and not complain, and 
second, all the directories are there, I have created them before trying 
to install the RPM.

>> Why can I not use "Requires lsb >= 3.1", are the LSBs not backward 
>> compatible?
> 
> You can and should - at least at the moment when there's no
> such thing as a 3.2.  pkgchk is saying it didn't see this...
>

I have changed it to "lsb >= 3.1" now.

    Till

Re: [Printing-architecture] [lsb-discuss] Distribution-independent printer driver package --first shot

[Till Kamppeter]

Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
>> On the sample implementation the RPM installation does not complain 
>> about missing PPDs, but about missing directories:
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---------
>> bash-3.1# rpm -Uvh /tmp/work/splix-1.0.1-0.beta2.1lsb3.1.i486.rpm
>> error: Failed dependencies:
>>         /opt is needed by splix-1.0.1-0.beta2.1lsb3.1.i486
>>         /opt/lib/printdriver is needed by 
>> splix-1.0.1-0.beta2.1lsb3.1.i486
>>         /opt/share/ppd is needed by splix-1.0.1-0.beta2.1lsb3.1.i486
>> bash-3.1#
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>> Once RPM should simply create the directories and not complain, and 
>> second, all the directories are there, I have created them 
>> before trying to install the RPM.
> 
> this is caused by a moderately recent change to upstream rpm.
> everything now has to be "owned", so creating the directories
> before installing the rpm is not sufficient, they actually have
> to be in the rpm database as belonging to some package.
> 

I can make an RPM providing the printing-related directories, but which 
package should own /opt then? This should be corrected in build 
environment and sample implementation. We need to somehow conserve the 
possibility to install software with RPM.

RPM in FC6 does not yet require all directories to be owned by an RPM 
package. Should we add something to the LSB so that installing with RPM 
keeps working, also if the distro as the new RPM? Does RPM have a 
command line switch to get back to the old behavior?

    Till