I want to build RPM files and I want them to be commonly used and beeing not depending on which distribution is installed.
Now I found a requirement which name is different on RHEL and SLES.
I found this as possible solution:
%if 0%{?suse_version}
Requires: jdk >= 2000:1.8.0_00-fcs, netcat, telnet, at
%else
Requires: jdk >= 2000:1.8.0_00-fcs, nc, telnet, at
%endif
But my problem with is, that it's an if query for the Build process, what I wish to have is depending on the distribution I install, the already build rpm file would solve this.
Because with this solution, I would need to build RPM files for every kind of centos and rhel and sles distribution on all these different OSes while only the name of nc and netcat differ as Required packages.
Any idea how I can do that?
Thanks
rpm-4.13 will solve my issue: http://www.rpm.org/wiki/PackagerDocs/BooleanDependencies
or - requires one of the operands to be fulfilled
Requires: (pkgA >= 3.2 or pkgB)
You cannot do what you are asking at install-time. However, you can require the executable itself, e.g. /bin/netcat and it should work... unless it was part of the great UsrMove...
Related
I just installed OpenBSD 6.9 to study how it works.
I wanted to get the most minimal config possible, because I want to use it as a server.
During instalation I chose the option to not install Xserver, but I still have the /usr/X11R6 and /etc/X11 directories with X config and commands like startx. The only difference is that now, startx doesn't work. I tried installing on VirtualBox and on bare metal and both were the same.
What do I have to do in order to completely remove X from OpenBSD? And why is it still being installed in my machine even if I explicitly write "no" when prompted during installation?
My system:
OpenBSD 6.9
Intel Pentium G5400
Nvidia 1050 ti.
OpenBSD installation uses different file sets => see OpenBSD FAQ / File Sets
X11 installation is split into 4 file sets :
xbase71.tgz : Base libraries and utilities for X11 (requires xshare71.tgz)
xfont71.tgz : Fonts used by X11
xserv71.tgz : X11's X servers
xshare71.tgz : X11's man pages, locale settings and includes
During installation, you chose not to install xserv71.tgz (X servers) but you still have installed xbase71.tgz (startx command and others directories).
If you want to completely remove X from OpenBSD, during installation, remove every file set for X. But you should keep xbase71.tgz because some programs needs it to run correctly even if it's a non-X program.
I'm not a OpenBSD developer, so I cannot give a clear answer. But some specific packages which you can add with the package command from OpenBSD (pkg_add), needs some X libraries or binaries.
As example when you want to add vim for the first time, then you have eight flavors:
$ pkg_info -d vim-8.2.3456-no_x11
Information for inst:vim-8.2.3456-no_x11
[REMOVED]
Flavors:
gtk2 - build using the Gtk+2 toolkit
gtk3 - build using the Gtk+3 toolkit (default)
no_x11 - build without X11 support
lua - build with Lua support
perl - build with Perl support
python - build with Python support
python3 - build with Python3 support
ruby - build with Ruby support
It's depends on the packages what you need. Also when you want install something from the port collections.
You can try the quick and dirty way and simple remove your mentioned directories. But I could be possible that some programs from the base system no longer works, because of missing dependencies.
I want to create a cross-distribution RPM spec file for an application that bundles a certain library. The application uses this bundled library by default, but also provides a build-time option for using the version of the library installed in the system instead. I want the RPM to link the application to the system library if it is available (since this will make the package smaller, and because the system library gets security patches more frequently than the version bundled with the application) and if not, to fall back to the (default) bundled version. Is there any way of writing a conditional in the spec file that accomplishes this?
For example, I want to do something like
%if available(libfoo-devel >= 1.0)
BuildRequires: libfoo-devel >= 1.0
%endif
%prep
cat << EOF > build_config_file
%if available(libfoo-devel >= 1.0)
ac_add_options --with-system-foo
%endif
EOF
Right now I'm using conditionals that check for macros defined by particular versions of OSes that I already know package the correct library, but this is rather brittle and convoluted. (That is, I need to manually check each target distribution to see if it packages the correct version of the library, and then write a condition in the spec file for that distribution; moreover, I need to repeat this process periodically in case the correct version of the library becomes available for a distribution that didn't package it previously.) It would be simpler if I could just test for the availability of the dependency directly.
You must decide before creating the rpm how you will create it. Compilation happens before the target rpm is created, not upon installation.
As I see it you might consider creating two rpms:
one compiled with libfoo-devel
one without
I would then suggest a spec file along these lines:
Name: package
...
%package libfoo
Summary: %{name} build with libfoo
BuildRequires: libfoo-devel >= 1.0
Requires: libfoo >= 1.0
%build
build --without-libfoo --target "${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/usr/bin/without-libfoo"
build --with-libfoo --target "${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/usr/bin/with-libfoo"
%install
/usr/bin/without-libfoo
%install libfoo
/usr/bin/with-libfoo
Notes:
yes this means compiling twice: once with and once without libfoo
building this spec file will create two packages: "package.rpm" and "package-libfoo.rpm"
I am trying to run the metal executable from my zsh terminal in order to meta-analyze GWAS data. I have the executable in the correct directory and have checked that it is not 0MB due to truncation.
Reproducible:
Download the Linux file from http://csg.sph.umich.edu/abecasis/metal/download/
In terminal:
PATH TO EXECUTABLE ./metal
zsh: exec format error: ./metal
You probably install wrong OS of go, for example, you might install go for MacOS in Linux
I solve this problem by installing go for correct OS
The executable has been pre-compiled on a certain distribution with libraries at a certain places at certain versions.
If you have a different distribution, libraries versions, it won't work and you better compile from the source.
Basically what you have to do is to download and extract the sources, go in the folder and execute make. (You will have probably to install make first.)
I think that's not your job at all so maybe you can find a geeky person to help you, because you may stumble upon problems, libraries to install, old versions not supported anymore, new versions not supported yet...
It happened to me when I emptied an executable by mistake.
~>true > a
~>wc -c a
0 a
~>./a
zsh: exec format error: ./a
I am writing a protocol for a reproducible analysis using an in-house package "MyPKG". Each user will supply their own input files; other than the inputs, the analyses should be run under the same conditions. (e.g. so that we can infer that different results are due to different input files).
MyPKG is under development, so library(MyPKG) will load whichever was the last version that the user compiled in their local library. It will also load any dependencies found in their local libraries.
But I want everyone to use a specific version (MyPKG_3.14) for this analysis while still allowing development of more recent versions. If I understand correctly, "R --vanilla" will load the same dependencies for everyone.
Once we are done, we will save the working environment as a VM to maintain a stable reproducible environment. So a temporary (6 month) solution will suffice.
I have come up with two potential solutions, but am not sure if either is sufficient.
ask the server admin to install MyPKG_3.14 into the default R path and then provide the following code in the protocol:
R --vanilla
library(MyPKG)
....
or
compile MyPKG_3.14 in a specific library, e.g. lib.loc = "/home/share/lib/R/MyPKG_3.14", and then provide
R --vanilla
library(MyPKG)
Are both of these approaches sufficient to ensure that everyone is running the same version?
Is one preferable to the other?
Are there other unforseen issues that may arise?
Is there a preferred option for standardising the multiple analyses?
Should I include a test of the output of SessionInfo()?
Would it be better to create a single account on the server for everyone to use?
Couple of points:
Use system-wide installations of packages, e.g. the Debian / Ubuntu binary for R (incl the CRAN ports) will try to use /usr/local/lib/R/site-library (which users can install too if added to group owning the directory). That way everybody gets the same version
Use system-wide configuration, e.g. prefer $R_HOME/etc/ over the dotfiles below ~/. For the same reason, the Debian / Ubuntu package offers softlinks in /etc/R/
Use R's facilties to query its packages (eg installed.packages()) to report packages and versions.
Use, where available, OS-level facilities to query OS release and version. This, however, is less standardized.
Regarding the last point my box at home says
> edd#max:~$ lsb_release -a | tail -4
> Distributor ID: Ubuntu
> Description: Ubuntu 12.04.1 LTS
> Release: 12.04
> Codename: precise
> edd#max:~$
which is a start.
I am trying to compile Rcpp_0.9.7 from source on sparc-sun-solaris2.10. I am getting the following error when I try to use install.packages:
sh: make: not found
ERROR: compilation failed for package 'Rcpp'
From research on the internet, it appears others have had similar problems with solaris. Unfortunately I do not know very much about which compilers I should or should not be using. One thing I am beginning to realize, however, is that solaris seems to be a sub-optimal environment for running R (in terms of performance as well as convenience).
Solaris can mean different things: it could be Solaris on x86, or Solaris on Sparc.
According to the Rcpp build results page on CRAN, Rcpp does now build on x86 Solaris (thanks to a recent patch by Martyn Plummer) but not Sparc Solaris. We were just discussing that this week on the rcpp-devel list.
As for your error, you are lacking critical components, namely the make tool. You likely lack more. Your conclusion is correct, though. Depending your level of Unix knowledge, you may be best off to simply install Ubuntu and enjoy tens of thousands of pre-built packages, including R and well over a hundred related packages.
Not really a solution but too long for a comment.
First of all get a decent environment for your testing of building Rccp on Solaris. Personally I use VirtualBox on my Windows workstation. This way I have an environment that I can control myself and do not depend on any grumpy SysAdmin. Best of all: there's no cost involved! When you are confident with your build you can either (1) move the binaries over to your target host or (2) replicate the build setup on your target host.
Secondly you can use these instructions to set up a proper build host on Solaris. (you seem to be lacking some crucial tools!). Remember to use gmake when building as per the instructions in the posting.
As Dirk mentioned, you're lacking the make command. If you're running Solaris 10
or earlier, then you need to find your installation media and pkgadd SUNWsprot.
If you're running Solaris 11 or later, then
pkg install developer/build/make
will get you that utility. You probably need the system headers as well, which are in pkg://solaris/system/header for Solaris 11 and later, or SUNWhea in earlier releases.
I see that you mention sparc-sun-solaris2.10 in your question - is there any opportunity for you to update to Solaris 11 or later? The developer environment is muchmuch nicer in the newer releases. Certainly easier to get a copy of a compiler....