headers
Michael Bischof | 1 Sep 2007 09:33
Picon
Favicon

zeroinstall-injector-0.30-3.1.noarch.rpm fails on mandriva 2007.1

Hallo,

it is not possible to install zeroinstall-injector-0.30-3.1.noarch.rpm 
on Mandriva 2007.1 Spring - the usual reasons: dependencies. It is not 
possible to resolve this problem easily because there are naming 
troubles:
''pygtk2'' is called ''pygtk2.0'' as is ''pygtk2.0-libglade''. The 
dependency on Abiword 2,5 is unpleasant as well, as one needs to 
have ''contrib'' in the urpmi sources to install it.
To install ''PyXML'' and ''sudo'' was easy using urpmi.

You are the developers - I promised only to give feed back to you.

Regards,

Michael Bischof 

[root <at> localhost ~]# 
rpm -ivh '/mnt/hda6/michael/Desktop/a.sammeln/o0705.datum/zeroinstall-injector-0.30-3.1.noarch.rpm'
Fehler: Fehlgeschlagende Abhängigkeiten:
        PyXML wird benötigt von zeroinstall-injector-0.30-3.1.noarch
        pygtk2 wird benötigt von zeroinstall-injector-0.30-3.1.noarch
        pygtk2-libglade wird benötigt von 
zeroinstall-injector-0.30-3.1.noarch
        python(abi) = 2.5 wird benötigt von 
zeroinstall-injector-0.30-3.1.noarch
        sudo wird benötigt von zeroinstall-injector-0.30-3.1.noarch

[root <at> localhost ~]# urpmi PyXML
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
David Given | 1 Sep 2007 12:50

Re: zeroinstall-injector-0.30-3.1.noarch.rpm fails on mandriva 2007.1


Michael Bischof wrote:
[...]
> it is not possible to install zeroinstall-injector-0.30-3.1.noarch.rpm 
> on Mandriva 2007.1 Spring - the usual reasons: dependencies. It is not 
> possible to resolve this problem easily because there are naming 
> troubles:

This may seem like a silly question... but where did you actually get this? I
can't find such a thing on the download page.

(I was wanting to check that the rpm was actually intended for Mandriva.
Different distros use different RPMs, which is where there are seperate Fedora
and SUSE packages.)

--
┌── ｄｇ＠ｃｏｗｌａｒｋ．ｃｏｍ ─── http://www.cowlark.com ───────────────────
│
│ "There does not now, nor will there ever, exist a programming language in
│ which it is the least bit hard to write bad programs." --- Flon's Axiom
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Thomas Leonard | 1 Sep 2007 15:05
Picon
Gravatar

Re: zeroinstall-injector-0.30-3.1.noarch.rpm fails on mandriva 2007.1

On 9/1/07, Michael Bischof <michael-bischof <at> dv-kombinat.de> wrote:
> Hallo,
>
> it is not possible to install zeroinstall-injector-0.30-3.1.noarch.rpm
> on Mandriva 2007.1 Spring - the usual reasons: dependencies. It is not
> possible to resolve this problem easily because there are naming
> troubles:
> ''pygtk2'' is called ''pygtk2.0'' as is ''pygtk2.0-libglade''.

Thanks, that's exactly the kind of thing I need to know. Here's a new version:

http://ftp.iasi.roedu.net/mirrors/opensuse.org/repositories/home:/talex5/Mandriva_2007/repodata/repoview/zeroinstall-injector-0-0.30-8.1.html

> The
> dependency on Abiword 2,5 is unpleasant as well

Sorry, I don't understand that. Are you saying that the RPM depends on AbiWord?

I also got the SUSE RPM to build (again, this is untested):

http://ftp5.gwdg.de/pub/opensuse/repositories/home:/talex5/openSUSE_10.2/repodata/repoview/zeroinstall-injector-0-0.30-8.1.html

I had to hard-code the %python_sitelib macro, though. Could someone on
SUSE figure out the right way to do this? Currently, it doesn't build
on x86_64, and it will fail on newer Python versions too.

--

-- 
Dr Thomas Leonard		http://rox.sourceforge.net
GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6  8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Thomas Leonard | 1 Sep 2007 19:54
Picon
Gravatar

Re: zeroinstall-injector-0.30-3.1.noarch.rpm fails on mandriva 2007.1

On 9/1/07, Michael Bischof <koek <at> dv-kombinat.de> wrote:
>
> Hallo,
> now I tried it quite some time but I cannot call 0launch:
> it is installed in
>
> /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/zeroinstall
>
> I always get this result:
>
> [michael <at> noname cur]$ 0launch
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>   File "/usr/bin/0launch", line 2, in <module>
>     from zeroinstall.injector import cli
> ImportError: No module named zeroinstall.injector
>
> As I have not much time this weekend I cannot do more than occasional tests.

What version of Python do you have by default? E.g.

$ python --version

If it's not 2.4, can you run it as, e.g.:

$ python2.4 /usr/bin/0launch

It you have a different version, try symlinking, e.g.:

$ ln -s /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/zeroinstall
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Thomas Formella | 1 Sep 2007 23:25
Picon

Re: zeroinstall-injector-0.30-3.1.noarch.rpm fails on mandriva 2007.1

Am Samstag, 1. September 2007 15:05 schrieb Thomas Leonard:
<snip>
>
> I also got the SUSE RPM to build (again, this is untested):
>
> http://ftp5.gwdg.de/pub/opensuse/repositories/home:/talex5/openSUSE_10.2/re
>podata/repoview/zeroinstall-injector-0-0.30-8.1.html
>
> I had to hard-code the %python_sitelib macro, though. Could someone on
> SUSE figure out the right way to do this? Currently, it doesn't build
> on x86_64, and it will fail on newer Python versions too.

Found this one on the 'opensuse-buildservice' mailinglist:

<quote>
Instead of using %{_libdir}/python*/site-packages it would preferable to
 query python directly to obtain these file locations, and define an RPM
 macro with their value, eg

 For example:

 %{!?python_sitelib: %define python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from
 distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print get_python_lib()")}
 [...]
 %files
 [...]
 %{python_sitelib}/freesteam.py*

 Regarding the split of file locations, perhaps you are not correctly
 passing your value of %_libdir to the build install script, whatever
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Thomas Leonard | 2 Sep 2007 12:22
Picon
Gravatar

Re: zeroinstall-injector-0.30-3.1.noarch.rpm fails on mandriva 2007.1

On 9/1/07, Thomas Formella <thomas-formella <at> web.de> wrote:
> Am Samstag, 1. September 2007 15:05 schrieb Thomas Leonard:
> <snip>
> >
> > I also got the SUSE RPM to build (again, this is untested):
[...]
> Found this one on the 'opensuse-buildservice' mailinglist:
>  %{!?python_sitelib: %define python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from
>  distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print get_python_lib()")}

Well, that's what I was using (I copied it from Michel's Fedora spec).
I had to read the RPM manual to find out what it meant, which is:

  If the macro "python_sitelib" is not defined, then define it as the
output of this
  shell command:
  python -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print
get_python_lib()"

On further investigation, it appears that on SUSE this macro is
already defined, to be the literal string "%python_sitelib" (!). So, I
removed the conditional from the start and it seems to work now
(again, needs testing).

--

-- 
Dr Thomas Leonard		http://rox.sourceforge.net
GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6  8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Thomas Leonard | 2 Sep 2007 12:23
Picon
Gravatar

Re: zeroinstall-injector-0.30-3.1.noarch.rpm fails on mandriva 2007.1

On 9/1/07, Michael Bischof <koek <at> dv-kombinat.de> wrote:
>
> Hallo,
>
> I have python 2.5 and your advice with symlinking worked immediately.

Looking on distrowatch.org, I see that there were two releases of
Mandriva in 2007, one with Python 2.4 and one with Python 2.5!

 http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=mandriva

Unfortunately, the build service doesn't seem to have a "2007.1" target.

--

-- 
Dr Thomas Leonard		http://rox.sourceforge.net
GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6  8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >>  http://get.splunk.com/
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Thomas Leonard | 3 Sep 2007 20:29
Picon
Gravatar

Re: [rox-users] Unable to install rox

On 9/3/07, Thomas Leonard <talex5 <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/3/07, Alok <alokkw <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Thomas,
> >
> > You are right. Suse 10.2 has python 2.5.
> > I tried to install the rpm you had specified but was unable to do so...
> > First I got following dependency issue:
> >
> > error: Failed dependencies:
> >         pygtk2 is needed by zeroinstall-injector-0.30-12.1.noarch
> >         pygtk2-libglade is needed by zeroinstall-injector-0.30-12.1.noarch
> >
> > I am pretty sure that I have python-gtk
>
> You're probably right. What I need to know is: what is the "pygtk2"
> package called on SUSE?

OK, I think I've got it now. I've created a new project on the build
service which depends on zeroinstall-injector and just prints the
version. Currently, everything passes except Mandriva 2006, which
means that at least the dependencies exist.

For SUSE, I used python-gnome instead of python-libglade, because that
didn't seem to exist. Does it have the glade stuff?

http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/talex5/openSUSE_10.2/repodata/
http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/talex5/Fedora_7/repodata/
http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/talex5/Mandriva_2007/repodata/

(note: the pages list both packages, you DO NOT want to install the -test one!)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Stephen Watson | 3 Sep 2007 21:03
Picon
Picon

Re: [rox-users] Unable to install rox

"Thomas Leonard" <talex5 <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9/3/07, Thomas Leonard <talex5 <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 9/3/07, Alok <alokkw <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I am pretty sure that I have python-gtk
> >
> > You're probably right. What I need to know is: what is the "pygtk2"
> > package called on SUSE?
> 
> OK, I think I've got it now. I've created a new project on the build
> service which depends on zeroinstall-injector and just prints the
> version. Currently, everything passes except Mandriva 2006, which
> means that at least the dependencies exist.
> 
> For SUSE, I used python-gnome instead of python-libglade, because that
> didn't seem to exist. Does it have the glade stuff?
> 
>
stephen <at> kerofin:~> rpm -q -f
/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/gtk-2.0/gtk/glade.so
python-gtk-2.10.3-11

I normally install zero install from the source tarball.

--

-- 
Stephen Watson     http://www.kerofin.demon.co.uk/
If you read this on a mailing list, send any reply back to the list and not
to me.  Not even CC.
Do you mind not farting while I'm saving the world?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Thomas Formella | 8 Sep 2007 14:11
Picon

Re: 0install & unionfs

Am Samstag, 25. August 2007 17:12 schrieb David Given:
[...]
>
> There's only one small problem: there's very little software available, and
> quite a lot of the feeds on the software package page don't work for
> various reasons. I don't think anyone would particularly argue that the
> *infrastructure* for maintaining a 0install-based distro basically isn't
> there yet.
>
> So, a proposal:
>
> - The Debian project has a world-class packaging infrastructure and vast
> amounts of software available. However, .debs are tricky to use with
> 0install because they assume they're installed in the root directory.
>
> - By using a unionfs, it ought to be possible to install a .deb to any
> directory... and then, at run time, put together a virtual file system
> containing the .deb, all the packages it depends on, and the user's root
> directory, all installed where they think they should be.
>
> - By writing a little cgi script that parses Debian's control files and
> Packages files, it ought to be possible to create 0install interface files
> *on the fly*.
>
> End result: 0launch http://blahblah/debianate.cgi?nautilus should Just
> Work, pulling in all the required files from Debian's servers.
[...]
> Might this work, or is there something obvious that I'm missing?

Using the Debian packaging infrastructure through 0install with distributions
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |

Gmane