[WBEL-devel] Newest rhn-applet and whitebox-release errata

[William Hooper]

A couple issues:

First, whitebox-release-3WB_i386-1.i386.rpm won't get picked up by any of the dep solvers, because:

[***@snowball downloads]$ rpm --test -Uvh whitebox-release-3WB_i386-1.i386.rpm
Preparing... ########################################### [100%]
package whitebox-release-3.0-3 (which is newer than whitebox-release-3WB_i386-1) is already installed

Second, the new rhn-applet still doesn't work. Depending on where you want to fix it, either a) it needs to be edited to look for whitebox-release or b) whitebox-release needs to provide redhat-release.

[John Morris]

Post by William Hooper
First, whitebox-release-3WB_i386-1.i386.rpm won't get picked up by any
whitebox-release-3WB_i386-1.i386.rpm Preparing...
########################################### [100%]
package whitebox-release-3.0-3 (which is newer than
whitebox-release-3WB_i386-1) is already installed

Oh bother. Really should have caught that one. Ok, the new naming shall
be whitebox-release-3WB-3.0-4_i386.rpm and
whitebox-release-3WB-3.0-4_x86_64.rpm unless someone see a problem.

Post by William Hooper
Second, the new rhn-applet still doesn't work. Depending on where you
want to fix it, either a) it needs to be edited to look for
whitebox-release or b) whitebox-release needs to provide redhat-release.

I remember this being mentioned before, guess it serves me right for not
posting it to the known issues list so I'd remember it.

Ok, two glitches so far. Enough I'll need to respin yet again but not
quite as embarrassing as leaving out glibc. Better to have em caught and
fixed now.

[William Hooper]

Post by John Morris

Post by William Hooper
First, whitebox-release-3WB_i386-1.i386.rpm won't get picked up by any
whitebox-release-3WB_i386-1.i386.rpm Preparing...
########################################### [100%] package
whitebox-release-3.0-3 (which is newer than whitebox-release-3WB_i386-1)
is already installed

Oh bother. Really should have caught that one. Ok, the new naming shall
be whitebox-release-3WB-3.0-4_i386.rpm and
whitebox-release-3WB-3.0-4_x86_64.rpm unless someone see a problem.

The whitebox-release-3WB_i386-1.i386.rpm also breaks yum, because it makes $releasever="3WB_i386". Without seeing your new spec, is it safe to assume that whitebox-release-3WB-3.0-4_i386.rpm will mean $releasever="3.0" again?

[John Morris]

Post by William Hooper
The whitebox-release-3WB_i386-1.i386.rpm also breaks yum, because it
makes $releasever="3WB_i386". Without seeing your new spec, is it safe
to assume that whitebox-release-3WB-3.0-4_i386.rpm will mean
$releasever="3.0" again?

Hmm.. Ok, looks like I dropped the 3ES|3AS|3WS part originally and should
do so again. I think RH's idea of encoding arch into a version number is
lame (pop quiz, is redhat-release-3AS-12.2.src.rpm the i386, x86_64 or ppc
package?) so how about this scheme:

whitebox-release-${releasever}-${subversion}_${arch}.src.rpm which builds
whitebox-release-${releasever}-${subversion}_${arch}.${arch}.rpm

For this respin: whitebox-release-3.0-4_i386.i386.rpm
and whitebox-release-3.0-4_x86_64.x86_64.rpm

That should make everything work again.

So consider this last call for bugs. Barring any last minute bug reports
here is the schedule.

Sat/Sun: I will fix these two bugs and put the packages in the main repo.
Then I will install a fresh 3.0 and let up2date bring it current and make
sure everything works. Then I'll spin new images, blow the test box off,
reload 3.0 and upgrade via anaconda.

Mon: Populate the primary and wait for the mirrors to catch up.

Wed: Formal announcement to whitebox-announce, distrowatch, freshmeat,
etc.

[William Hooper]

John Morris said:
[snip]

Post by John Morris
That should make everything work again.

Yep, the updates from this morning seem to have everything back in shape.

[Jan-Frode Myklebust]

Post by John Morris
So consider this last call for bugs.

whitebox-release 3.0-4_i386.i386 is missing /etc/redhat-release. Is
that intentional?


-jf

[John Morris]

Post by Jan-Frode Myklebust
whitebox-release 3.0-4_i386.i386 is missing /etc/redhat-release. Is
that intentional?

Nope, tis a bug. So one last respin...... :)

[Jan-Frode Myklebust]

Post by John Morris

Post by Jan-Frode Myklebust
whitebox-release 3.0-4_i386.i386 is missing /etc/redhat-release. Is
that intentional?

Nope, tis a bug. So one last respin...... :)

Just installed whitebox-release 3.0-5_i386.i386 and it's still missing
the /etc/redhat-release. Maybe you need one more final last spin? :)

# rpm -q whitebox-release
whitebox-release-3.0-5_i386
# ls -ld /etc/redhat-release
ls: /etc/redhat-release: No such file or directory


-jf

[Johnny Hughes]

--=-Xeztjh1vqJOcYkFpqYZt
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Post by Jan-Frode Myklebust

Post by John Morris

Post by Jan-Frode Myklebust
whitebox-release 3.0-4_i386.i386 is missing /etc/redhat-release. Is
that intentional?

Nope, tis a bug. So one last respin...... :)

Just installed whitebox-release 3.0-5_i386.i386 and it's still missing
the /etc/redhat-release. Maybe you need one more final last spin? :)
# rpm -q whitebox-release
whitebox-release-3.0-5_i386
# ls -ld /etc/redhat-release
ls: /etc/redhat-release: No such file or directory

Besides changing redhat-release to whitebox-release in every spec file
... what is the work around for this when compiling SRPMS?

-Johnny Hughes

--=-Xeztjh1vqJOcYkFpqYZt
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.0.9">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 02:02, Jan-Frode Myklebust wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE><FONT COLOR="#737373"><I>On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 07:02:12PM -0500, John Morris wrote:
&gt; On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Jan-Frode Myklebust wrote:
&gt;
&gt; &gt; whitebox-release 3.0-4_i386.i386 is missing /etc/redhat-release. Is
&gt; &gt; that intentional?
&gt;
&gt; Nope, tis a bug. So one last respin...... :)

Just installed whitebox-release 3.0-5_i386.i386 and it's still missing
the /etc/redhat-release. Maybe you need one more final last spin? :)

# rpm -q whitebox-release
whitebox-release-3.0-5_i386
# ls -ld /etc/redhat-release
ls: /etc/redhat-release: No such file or directory
</I></FONT></PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
Besides changing redhat-release to whitebox-release in every spec file ... what is the work around for this when compiling SRPMS?<BR>
<BR>
-Johnny Hughes
</BODY>
</HTML>

--=-Xeztjh1vqJOcYkFpqYZt--

[Craig Jansen]

Hi,

Post by Johnny Hughes

Post by Jan-Frode Myklebust
# rpm -q whitebox-release
whitebox-release-3.0-5_i386
# ls -ld /etc/redhat-release
ls: /etc/redhat-release: No such file or directory

Besides changing redhat-release to whitebox-release in every spec file
... what is the work around for this when compiling SRPMS?

ln -s /etc/whitebox-release /etc/redhat-release

will create a symlink and give you a redhat-release that points to
whitebox-release

HTH.

Best Regards
Craig Jansen
Xunil Solutions - Linux & Open Source Technology Specialists
WEB: http://www.xunil.co.nz

[William Hooper]

Post by Johnny Hughes

Post by Jan-Frode Myklebust
Just installed whitebox-release 3.0-5_i386.i386 and it's still missing
the /etc/redhat-release. Maybe you need one more final last spin? :)

[snip]

Post by Johnny Hughes
Besides changing redhat-release to whitebox-release in every spec file
... what is the work around for this when compiling SRPMS?

It really depends on what your source RPM is looking for. In the example of rhn-applet, it looks for what package "provides" redhat-release, so just having whitebox-release provide it will work. Some things look for the file /etc/redhat-release, which generally can be worked around by making it a link to /etc/whitebox-release.

The programs that have the most problem are things that actually read the contents of /etc/redhat-release. And example would be webmin. In that case it is best to get upstream to recognize Whitebox's string and treat it the same as RHEL is treated.

[Jesse]

Post by Jan-Frode Myklebust

Post by John Morris

Post by Jan-Frode Myklebust
whitebox-release 3.0-4_i386.i386 is missing /etc/redhat-release. Is
that intentional?

Nope, tis a bug. So one last respin...... :)

Just installed whitebox-release 3.0-5_i386.i386 and it's still missing
the /etc/redhat-release. Maybe you need one more final last spin? :)

Is this going to be fixed? Been a few weeks with no word.. still missing
the /etc/redhat-release file.

---
Jesse <***@lumiere.net>

[Johnny Hughes]

--=-pbP1gR/ENmlxkPHhtfsR
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Post by Jesse

Post by Jan-Frode Myklebust

Post by John Morris

Post by Jan-Frode Myklebust
whitebox-release 3.0-4_i386.i386 is missing /etc/redhat-release. Is
that intentional?

Nope, tis a bug. So one last respin...... :)

Just installed whitebox-release 3.0-5_i386.i386 and it's still missing
the /etc/redhat-release. Maybe you need one more final last spin? :)

Is this going to be fixed? Been a few weeks with no word.. still missing
the /etc/redhat-release file.

I created a version of whitebox-release
(whitebox-release-3.0-5.1_i386.i386.rpm) so that I could compile several
files that checked for /etc/redhat-release. It worked for everything I
tried it with.

The rpm provides /etc/redhat-release and /etc/whitebox-release ... so
there is a redhat-release and programs that evaluate redhat-release also
work.

You can download the rpm and see if it fixes this problem as well. I
have it available here:

WhiteBox Downloads

Thanks,

Johnny Hughes
HughesJR.com

--=-pbP1gR/ENmlxkPHhtfsR
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.0.10">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
On Wed, 2004-06-30 at 19:08, Jesse wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> <PRE><FONT COLOR="#737373"><I>&gt; &gt; &gt; whitebox-release 3.0-4_i386.i386 is missing /etc/redhat-release. Is
&gt; &gt; &gt; that intentional?
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; Nope, tis a bug. So one last respin...... :)
&gt;
&gt; Just installed whitebox-release 3.0-5_i386.i386 and it's still missing
&gt; the /etc/redhat-release. Maybe you need one more final last spin? :)

Is this going to be fixed? Been a few weeks with no word.. still missing
the /etc/redhat-release file.
</I></FONT></PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
I created a version of whitebox-release (whitebox-release-3.0-5.1_i386.i386.rpm) so that I could compile several files that checked for /etc/redhat-release.&nbsp; It worked for everything I tried it with.<BR>
<BR>
The rpm provides /etc/redhat-release and /etc/whitebox-release ... so there is a redhat-release and programs that evaluate redhat-release also work.<BR>
<BR>
You can download the rpm and see if it fixes this problem as well.&nbsp; I have it available here:<BR>
<BR>
<A HREF="http://www.hughesjr.com/component/option,com_docman/Itemid,34/task,view_category/catid,15/order,dmdate_published/ascdesc,DESC/">WhiteBox Downloads</A><BR>
<BR>
Thanks,
<PRE><TABLE CELLSPACING="0" CELLPADDING="0" WIDTH="100%">
<TR>
<TD>
Johnny Hughes<BR>
<A HREF="http://www.hughesjr.com"><U>HughesJR.com</U></A>
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
</PRE>
</BODY>
</HTML>

--=-pbP1gR/ENmlxkPHhtfsR--

[Jesse]

Post by Johnny Hughes

Post by Jesse
Is this going to be fixed? Been a few weeks with no word.. still missing
the /etc/redhat-release file.

I created a version of whitebox-release
The rpm provides /etc/redhat-release and /etc/whitebox-release ... so
You can download the rpm and see if it fixes this problem as well. I

Thanks John. I don't actually have a pressing need for this (or I would
have done it myself or made more noise), but I'd like to see this fixed in
the main tree in the long run.

---
Jesse <***@lumiere.net>