Currently I am trying to install a rpm secured_soft_2.0.0.rpm and i am
unable to install it as we already have secured_soft_1.3.0 installed.
Requirement is that we need to have both the versions installed.
Complexities :
These package inturn have dependent rpm's (lot of them ) and all these
interdependent rpm's also have versions
ex: secured_soft_1.3.0 works only with packages which are of version 1.3,
and secured_soft_2.0.0.rpm work only with dependecies of version 2.0 only.
So all these dependencies also need to be reinstalled and even these
dependenies should be parallely installed, without deleting old.
Finally , both these versions contain shared libraries and these shared
lib's do not have version numbers in their name.
#rpm -ivh secured_soft_2.0.0.rpm
error: Failed dependencies:
init-class >= 1.4.17.1-1 is needed by secured_soft_2.0.0.rpm
init-connection-interface >= 2.0.11.0 is needed by secured_soft_2.0.0.rpm
init-logger >= 2.0.11.0 is needed by secured_soft_2.0.0.rpm
init-security >= 2.0.11.0 is needed by secured_soft_2.0.0.rpm
As i have specified we already have secured_soft_1.3.0.rpm installed and
above dependencies are also available but of different version.
So we need the to install above dependencies and also need the old version's
of dependencies for the old rpm's to work
ex : secured_soft_2.0.0.rpm has libArt.so libSec.so and so on
which are copied to /usr/lib
Similarly secured_soft_1.3.0.rpm also has libArt.so libSec.so and so on
which are already available in /usr/lib
I tried to rename the so's but still iam not able to install.
Is it possible to change the location for these so's and get the things done
Is there any way we can do it.
At the moment, iam stuck here and would need advice on this
Appreciate any help on this.
Since the programs use the same filenames, and you need to put them on the same machine, you might be able to move the older version to another directory tree and make it work there.
You can do this with many applications which do not have compiled-in pathnames.
For instance,
install the older version (this sounds like where you are starting from)
use rpm -ql for each of the packages containing unversioned executables, libraries and associated files.
use tar to capture an archive of those files, relative to /usr (but omitting directories not owned by the packages).
create a new directory, e.g., /usr/local/myapp and untar the older version there.
update configuration files in the new location as needed
For applications such as this, I would run in a script that updates PATH (and perhaps sets LD_LIBRARY_PATH) to force the program to run from the new location. You can verify if this works using tools such as strace and lsof, i.e., by looking for the files that the program opens.
Once you have the older version working properly in the new location, you can uninstall its rpms and install the new version of the application.
Caveat: If the newer package is copied from a newer version of the operating system, however, the task is likely to be beyond your ability, whether or not you choose the alternative approach of recompiling the newer packages to fit on the existing system.
Building new/custom packages is one route to recompiling the newer version. If you have the source-RPMs for each part, that is a starting point:
extract the files from the source-RPM, e.g., using a script such as unrpm (see for example HowTo: Extract an RPM Package Files Without Installing It), and
copy those extracted files to their as-expected locations in your build-tree, e.g., $HOME/rpmbuild/SOURCES and $HOME/rpmbuild/SPECS
modify the spec-file to use the alternative location
build the new/modified package using the modified spec-file.
No, out of the box, you cannot.
I'd highly recommend looking into Docker, where you can throw each one into their own container and let them take care of all their dependency problems.
Related
I develop a software which is distributed and installed via rpm. During install, I copy some binaries to a destination directory.
When performing rpm upgrade, I'd like the old binaries not to be deleted, and that the new ones will be added as is.
Is there an rpm built-in way to do so? I'd really like to avoid scripting in order to resolve that...
EDIT:
The above binaries were listed in #files section.
If you are manually copying the files to some directory (in %post for example) then yum/rpm doesn't know anything about them and can't remove them.
If you have them listed in the %files section (i.e. copying them to the right place under buildroot during `%install) then no, I do not believe you can have rpm leave files not listed by the new package on the system after upgrading to a newer version of the package which does not contain those files.
It might be possible to play with marking them as %config files and then "modifying" them so that rpm won't remove them but it might still rename them and I don't know if this will actually work.
I have a libfoo-devel rpm that I can create, using the trick to override _topdir. Now I want to build a package "bar" which has a BuildRequires 'libfoo-devel". I can't seem to find the Right Way to get access to the contents of libfoo-devel without having to install it on the build host. How should I be doing it?
EDIT:
My build and target distros are both SuSE.
I prefer solutions that don't require mock, since I believe SuSE does not include it in its stock repo.
Subsequent EDIT:
I believe that the answer I seek is in the build package. Perhaps it's SuSE's answer to mock? Or it's the distributed version of the oBS service?
DESCRIPTION
build is a tool to build SuSE Linux
RPMs in a safe and clean way. build
will install a minimal SuSE Linux as
build system into some directory and
will chroot to this system to compile
the package. This way you don't risk
to corrupt your working system (due to
a broken spec file for example), even
if the package does not use BuildRoot.
build searches the spec file for a
BuildRequires: line; if such a line is
found, all the specified rpms are
installed. Otherwise a selection of
default packages are used. Note that
build doesn't automatically resolve
missing dependencies, so the specified
rpms have to be sufficient for the
build.
Note that if you really don't need libfoo-devel installed to build package bar the most sensible alternative would be to remove libfoo-devel from the BuildRequires directive (and maybe put the requirement where it belongs).
However, if you cannot do that for some reason, create a "development" rpm database. Basically it involves using rpm --initdb --root /path/to/fake/root. Then populate it with all of the "target packages" of your standard distro installation.
That's a lot of rpm --install --root /path/to/fake/root --justdb package-name.rpm commands, but maybe you can figure out a way to copy over your /var/lib/rpm/* database files and use those as a starting point. Once you have the alternative rpm database, you can fake the installation of the libfoo-devel package with a --justdb option. Then you'll be home free on the actual rpm build.
If neither mock nor the openSUSE Build Service are a viable choice then you will have to buckle down and install the package, either directly or in a chroot; the package provides files that the SRPM packager has decided are required to build, and hence is in the BuildRequires tag.
I'm looking into trying to find an easy way to manage packages compiled from source so that when it comes time to upgrade, I'm not in a huge mess trying to uninstall/install the new package.
I found a utility called CheckInstall, but it seems to be quite old, and I was wondering if this a reliable solution before I begin using it?
http://www.asic-linux.com.mx/~izto/checkinstall/
Also would simply likely to know any other methods/utilities that you use to handle these installations from source?
Whatever you do, make sure that you eventually go through your distribution's package management system (e.g. rpm for Fedora/Mandriva/RH/SuSE, dpkg for Debian/Ubuntu etc). Otherwise your package manager will not know anything about the packages you installed by hand and you will have unsatisfied dependencies at best, or the mother of all messes at worst.
If you don't have a package manager, then get one and stick with it!
I would suggest that you learn to make your own packages. You can start by having a look at the source packages of your distribution. In fact, if all you want to do is upgrade to version 1.2.3 of MyPackage, your distribution's source package for 1.2.2 can usually be adapted with a simple version change (unless there are patches, but that's another story...).
Unless you want distribution-quality packages (e.g. split library/application/debugging packages, multiple-architecture support etc) it is usually easy to convert your typical configure & make & make install scenario into a proper source package. If you can convince your package to install into a directory rather than /, you are usually done.
As for checkinstall, I have used it in the past, and it worked for a couple of simple packages, but I did not like the fact that it actually let the package install itself onto my system before creating the rpm/deb package. It just tracked which files got installed so that it would package them, which did not protect against unwelcome changes. Oh, and it needed root prilileges to work, which is another main sticking point for me. And lets not go into what happens with statically linked core utilities...
Most tools of the kind seem to work that way, so I simply learnt to build my own packages The Right Way (TM) and let checkinstall and friends mess around elsewhere. If you are still interested, however, there is a list of similar programs here:
http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/automating-destdir.html
PS: BTW checkinstall was updated at the end of 2009, which probably means that it's still adequately current.
EDIT:
In my opinion, the easiest way to perform an upgrade to the latest version of a package if it is not readily available in a repository is to alter the source package of the latest version in your distribution. E.g. for Centos the source packages for the latest version are here:
http://mirror.centos.org/centos/5.5/os/SRPMS/
http://mirror.centos.org/centos/5.5/updates/SRPMS/
...
If you want to upgrade e.g. php, you get the latest SRPM for your distrbution e.g. php-5.1.6-27.el5.src.rpm. Then you do:
rpm -hiv php-5.1.6-27.el5.src.rpm
which installs the source package (just the sources - it does not compile anything). Then you go to the rpm build directory (on my mandriva system its /usr/src/rpm), you copy the latest php source tarball to the SOURCES subdirectory and you make sure it's compressed in the same way as the tarball that just got installed there. Afterwards you edit the php.spec file in the SPECS directory to change the package version and build the binary package with something like:
rpmbuild -ba php.spec
In many cases that's all it will take for a new package. In others things might get a bit more complicated - if there are patches or if there are some major changes in the package you might have to do more.
I suggest you read up on the rpm and rpmbuild commands (their manpages are quite good, in a bit extensive) and check up the documentation on writing spec files. Even if you decide to rely on official backport repositories, it is useful to know how to build your own packages. See also:
http://www.rpm.org/wiki/Docs
EDIT 2:
If you are already installing packages from source, using rpm will actually simplify the building process in the long term, apart from maintaining the integrity of your system. The reason for this is that you won't have to remember the quirks of each package on your own ("oooh, right, now I remember, foo needs me to add -lbar to its CFLAGS"), as the build process will be in the .spec file, which you could imagine as a somewhat structured build script.
As far as upgrading goes, if you already have a .spec file for a previous version of the package, there are two main issues that you may encounter, but both exist whether you use rpm to build your package or not:
A patch that was applied to the previous version by the distribution does not apply any more. In many cases the patch has already been applied to the upstream package, so you can simply drop it. In others you may have to edit it - or I suppose if you deem it unimportant you can drop it too.
The package changed in some major way which affected e.g. the layout of the files it installs. You do read the release notes notes for each new version, don't you?
Other than these two issues, upgrading often boils down to just changing a version number in the spec file and running rpmbuild - even easier than installing from a tarball.
I would suggest that you have a look at the tutorials or at the source package for some simple piece of software such as:
http://mirror.centos.org/centos/5.5/os/SRPMS/ipv6calc-0.61-1.src.rpm
http://mirror.centos.org/centos/5.5/os/SRPMS/libevent-1.4.13-1.src.rpm
If you have experience in buildling packages from a tarball, using rpm to build software is not much of a leap really. It will never be as simple as installing a premade binary package, however.
I use checkinstall on Debian. It should not be so different on CentOS. I use it like that:
./configure
make
sudo checkinstall make install # fakeroot in place of sudo works usally for more security
# install the package generated
Is it possible to paqckage multiple rpms into one file. I have got two bundles one of which requires that the other be installed. I would like to create a single installable out of them in such a way that this installer will first invoke pkg 1 and then install pkg 2. Is this possible? What about deb packages? Sorry if it a basic question. I have not worked with installers on Linux before. I have created Windows installers. There you can create two merge modules (.msm) and package them into a standalone installer (.msi) and specify the order of execution. I am looking for similar functionality on Linux.
EDIT: I think the question was not clear enough. Let me try to rephrase it. I have a bunch of runtime libraries which is currently shipped as a standalone installer. Another team develops products which use these libraries at runtime. I now want to provide the libraries to the product team in some form (sub-package) which they can include with their installer and configure their installer to install my sub-package first. Both packages should be available locally to the end user. They are not available on any repository and cannot be pulled down from the net at install time.
Try packaging them into a self extraction bash script. You won't have to modify or aggregate the libraries and rpms together. This should yield an executable file that can be included in another installation process. The last step of the extraction should be to call "rpm -i" with the rpm files as arguments.
Reference on building a self extracting bash script:
http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1005818
First : you don't have to repackage anything, especially not if your application uses some external libraries. You just have to mention in your recipe that your RPM (or DEB) depends on the other one. Both apt-get (for deb) and yum (for rpm) will check these dependencies and install them if needed.
See :
http://rpm5.org/docs/api/dependencies.html (rpm) and http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/Linux-For-Devices-Articles/How-to-make-deb-packages/ (deb)
(These were just the first ones I found, you can find better resources out there :p).
I am trying to create a Debian package for a Java application.
In my package there is a .jar file which is executable, a script which will run this jar file and a .so file for fmod.
I've read this tutorial.
In the control file there is a 'Depends' field which basically describes the packages that need to be installed in order to install my application. My question is, how do I find which packages are required for my application? I followed the instructions in the tutorial for one of the .so files, and got this:
$ dpkg -S libfmodex64-4.28.09.so
dpkg: *libfmodex64-4.28.09.so* not found.
Also, my application requires Java 1.5 to be installed in order for it to run. How do I specify this in my debian package?
I strongly recommend building your package from source within the Debian packaging infrastructure. Everything will be pretty much automatically taken care of if you use the Ant class in CDBS.
If you do insist on assembling a binary .deb only, equivs is much less hackish than the method described by your document.
You'll want to get the canonical name for your library:
apt-cache search libname
Take care to note the nomenclature at the end of the package. You don't want to specify a specific version in the control file, just the earliest version of the library that is suitable for your application.
You would then use canonical_libname >= major.minor , which lets the system decide if you have (or can update to) the version of the library that can support your application. If you carve this in time, i.e. specifying the full version of your current library, you'll break in the future.
For instance, if you specify libfoo-1.2.34 and future versions of Debian ship libfoo-2.3.45, your package won't install, because it thinks you have an incompatible version of libfoo.