I am little confused on how to create a complete binary package using rpmbuild from a project I just created (already compiled binary).
my current project contain similar format as this user (Packaging proprietary software for Linux)
Where I have
foo (binary)
data
libs
foo.sh
libs will contain all the shared libraries the project requires, and foo.sh is a script that sets LD_LIBRARY_PATH to include libs. Therefore, the user will execute foo.sh and the program should start.
I am looking at the tutorial from this site (rpm tutorial)
I understand to create a rpm I create a build area use rpmdev-setuptree
I can create a spec file use cd ~/rpmbuild/SPECS; rpmdev-newspec foo and if I got a good SOURCES folder I can build it with rpmbuild -ba foo.spec
But I have no idea how to setup the SOURCES directory. The tutorial stated (here) that I should create a tarball and place all my source file in it and put in SOURCE directory. What would be the source file in my case?
You are trying to create a RPM from binary files you have already? In that case, you can just leave the whole building stuff out of the SPEC file, and you need a SOURCE directory to keep the bundles you've got, the %prep step described below will take them from here.
In a binary package I built a while back from zip files, I did:
Heading, with name, version, description written by me/cribbed from the originals
Sources: The original places to download the Linux packages, official documentation, ...
%prep: Just unpack the different pieces, delete some redundant files, ...
%build: Nothing to do
%install: Create the relevant directories under $RPM_BUILD_ROOT by hand, copy files there by install, copy/create configuration files, ...
%clean: Blow away $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%files: An exhaustive list of all files installed.
This required a few iterations to get right. Afterwards I followed the upstream package by rebuilding my RPM (conveniently I had everything packaged up in a SRPM, where the Source part was kind of a misnomer...)
Related
I have some task to make linux's bootable image with my own package. This package (named starlet) is a set of .C modules + Makefile. I created the package/starlet directory and added Config.in and starlet.mk; selected in the Buildroot configuration to include my package to build target image.
So, it's works fine...
Now i'm need to build starlet's image with additional library from the zztop-dev package.
zztop-dev package is an .RPM package with set of .H and .C files to build target zztop.a (.so) libraries.
What do I need to do to install zztop-dev.RPM before building STARLET image?
Having the source code for a package stored in a .rpm file is quite uncommon. Buildroot has built-in rules to extract all the most common formats. Using an uncommon format requires you to write extraction rules on your own.
So the first question is whether you can use a more common format that Buildroot has rules for. You probably can access the source code from its original location in a source code repository (git, Subversion, whatever) or a tarball.
If you really need to extract the sources from am .rpm file, then you need to write your own custom extract commands. Look for LIBFOO_EXTRACT_CMDS in the Buildroot user manual.
But if your extract commands call the rpm command to do the extraction then you'll need the rpm tool either installed on your host machine, or packaged as a host package in Buildroot and listed as a dependency of zztop-dev. The former approach is way simpler, but it will force you to have rpm installed on every host machine where you run the build.
I'm using autoconf & automake in a C project. I'd like to create a .deb package, so I have the following control.in file:
Source: myproject
Section: misc
Priority: optional
Maintainer: Paul Walker <pwalk#test.it>
Build-Depends: debhelper (>=9), autotools-dev#MORE_DEPENDENCIES#
Standards-Version: 1.0.0
Homepage: https://www.my-website.it/
...
I'd like to configure this file with autoconf since there might be MORE_DEPENDENCIES according to some configure-time flag I did set.
This control.in file sits in a stubs/ folder, after substituting the MORE_DEPENDENCIES variable, I'd also like to copy the resulting control file into the final destination folder debian/ to create the .deb package.
So essentially I'm trying to have autoconf do the following:
Include {srcdir}/stubs/ as input folder in order to substitute macros in the .in file sitting there
Configure the stub {srcdir}/stubs/control.in, substitute whatever macro is in there, generate the file {srcdir}/stubs/control with substituted macros
Copy {srcdir}/stubs/control into the final destination folder {srcdir}/debian/control
I've been looking for examples or in the official documentation but still can't find how to configure a .in file outside of the root source folder.
Regarding 'how to copy the final file to the debian/ folder' I suppose I could use a symlink ? Is there any better way?
This is a top-of-the-foodchain problem.
The Debian packaging tools are designed to be the top-level tool for building Debian packages, and the control file is supposed to stay unchanged for the entire run of a package build. You can probably fudge your way around that if you only wish to build binary packages, but then there would be no point in modifying the build dependencies because they are evaluated earlier.
The normal build process will distclean the build tree in order to record changes in the source package, then rerun configure and build. If you update debian/control at this point, the results are undefined.
If you have to update debian/control programmatically, use a separate mechanism that is not reachable from the regular package build. If you have regular releases rather than cutting packages from development versions, it might even make more sense to treat the packaging as separate.
Without packaging system we have (A) source code, which can be translated/compiled to (B) binary code.
In case of debian/ubuntu packages we have (1) source code, (2) source package - dsc file and (3) binary package - deb file. How is it that (2) source package related to (1) and (3)? Why do we need it? And, the most important question: what is the workflow generating (2) and (3) from (1)?
The workflow usually goes approximately like this:
Someone not affiliated with Debian writes some source code and posts it as a package on the web, for example, splint-3.1.2.tar.gz
Someone at Debian downloads the source code, and writes
A set of patch files to make the source build on Debian and conform to Debian guidelines. Run
curl -s 'http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/universe/s/splint/splint_3.1.2.dfsg1-2.diff.gz' | gunzip -dc | less
to see this for the example package.
A textual metadata file describing the package—this is the .dsc file and debian/control file. “DSC” is an acronym for Debian Source Control.
Binary .deb packages are built for each architecture from the original upstream source code with the Debian-specific patches applied. Here is one such file. The Debian Binary Package Building HOWTO explains the format of these files and how to inspect them.
The .dsc file is not used for build logic, it is more for metadata. However many tools along the way require it. For example, the Build-Depends: field is used to install required build dependencies.
It's actually much more complicated than that. The idea behind Debian packages is that they contain all the information needed to buld a page. Usually, the source is modified to include a debian directory that includes a control file describing the dependencies of that package and other packages that it interacts with (e.g, breaks, replaces, provides virtual package). A rules file explains how to build and install the package. There are also descriptions of how to package since a single source package can become many binary packages (e.g., foo-utils, libfoo0, libfoo-dev). debuild actually reads this information, does the compilation, and produces the binary packages. A subtlety: if foo uses libbar-dev, I may not actually know/care what version of the libbar binary package I use. pbuilder runs debuild in a clean environment so there is no chance of compiling against things you have not explicitly specified.
Consult the Debian New Maintainers' Guide for details.
I'm able to extract files from a RPM file, but how do I "rebuild" it, for example cpio2rpm?
I have extracted RPM file using following command.
rpm2cpio theFileName.rpm | cpio –idmv
I have to modify the few web application files like *.php, *.html or .js. These files don’t require any source recompilation. So I would like to replaces or change these files with modification without rebuilding rpm. Since, I need to do this for multiple platforms like Redhat Linux and SUSE, and multiple architecture like 32 and 64 bit OS.
I am expecting to do these changes on only on system and without rebuild rpm and there would not be have target system architecture dependency (like i386, 64).
I am not looking like command rpmbuild –rebuild the.src.rpm since, I don’t have source. I need to be rebuild binary .RPM file(not source .rpm)
I want to do this without source and platform or architecture independent and without using spec file if possible.
Any buddy, could you please suggest any solution or any free tools.
Thank you to all whoever spends time to read and reply to my thread.
You can use rpmrebuild to modify an actual rpm file (it doesn't need to be installed).
Most of the examples for this use complicated inline edit commands to modify known files in particular ways, but you can use a normal editor. I used this to fix a shell script in an rpm file that I didn't have the source for. Call the command as
rpmrebuild -ep theFileName.rpm
This puts you in an editor with the spec file for the RPM. The name of the file will be something like ~/.tmp/rpmrebuild.12839/work/spec.2. If you look in, in this example, ~/.tmp/rpmrebuild.12839/work, you will find all of the files used to make the RPM (in my case, the file was in root/usr/sbin within that directory). So, go to another window, cd to that directory, and edit any files you need to change.
When you have finished editing files, go back to the edit window with the spec file, make any changes you need to that file (I didn't have any, since I wasn't adding or deleting files), save the file, and say "y" to the "Do you want to continue" question. It will then build a new RPM file, and tell you where it has put it (in my case, in ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/)
You can repackage an installed RPM (including modified files) using rpmrebuild. http://rpmrebuild.sourceforge.net/
Obviously your binaries (if any) would have to be platform/architecture independent to work on all the OS flavors you're hoping for, but it sounds like if they're just web files that shouldn't be a problem.
Principially you can pack everything you want into a RPM file. Just treat what you have as "source" and write a SPEC file which puts the data where the compiled binaries would normally go.
Concerning RPM, I consider "source" "what I have" and "binary" "what I need to run". Not very exact terminology, but it helps working with RPMs.
Your spec file looks like any other spec file, what concerns the parameters etc. But the code part is different:
[...]
%prep
# Here you either have nothing to do or you already unpack the cpio and possibly modify it.
# %build can be omitted
%install
[ "${buildroot}" != "/" ] && [ -d ${buildroot} ] && rm -rf ${buildroot};
# Here you can either unpack the cpio or copy the data unpacked in %prep.
# Be careful to put it into %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
I made a perl script that creates a deb binary package from scratch.
I created the data, control, etc.
But when I run dpkg -i on my deb package it complains that it is unable to files from data.
Example:
unable to create '.dpkg-new'(while processing ''): No such file or directory.
I have downloaded some .deb packages to look at and they do not use the preinst script to create the directory structure.
I am thinking I am doing something wrong, I consider having to create my own directories in preinst but it does not seem right... perhaps I am missing something?
Do I have to create directories where my files from data will be copied in the preinst sh, or should dpkg do it and I am doing something wrong?
I had the same problem in a Ruby script I wrote.
I was generating a list of files to pass to tar when building the data.tar.gz archive. When I ungzip and untared the archive manually it would deflate fine, but dpkg would fail.
It turns out that the list of files must also include each directory to create as well.
Note that when I created data.tar.gz I built it with nearly the same options as dpkg-deb/build.c does in the dpkg-1.15.8.11 source.
execlp(TAR, "tar", "-cf", "-", "--format=gnu", "--null", "-T", "-", "--no-recursion", NULL);
Instead I used
IO.popen("gnutar -czf - --format=gnu -T - --no-recursion", "r+")
In addition to what #Arrowmaster said, check the http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ for some detailed explanation of the files. After you build the package itself, you can check it with lintian tool to see if there is anything obvious you might have missed.
If any one looks for a solution to the problem:
"Build a deb package from an rpm spec file."
Look here http://www.deepnet.cx/debbuild/
I have made my own perl build script much simple then the mentioned one so I can easily maintain it.
Some useful knowledge gained in the process:
0. the deb is an ar archive that contains 3 files, the order of the files is important.
1. the scripts from control.tar.gz must be made executable.
2. it is good to have a preinstall script to make directories if dirs do not exist.
3. sometimes dpkg decides to unzip your zips (this happened if the zip was the only file in the data.tar.gz) so check for that in an postinstall script.
4. when you tar.gz some files be sure to chmod to the dir that contains the directory structure for your tar.
You should not attempt to manually create a .deb binary package by hand. The Debian New Maintainers' Guide covers how to get started creating a Debian package using the correct tools.
Your hand created package may look correct to you but because it is not installing it is obviously flawed in either a minor way that you have not noticed or in a more serious way that is not visible to you (for example most people don't realize a .deb is actually an ar archive).
There are lots of reasons for this. You really need to run:
dpkg -i -D1110 mydeb.deb
And post the result to have any hope of someone being able to solve the problem.