[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120820180211.GB10426@debian>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 22:02:11 +0400
From: Aleksey Cherepanov <aleksey.4erepanov@...il.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Aleksey's daily status report #13
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 09:42:02AM +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 03:14:51AM +0400, Aleksey Cherepanov wrote:
> > - all Fedora, Mageia and OpenSUSE uses different doc pathes
> > On Fedora it is /usr/share/doc/<name>-<version>
> > On Mageia /usr/share/doc/<name>
> > On OpenSUSE /usr/share/doc/packages/<name>
> > And as I understand rpm does not provide a way to alter this path
> > during installation easily. This path is hardcoded into rpm during
> > its creation.
>
> I think we may choose to ignore this - e.g., support
> /usr/share/doc/<name> only.
Ok. I'll keep only mageia's rpm.
BTW Owl uses /usr/share/doc/<name>-<version>
> > I attached .spec file. Despite its name it is suitable for both x86
> > and x86_64.
> >
> > Should I put it on the wiki and make an instruction how to build rpm
> > for other distributions? (Should I add automatic download of
> > tarballs?) Or maybe should I provide explanation on differences
> > between .rpms so user could choose right prebuit one? Is it
> > important at all?
> >
> > - my .spec file just repackages tarball from wiki
> > i.e. it could not build rpm for other architectures
>
> Ouch.
>
> Normally, your .spec file should be building the thing from source, and
> it should be located in the same tree/tarball with sources. Ditto for
> the files needed to build .deb's - they're part of Johnny source code.
.deb control file is not in the tree yet.
> Please see how some other programs include this sort of things in their
> source code release tarballs.
Ok.
> The pre-built binaries hack that you used is common for proprietary
> software, but why use it for Johnny?
I prefer right (even perfect) ways. But now this dirty, limited, ugly
hack looks good because
- it is easy and short,
- I know possible problems with builddeps (e.g. qmake vs q4make),
- it is a straightforward way to get right rpm from good binaries,
- it suits my needs because I aim to provide good rpms for most users
(who need prebuilt binary packages) in quite short time.
Testing binaries I found a border between qt 4.6 and qt 4.7: johnny
linked against qt 4.7 does not work with qt 4.6 runtime but johnny
linked qt 4.6 works with all qt 4.6, 4.7 and 4.8 (it seems to be a
well known problem on the Internet). So I considered to use prebuilt
binaries from debian.
I do not intend to keep things so. Due to qt's 4.6/4.7 problem it may
be useful to keep current .spec but as an addition to the right .spec.
So I plan to make right .spec file (probably for next release).
The same affects .deb packages. I plan to make src .deb too.
(Currently I package it from prebuilt binaries too).
> When a .spec file is properly included inside a source tarball, then
> RPMs may be built by running simply "rpmbuild -tb programsources.tar".
> Try it on passwdqc, for example. passwdqc's INSTALL includes this:
>
> ---
> Alternatively, on a Red Hat'ish Linux system and under an account
> configured to build RPM packages (perhaps with ~/.rpmmacros specifying
> the proper pathnames for %_topdir, %_tmppath, and %buildroot), you may
> build RPM packages by running "rpmbuild -tb passwdqc-1.2.2.tar.gz", then
> install the two binary subpackages with "rpm -Uvh passwdqc*-1.2.2*.rpm".
> This works due to the RPM spec file included in the tarball.
> ---
I saw -tb option. It is nice. I'll satisfy its needs (later).
> Also take a look at Owl's native/Owl/packages/rpm/rpminit script.
>
> > - Fedora uses i386 name for x86 while Mageia and OpenSUSE use i586
> > My .spec uses it. So it may not work out of the box on some x86
> > distros.
>
> RPM recognizes all of i386 through i686 (and more) on all relevant distros.
> However, your binaries should not require a CPU greater than what the
> filename says. I guess you prebuilt these for i386? If so, any
> specified i?86 arch is OK, but i386 specifically is best.
>
> In practice, everyone is going to have an i686 capable CPU anyway.
>
> > Name: johnny
> > Version: 1.1.2
> ...
>
> Maybe take a look at Owl's doc/CONVENTIONS and some of the .spec files
> in Owl and try to follow the same conventions?
>
> > %ifarch i386 i586
>
> %ifarch %ix86
I tried. It works well.
> > Group: Applications/System
>
> If you really want to support different distros according to their
> conventions, then this Group will differ by distro.
I looked into doc/rpm/GROUPS on fedora, mageia, opensuse and owl, all
of them have such group. Though it does not mean that all distros have
it.
I saw in Fedora's guide about packaging that starting from Fedora 17
tag "Group" is deprecated.
> > John the Ripper is a tool designed to help systems administrators to
> > find weak (easy to guess or crack through brute force) passwords, and
> > even automatically mail users warning them about it, if it is desired.
>
> BTW, I deliberately never use the ambiguous term "brute force" in John
> the Ripper documentation.
I got this paragraph from Debian's description. I'll replace it with
better one.
> > %files
>
> Specify:
>
> %defattr(-,root,root)
>
> right after %files. Otherwise, the packaged files stay owned by
> whatever user built the package (and you don't want to be building
> packages as root).
I do not build packages as root but they have proper uid and gid
without this line under mageia, fedora and opensuse. I guess it is
needed by others though.
Thanks!
--
Regards,
Aleksey Cherepanov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
