[Bug 351] New: Review request: vmware-requirements - Installs packages needed for VMware's virtualization programs to run
9:29 a.m.
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=351
Summary: Review request: vmware-requirements - Installs packages
needed for VMware's virtualization programs to run
Product: Package Reviews
Version: Current
Platform: All
OS/Version: GNU/Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P5
Component: Review Request
AssignedTo: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
ReportedBy: dtimms(a)iinet.net.au
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Estimated Hours: 0.0
Spec URL:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~timmsy/vmware-requirements/vmware-requiremen...
SRPM URL:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~timmsy/vmware-requirements/vmware-requiremen...
Description:
Use this package to install the packages required to run vmware locally.
This package does not include the free vmware-server or vmware-server-console
package itself. They can be obtained from the vmware website.
Can't be in Fedora:
- it's a meta package
- it enables use of non fedora software
- the proper packaging should really be done by the upstream author.
- the upstream is not open source
- the upstream do not support the fedora distribution
- FESCO discussed it recently, and voted that helper packages for third party
apps shall be blocked from Fedora:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478007#c17
The original Fedora review request:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478007
FESCO item tracking:
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/35
FESCO discussion should show up soon for 2009-01-30:
http://bpepple.fedorapeople.org/fesco/
=====
rpmlint:
vmware-requirements.src:34: E: hardcoded-library-path in
/lib/security/pam_unix.so
vmware-requirements.src:51: E: hardcoded-library-path in
/usr/lib/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0
vmware-requirements.src:53: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/libX11.so.6
vmware-requirements.src:55: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/libXtst.so.6
vmware-requirements.src:57: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/libXt.so.6
vmware-requirements.i386: W: no-documentation
vmware-requirements.i386: E: no-binary
vmware-requirements-server.i386: W: no-documentation
vmware-requirements-server.i386: E: devel-dependency kernel-devel
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 2 warnings.
=====
So, do we want to allow helper packages like this in RPM Fusion ?
Note it does not Require: any packages external to Fedora/RPM Fusion, nor does
it attempt to download them.
Others have mentioned that other external no source apps might include skype
etc, that could receive similar RPM Fusion packaging assistance ?
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
11:22 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 351] Review request: vmware-requirements - Installs packages needed for VMware's virtualization programs to run
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=351
--- Comment #1 from Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info> 2009-01-31 12:22:35
---
(In reply to comment #0)
So, do we want to allow helper packages like this in RPM Fusion ?
My 2 cent: Yes, I think those are fine. I'm just wondering is "requirements"
is
the best term to use and if we should use it as prefix or suffix. Would
something like "foo-helpers" "foo-fedora-assistance" or something like
maybe
describe better what packages like these are about?
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
1:31 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 351] Review request: vmware-requirements - Installs packages needed for VMware's virtualization programs to run
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=351
--- Comment #2 from David Timms <dtimms(a)iinet.net.au> 2009-01-31 14:31:16 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
(In reply to comment #0)
> So, do we want to allow helper packages like this in RPM Fusion ?
My 2 cent: Yes, I think those are fine. I'm just wondering is
"requirements" is
the best term to use and if we should use it as prefix or suffix. Would
something like "foo-helpers" "foo-fedora-assistance" or something
like maybe
describe better what packages like these are about?
I had also thought about prerequisites, since if you install (or maybe run
vmware-config.pl) before installing the prerequisites, then it messes up stuff
in pam that makes vmware-console to access the server impossible.
from online:
NECESSARY before you can do something else
REQUIRED prior to taking the next class, REQUIREMENT
ESSENTIAL knowledge, BASIC, IMPORTANT, KEY
INDISPENSABLE
NEEDED, MANDATORY, MUST
vmware-server-missing-package-needs
vmware-server-demands
vmware-server-mandates
vmware-server-needs
vmware-server-preconditions
vmware-server-requisites
vmware-server-setup
vmware-server-preinstall
vmware-server-preliminaries
vmware-server-building-blocks
vmware-server-assumptions
vmware-server-preparation
vmware-server-groundwork
vmware-server-base
=====
vmware-server-foundations {building upon - best for me so far}
=====
rpmfusion-preconfigure-vmware-server
rpmfusion-prepare-vmware-server
or more derogatory like:
vmware-packaging-fixups
vmware-upstream-package-fixups
upstream-package-fixups-vmware-server-console
I think in another world task-something is used, but I don't really like that:
prepare-for-skype etc.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
1:53 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 351] Review request: vmware-requirements - Installs packages needed for VMware's virtualization programs to run
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=351
--- Comment #3 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <rpm(a)greysector.net>
2009-01-31 14:53:26 ---
Requires: /lib/security/pam_unix.so
...
Requires: /usr/lib/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0
# libX11.i386
Requires: /usr/lib/libX11.so.6
# libXtst.i386
Requires: /usr/lib/libXtst.so.6
# libXt.i386
Requires: /usr/lib/libXt.so.6
You can drop the "/usr/lib/" part and turn these into regular requirements
similar to what rpmbuild generates instead of file requirements.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
1:59 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 351] Review request: vmware-requirements - Installs packages needed for VMware's virtualization programs to run
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=351
--- Comment #4 from David Timms <dtimms(a)iinet.net.au> 2009-01-31 14:59:26 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Requires: /usr/lib/libXt.so.6
You can drop the "/usr/lib/" part and turn these into regular requirements
similar to what rpmbuild generates instead of file requirements.
Well you can on
i386.
You dont seem to be able to on x86_64. This is the only trick I could find that
causes rpm/yum to install the required i386 packages on an x86_64 system.
I know yum can do: yum install libXt.i386. From my testing, if this becomes a
requires in rpm, then it generates a requires named libXt.i386. Yum then tries
to find a package matching libXt.i386*.i386.rpm, which never works. If there is
a better way to get i386 packages (that are needed by these vmware apps) to
install with rpm, yum, let me know.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
2:05 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 351] Review request: vmware-requirements - Installs packages needed for VMware's virtualization programs to run
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=351
--- Comment #5 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <rpm(a)greysector.net>
2009-01-31 15:05:03 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #3)
> Requires: /usr/lib/libXt.so.6
>
> You can drop the "/usr/lib/" part and turn these into regular
requirements
> similar to what rpmbuild generates instead of file requirements.
Well you can on i386.
You dont seem to be able to on x86_64. This is the only trick I could find that
causes rpm/yum to install the required i386 packages on an x86_64 system.
I see no reason why it wouldn't work. 64bit requirements look like this:
libXt.so.6()(64bit)
while 32bit look simply like this:
libXt.so.6
which is what I'm suggesting.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
2:22 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 351] Review request: vmware-requirements - Installs packages needed for VMware's virtualization programs to run
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=351
--- Comment #6 from David Timms <dtimms(a)iinet.net.au> 2009-01-31 15:22:24 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
I see no reason why it wouldn't work. 64bit requirements look
like this:
libXt.so.6()(64bit)
while 32bit look simply like this:
libXt.so.6
which is what I'm suggesting.
I nevertried the post ()(64bit) thing since I
didn't know it existed, but my
testing showed that you can rpmbuild the spec OK (with Requires: libXt), but
yum installs the x86_64 packages (which means vmware-x won't run).
Is perhaps 'libXt.so.6()(32bit)' legit ?
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
5:31 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 351] Review request: vmware-requirements - Installs packages needed for VMware's virtualization programs to run
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=351
--- Comment #7 from David Timms <dtimms(a)iinet.net.au> 2009-02-01 06:31:52 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
(In reply to comment #5)
> I see no reason why it wouldn't work. 64bit requirements look like this:
> libXt.so.6()(64bit)
> while 32bit look simply like this:
> libXt.so.6
OK, thanks Dominik,
While I am sure I tried this and it previously failed to work properly on
x86_64, I can confirm that it does operate correctly on x86_64 (F10). Since it
is a while ago now, perhaps the issue I saw was while the fedora buildsys was
trying to (scratch) build it that I saw a problem...
Updated:
Spec URL:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~timmsy/vmware-requirements/vmware-requiremen...
SRPM URL:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~timmsy/vmware-requirements/vmware-requiremen...
- mod Requires (i386) packages from full path to just the filename
- add a readme document.
- use the %%{macro} style of macro
===
rpmlint -i:
vmware-requirements.i386: E: no-binary
The package should be of the noarch architecture because it doesn't contain
any binaries.
vmware-requirements-server.i386: E: devel-dependency kernel-devel
Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package
itself.
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
12:46 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 351] Review request: vmware-requirements - Installs packages needed for VMware's virtualization programs to run
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=351
--- Comment #8 from David Timms <dtimms(a)iinet.net.au> 2009-10-12 14:46:02 ---
Would perhaps changing the package name to preinstall make sense ?
vmware-preinstall
vmware-preinstall-server
vmware-preinstall-server-console
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
12:28 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 351] Review request: vmware-requirements - Installs packages needed for VMware's virtualization programs to run
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=351
David Timms <dtimms(a)iinet.net.au> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
--- Comment #9 from David Timms <dtimms(a)iinet.net.au> ---
According VMware website:
https://www.vmware.com/support/policies/general.html
document:
https://www.vmware.com/content/dam/digitalmarketing/vmware/en/pdf/support...
VMware Server (free) is no longer available for download and is past the
supported phase in the lifecycle matrix:
Product v Gen Avail: SupportFin Download:
Server 1.x 2006/07/12 2010/03/23 N/A GSP Not available
Server 2.x 2008/09/23 2011/06/30 N/A GSP Not available.
Over the past years Linux based VM technologies reached parity with the VMware
offerings; I've used Virt Manager QEMU/KVM for my needs for last few years.
===
In any case, for completeness, I tried installing the rpms which VMware used to
freely provide:
===
# dnf install VMware-server-console-1.0.10-203137.i386.rpm
...
Running transaction test
Error: Transaction check error:
file /usr/bin from install of VMware-server-console-1.0.10-203137.i386
conflicts with file from package filesystem-3.2-37.fc24.x86_64
===
# dnf install VMware-server-1.0.10-203137.i386.rpm
...
Running transaction test
Error: Transaction check error:
file /usr/lib from install of VMware-server-1.0.10-203137.i386 conflicts with
file from package filesystem-3.2-37.fc24.x86_64
file /usr/bin/vm-support from install of VMware-server-1.0.10-203137.i386
conflicts with file from package open-vm-tools-10.0.5-4.fc24.x86_64
===
# dnf install
/home/davidt/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/vmware-requirements-server-1.0-5.fc24.x86_64.rpm
Last metadata expiration check: 2:09:10 ago on Sun Nov 6 09:09:57 2016.
Error: nothing provides pam_unix.so needed by
vmware-requirements-server-1.0-5.fc24.x86_64
(try to add '--allowerasing' to command line to replace conflicting packages)
===
As I have no interest in VMware Server anymore, closing this.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
2968
days inactive
5804
days old
rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
9 comments
1 participants
participants (1)
-
RPM Fusion Bugzilla