I have a source tree structure like -
/src
/moduleA
/moduleB
/common
where moduleA and moduleB need packaged separately but share the common code.
Is it possible to create 2 separate binary packages using dpkg-buildpackage?
Thanks!
It is possible. In order to do it, you should modify the control file.
When you use dh_make -s, you have something like :
Source: yourpackage
Section: unknown
Priority: optional
Maintainer: toto <toto#unknown>
Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 8.0.0), autotools-dev
Standards-Version: 3.9.4
Homepage: <insert the upstream URL, if relevant>
#Vcs-Git: git://git.debian.org/collab-maint/libsnow.git
#Vcs-Browser: http://git.debian.org/?p=collab-maint/libsnow.git;a=summary
Package: yourpackage
Architecture: any
Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, ${misc:Depends}
Description: <insert up to 60 chars description>
<insert long description, indented with spaces>
All you have to do is to add a paragraph like that :
Package: yourpackagebis
Architecture: any
Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, ${misc:Depends}
Description: <insert up to 60 chars description>
<insert long description, indented with spaces>
(I should warn you, you can only use lowercase characters for the package's name). Once you've done that, you have to specify which file will go where. You have to create four new files : yourpackage.dirs, yourpackage.install, yourpackagebis.dirs, and yourpackagebis.install. In yourpackage.dirs, you have to specify what are the directories you need to create (one per line). In yourpackage.install, you have to tell dpkg-buildpackage what files should be put in the package yourpackage, and where. It must be in the following format (one per line):
moduleA/foo usr/bin
(assuming your makefile is in src/. It can be something else than usr/bin).
yourpackagebis.dirs and yourpackagebis.install works the same way for the package yourpackagebis.
Related
I added iptables package to my device image, using CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL += "iptables".
I tried to run it on the device and get the following error message:
modprobe: FATAL: Module ip_tables not found in directory /lib/modules/4.9.11-1.0.0+gc27010d
iptables v1.6.1: can't initialize iptables table `filter': Table does not exist (do you need to insmod?)
Perhaps iptables or your kernel needs to be upgraded.
Seems like I have missing kernel module.
Need your help in adding standard kernel module to the image (Where can I find all modules files and how should I add and load it to the image).
You must add the iptables module to your kernel. I had the same problem and I could solve it with these steps:
Run bitbake -c menuconfig virtual/kernel
Activate CONFIG_IP_NF_IPTABLES module (you can search its location on that menu typing slash '/').
Save it and run bitbake -c savedefconfig virtual/kernel for saving that file as a defconfig.
Copy defconfig file from returned path to yocto-distro/layer-name/recipes-kernel/linux/files/ (make this directory if it does not exist).
Create a .bbappend file inside yocto-distro/layer-name/recipes-kernel/linux/ with the same name as your original recipe file from meta layer.
Edit your file and append lines below:
SRC_URI += "file://defconfig"
KERNEL_DEFCONFIG = "${WORKDIR}/defconfig"
FILESEXTRAPATHS_prepend := "${THISDIR}/files"
~
Relaunch bitbake your-image-name
It worked on my situation. Btw, I got that info from the following webs:
http://variwiki.com/index.php?title=Yocto_Customizing_the_Linux_kernel
https://www.linuxtopia.org/Linux_Firewall_iptables/x651.html
Have a nice day! :D
I'm trying to work out how the pull checksum for packages is calculated within Alpine APK package repositories. The documentation regarding the format is lacking in any detail.
When I run apk index -o APKINDEX.unsigned.tar.gz *.apk which generates the repository. When you extract the txt file from inside the gz, it contains the following...
C:Q17KXT6xFVWz4EZDIbkcvXQ/uz9ys=
P:redis-server
V:3.2.3-0
A:noarch
S:2784844
I:102400
T:An advanced key-value store
U:http://redis.io/
L:
D:linux-headers
I'm interested in how the very first line is generated. I've tried to read the actual source that's used to generate this, but I'm not a C programmer, so it's hard for me to comprehend as it jumps all over the place.
The two files mentioned in the documentation are database.c and package.c.
Incase this somewhat helps, the original APK file has these various hashes...
CRC32 = ac17ea88
MD5 = a035ecf940a67a6572ff40afad4f396a
SHA1 = eca5d3eb11555b3e0464321b91cbd743fbb3f72b
SHA256 = 24bc1f03409b0856d84758d6d44b2f04737bbc260815c525581258a5b4bf6df4
The pull checksum is the sha1sum of the second tar.gz file in the apk file, containing the .PKGINFO file.
The Alpine APK package is actually a concatenation in disguise of 3 tar.gz files.
We can split the package below using gunzip-split into 3 .gz files, then rename them to .tar.gz
./gunzip-split -s -o ./out/ strace-5.14-r0.apk
mv ./out/file_1.gz ./out/file_1.tar.gz
mv ./out/file_2.gz ./out/file_2.tar.gz
mv ./out/file_3.gz ./out/file_3.tar.gz
sha1sum ./out/file_2.tar.gz
7a266425df7bfd7ce9a42c71a015ea2ae5715838 out/file_2.tar.gz
tar tvf out/file_2.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- root/root 702 2021-09-03 01:34 .PKGINFO
In the case of the strace package the checksum value can be derived as above:
apk index strace-5.14-r0.apk -o APKINDEX.tar.gz
tar xvf APKINDEX.tar.gz
cat APKINDEX
echo eiZkJd97/XzppCxxoBXqKuVxWDg=|base64 -d|xxd
00000000: 7a26 6425 df7b fd7c e9a4 2c71 a015 ea2a z&d%.{.|..,q...*
00000010: e571 5838 .qX8
When comparing them we see that they match.
References
https://github.com/martencassel/apk-tools/blob/master/README.md
https://gitlab.com/cg909/gunzip-split/-/releases
https://lists.alpinelinux.org/~alpine/devel/%3C257B6969-21FD-4D51-A8EC-95CB95CEF365%40ferrisellis.com%3E#%3C20180309152107.472e4144#vostro.util.wtbts.net%3E
So...
/* Internal cointainer for MD5 or SHA1 */
struct apk_checksum {
unsigned char data[20];
unsigned char type;
};
Basically take the C: value then chop off the Q from the front then base 64 decode. Chop off the last value (type which defaults to SHA1) then you have your sha1. This appears to be made of the CONTENTS of the package but that would take further looking into it.
You need to look here: https://git.alpinelinux.org/cgit/apk-tools/tree/src/blob.c#n492
It is apk_blob_pull_csum
First 'Q' stands for encoding
Next '1' stands for SHA1
Looks like this checksum is made database.c in apk_db_unpack_pkg:
apk_sign_ctx_init(&ctx.sctx, APK_SIGN_VERIFY_IDENTITY, &pkg->csum, db->keys_fd);
tar = apk_bstream_gunzip_mpart(bs, apk_sign_ctx_mpart_cb, &ctx.sctx);
r = apk_tar_parse(tar, apk_db_install_archive_entry, &ctx, TRUE, &db->id_cache);
but I'm not sure, because I failed to trace this code.
It is really not easy to understand what are they doing.
Running chef-solo (Installing Chef Omnibus (12.3)) on centos6.6
My recipe has the following simple code:
package 'cloud-init' do
action :install
end
log 'rpm-qi' do
message `rpm -qi cloud-init`
level :warn
end
log 'yum list' do
message `yum list cloud-init`
level :warn
end
But it outputs the following:
- install version 0.7.5-10.el6.centos.2 of package cloud-init
* log[rpm-qi] action write[2015-07-16T16:46:35+00:00] WARN: package cloud-init is not installed
[2015-07-16T16:46:35+00:00] WARN: Loaded plugins: fastestmirror, presto
Available Packages
cloud-init.x86_64 0.7.5-10.el6.centos.2 extras
I am at a loss as to why rpm/yum and actually rpmquery don't see the package as installed.
EDIT: To clarify I am specifically looking for the following string post package install to then apply a change to the file (I understand this is not a very chef way to do something I am happy to accept suggestions):
rpmquery -l cloud-init | grep 'distros/__init__.py$'
I have found that by using the following:
install_report = shell_out('yum install -y cloud-init').stdout
cloudinit_source = shell_out("rpmquery -l cloud-init | grep 'distros/__init__.py$'").stdout
I can then get the file I am looking for and perform
Chef::Util::FileEdit.new(cloudinit_source.chomp(''))
The file moves based on the distribution but I need to edit that file specifically with in place changes.
Untested code, just to give the idea:
package 'cloud-init' do
action :install
notifies :run,"ruby_block[update_cloud_init]"
end
ruby_block 'update_cloud_init' do
block do
cloudinit_source = shell_out("rpmquery -l cloud-init | grep 'distros/__init__.py$'").stdout
rc = Chef::Util::FileEdit.new(cloudinit_source.chomp(''))
rc.search_file_replace_line(/^what to find$/,
"replacement datas for the line")
rc.write_file
end
end
ruby_block example taken and adapted from here
I would better go using a template to manage the whole file, what I don't understand is why you don't know where it will be at first...
Previous answer
I assume it's a compile vs converge problem. at the time the message is stored (and so your command is executed) the package is not already installed.
Chef run in two phase, compile then converge.
At compile time it build a collection of resources and at converge time it execute code for the resource to get them in the described state.
When your log resource is compiled, the ugly back-ticks are evaluated, at this time there's a package resource in the collection but the resource has not been executed, so the output is correct.
I don't understand what you want to achieve with those log resources at all.
If you want to test your node state after chef-run use a handler maybe calling ServerSpec as in Test-Kitchen.
I have configured a private APT repository (using resources on internet like http://inodes.org/2009/09/14/building-a-private-ppa-on-ubuntu/) and I'm uploading for the first time my package containing the sources of my C++ application.
So reprepro repository is empty.
I use the following command in order to start the build:
sudo reprepro -V -b /srv/reprepro processincoming incoming
Then the build start, a lot of output is genearated and I can see that pbuilder is compiling the project source code and everything is fine. I can even find in the result/ folder debian packages etc...
But the build failed with a POST_BUILD_FAILED because it seems that pbuilder has changed the douane-testing_0.8.1-apt1.debian.tar.gz file and the md5 sum is now different as shown here:
File "pool/main/d/douane-testing/douane-testing_0.8.1-apt1.debian.tar.gz" is already registered with different checksums!
md5 expected: 97257ae2c5790b84ed7bb1b412f1d518, got: df78f88b97cadc10bc0a73bf86442838
sha1 expected: ae93c44593e821696f72bee4d91ce4b6f261e529, got: d6f910ca5707ec92cb71601a4f4c72db0e5f18d9
sha256 expected: c3fac5ed112f89a8ed8d4137b34f173990d8a4b82b6212d1e0ada1cddc869b0e, got: ebdcc9ead44ea0dd99f2dc87decffcc5e3efaee64a8f62f54aec556ac19d579c
size expected: 2334, got: 2344
There have been errors!
I don't understand why it is failing as when I compare the 2 packages (having those md5 sums) the content is strictly the same (I used a diff tool but no differences and no new or removed files).
The only thing I can see is that the archive from pbuild is bigger of 10 Bytes than the orginal one I have uploaded:
On my development machine, the file with the md5 97257ae2c5790b84ed7bb1b412f1d518 :
-rw-r--r-- 1 zedtux zedtux 2334 Feb 3 23:38 douane-testing_0.8.1-apt1.debian.tar.gz
On my server, the file with the md5 df78f88b97cadc10bc0a73bf86442838 :
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2344 Feb 5 00:58 douane-testing_0.8.1-apt1.debian.tar.gz
I have pbuild version 0.213 on my server.
What could be the reason of this behavior and how can I fix it ?
Edit
I'm suspecting an issue with the GPG key which looks missing and then files aren't signed so md5sum is different.
During the build process I have the following lines:
I: Extracting source
gpgv: Signature made Wed Feb 5 22:04:37 2014 UTC using RSA key ID 9474CF36
gpgv: Can't check signature: public key not found
dpkg-source: warning: failed to verify signature on ./douane-testing_0.8.1-apt1.dsc
Edit 2
I have tried to find the command to create manually the .debian.tar.gz file.
The best I've found is the following:
tar cv debian | gzip --no-name --rsyncable -9 > douane-testing_0.8.1-apt1.debian.tar.gz
I don't get the same result than dpkg-source but I tried the same command on my server (I should at least have the same size) but it's not matching...
Could it be that Debian and Ubuntu aren't compressing the same way ?
Finally after some evenings of research I found the solution on launchpad.net !
Found the solution. By default pbuilder calls dpkg-buildpackage like so:
DEBBUILDOPTS="$DEBBUILDOPTS -rfakeroot"
dpkg-buildpackage -us -uc $DEBBUILDOPTS
That causes dpkg-buildpackage to rebuild the diff.gz and .dsc files. Add a -b in there, and it won't. It also means the resulting .changes file will only reference the .deb file. Which is what you want, I think.
The easy solution is to add a line to your .pbuilderrc:
DEBBUILDOPTS="-b"
My previous answer is alright but is not complete.
Then I had the issue that reprepro complains about the source tarball (.orig.tar.xz).
But it was normal as I wasn't doing the packages correctly.
I have written a bash script which I'm executing in VM for each Ubuntu series.
This script was always doing everything from scratch, and was using dh_make --createorig argument and here is the issue.
The correct way is to generate once (for example on Ubuntu precise) and then re-use the .orig.tar.xz file and no more use the --createorig argument of dh_make.
I hope this could help someone :-)
During installation process user has ability to install number of some service instances (Service1- ServiceN). All the differences between these services - content of configuration files(actually there is only one executable in /Product_Root/run wich is called with different command-line params).Configuration files situated in ProductRoot/ServiceX/conf.
Folders structure looks like :
/Product_Root
----/bin
----/doc
----/Service1
---------/conf
----/Service2
---------/conf
...
----/ServiceN
---------/conf
In ProductRoot/ServiceX/conf is situated, for example, service.properties file with these contents:
#...
ServiceRoot = <%ROOT_DIRECTORY%>
ListenPort = <%PORT%>
#...
Also in /Product_Root/bin scripts for each service startup should be present:
For example :
/Product_Root/bin/Service1.run.cmd
/Product_Root/bin/Service2.run.cmd
...
/Product_Root/bin/ServiceN.run.cmd
...
Script file structure is:
service.exe ../<%SERVICE_NAME%>/conf/service.properties
All values (like <%SERVICE_NAME%>,<%PORT%> etc.) are set by user during setup process for each Service.
Amount of services is also set by user and may vary between 1 (by default) and 20-30.
In case of single service - there is no problem.
Files being copied, directories created using
[Files]
Source: {#FilesPath}\bin\*.*; DestDir: {app}\{#FileLocationPrefix}\bin; Flags: ignoreversion restartreplace
Source: {#АilesPath}\conf\*.*; DestDir: {app}\{#FileLocationPrefix}\{code:GetServiceName}\conf; Flags: ignoreversion recursesubdirs createallsubdirs restartreplace;
[Dirs]
Name: {app}\{#FileLocationPrefix}{code:GetServiceName}\conf
After in ssPostInstall step wildcards replace performed in copied files.
Question.
is it possible using Inno Setup + ISTool to do the same in case of number of services?
E.g. something like that :
[Files]
#for (i = 0; i < ServiceCount(); ++i)
Source: {#АilesPath}\conf\*.*; DestDir: {app}\{#FileLocationPrefix}\{code:GetServiceName| i}\conf; Flags: ignoreversion recursesubdirs createallsubdirs
where i — is actually configuration number.
I.e. is it possible to use information received from user during installation process in [File], [Dirs] etc. sections for multiple copying of the same files in different directories?
For copying single file in number of files with different names set by user during install process?
Or I just going in the wrong direction?
So, currently I've done this in such way. Comments are welcome.
For creating and copying all files:
#define MaxFEInstances 20
...
#sub CreateConf
Source: {#FilesPath}\conf\*.*; DestDir: {app}\{#FileLocationPrefix}{code:GetServiceName|{#counter}}\conf; Flags: ignoreversion recursesubdirs createallsubdirs restartreplace; Check: InstanceSetupRequired({#counter}); Components: main
#endsub
#for {counter = 0; counter < MaxInstances; ++counter} CreateConf
enter code here
...
function InstanceSetupRequired(InstanceNum: Integer): Boolean;
begin
Result := InstanceNum < Instances;
end;
For separate files it looks pretty same.