Can somebody confirm it?
Is the problem based on arm package?
Seems that Evebox 0.10.2 has not yet compiled for armv7…
Yes, the latest evebox version for arm is not on the repos. I think Michael is right on the spot about compilation.
OK, we will try to compile it. Can somebody explain how to add it to the repo? A PR at GitHub?
I can upload it for you, or grant you upload access
Thanks, we send you a message if we have built it.
[davidep@davidep1 ~]$ rpm -qpi Downloads/evebox-0.10.2-1.armv7l.rpm Name : evebox Version : 0.10.2 Release : 1 Architecture: armv7hnl Install Date: (not installed) Group : default Size : 14481834 License : unknown Signature : (none) Source RPM : evebox-0.10.2-1.src.rpm Build Date : Wed 24 Jul 2019 21:16:54 CEST Build Host : localhost Relocations : / Packager : <root@bpi-iot-ros-ai> Vendor : root@bpi-iot-ros-ai URL : http://example.com/no-uri-given Summary : no description given Description : no description given
Releaseis missing the repo suffix (e.g
.ns7): shouldn’t harm but for the final release I prefer to see it, expecially in the file name (i.e.
evebox-0.10.2-1.ns7.armsomething.rpm). To fix it, just edit the
.specfile and set the Release to
1.ns7. RPM packages conventions make use of the
distmacro: see this example.
armv7land differs from the
Architecture: armv7hnltag: is it an issue?
Note: when an
armv7hl arch package is uploaded it ends up in
armhfp/ repository automatically.
i think i can take care of this today, in the evening, but there is a chance that i can only work on this tomorrow…
Hello Davide !
I’ve finally managed to upload a rpm file to your cloud !
I hope nothing is going to explode with this rpm
If you didn’t get a file : Write me a note ! Then i will try again to upload it !
PS : Thanks to all who have supported me !
Hello Davide !
I’ve uploaded one rpm which is hopefully better!
$ rpm -qpi evebox-0.10.2-1.ns7.armv7l.rpm Name : evebox Version : 0.10.2 Release : 1.ns7 Architecture: armv7hnl Install Date: (not installed) Group : default Size : 14481834 License : unknown Signature : (none) Source RPM : evebox-0.10.2-1.ns7.src.rpm Build Date : Thu 25 Jul 2019 17:56:14 CEST Build Host : localhost Relocations : / Packager : <pi@bpi-iot-ros-ai> Vendor : pi@bpi-iot-ros-ai URL : http://example.com/no-uri-given Summary : no description given Description : no description given
I’ve a question: the arch is
armv7hnl, should it go under
Hello Davide !
Yes, i think so. Do i have to change it in the spec of the rpm?
I don’t know what is the correct value By now we have a
armhfp rule (missing n)
I’ve tried to figure out what this name “armv7hnl” means without any results.
I think this is a valid architecture description because i’ve found on some places the same name (e.g. openmandriva uses the same…).
The problem is that i can not tell you the difference between an “armv7hnl” and a “armv7l” or even if they are compatible to each other…
I’d say yes.
Thank you for your feedback! I’m changing the repository arch rules to match armhfp in a smarter way
@giacomo you’re going to review it
The package is now available from nethserver-testing!
yum install enablerepo=nethserver-testing evebox
Installation works fine but I could choose it for installation at softwarecenter anymore.
@dev_team Is this a normal behaviour
@arm_team Did somebody else tested it? Would be nice if it’s implemented.
@smutje1179 Great work!
This Node.js stuff is way out of my comfort-zone, kind of get lost if there is no main.c(pp)
how did you manage node-sass to play-along?