My OpenAPI (v3.0.0) YAML spec has references to other schemas. These schemas are in files named like gender.v1.yaml.
The generated models (for language = kotlin or kotlin-spring) have class names such as Genderv1.
This seems logical to me, however this is a recent change and I'm not sure what is causing this switch. Previously the class name from the same file used to be Gender.
Furthermore, the same spec and openapi-generator-cli version on other systems such as our CI, generates Gender i.e. without the characters after the ..
This leads me to believe that there is something local that is causing this issue.
I was trying to use a lower version of openapi-generator on my Mac, by installing via npm and performing a openapi-generator-cli version-manager set 5.3.1 for e.g.
Previously I had openapi-generator installed via brew with a version of 5.4.1.
I've tried uninstalling, going back and forth between npm, brew and generator versions, to no avail.
Related
I want to have a rpm package build with Copr1. My current build target list is Fedora 35, 36, rawhide and Centos 7 and Stream 8. I have not yet created the copr project.
Compiling on one of my machines, the package builds successfully on the Fedora variants with mock. The problem is that on Centos variants one of the build dependencies and some of its dependencies are not available. I have found appropriate srpm files and compiled them on one of my machines with the Centos Stream 8 (one of them required two custom patches). With those custom dependencies I am able to successfully compile the original package.
So just to be clear, the problem is that the spec file contains for example
BuildRequires: libsomething
where libsomething is available as a plain upstream package in some of the build targets while needs an additional custom repo for some other build targets.
The FAQ says the following about dependencies:
Can I depend on other packages, which are not in Fedora/EPEL?
Yes, they just need to be available in some yum repository. It can either be another Copr repo or a third-party yum repo (e.g jpackage). Click on “Edit” in your project and add the appropriate repositories into the “Repos” field. Packages from your project are available to be used at build time as well, but only for the project you are currently building and not from your other projects.
But this sounds like an all or nothing approach, and I absolutely do not want to override the already existing upstream packages, only provide them when they are missing.
So what strategy do people use to handle this?
Update: I have now created copr projects and made some attempts at building (after resolving dependencies of dependencies in several levels), but the problem is as I describe above. If I add copr://hlovdal/projectname as a build dependency then epel-8-x86_64 compiles fine because it is provided with the missing dependencies while fedora-35-x86_64 fails because the repository does not have any fedora packages. If I remove the repo epel fails while fedora succeeds.
I also attempted to add the base url from the corresponding /etc/yum.d.repo file, and only hardcode epel instead of $distname hoping that the fedora builds would just ignore non-existing/wrong repo setting, but the build does not like that and still fails.
1 Copr is Fedora's freely available build system.
I installed Perl6 with rakudobrew and wanded to browse the installed files to see a list of hex-filenames in ~/.rakudobrew/moar-2018.08/install/share/perl6/site/sources as well as ~/.rakudobrew/moar-2018.08/install/share/perl6/sources/.
E.g.
> ls ~/.rakudobrew/moar-2018.08/install/share/perl6/sources/
09A0291155A88760B69483D7F27D1FBD8A131A35 AAC61C0EC6F88780427830443A057030CAA33846
24DD121B5B4774C04A7084827BFAD92199756E03 C57EBB9F7A3922A4DA48EE8FCF34A4DC55942942
2ACCA56EF5582D3ED623105F00BD76D7449263F7 C712FE6969F786C9380D643DF17E85D06868219E
51E302443A2C8FF185ABC10CA1E5520EFEE885A1 FBA542C3C62C08EB82C1F4D25BE7B4696F41B923
522BE83A1D821D8844E8579B32BA04966BAB7B87 FE7156F9200E802D3DB8FA628CF91AD6B020539B
5DD1D8B49C838828E13504545C427D3D157E56EC
The files contain the source of packages but this does not feel very accessible. What is the rational for that?
In Perl 6, the mechanism for loading modules and caching their compilations is pluggable. Rakudo Perl 6 comes with two main mechanisms for this.
One is a file-system based repository, and it's used with things like -Ilib. This resolves modules simply using paths on disk. Whenever a module loaded, it first has to check that the modules sources have not changed in order to re-compile them if so. This is ideal for development, however such checks take time. Furthermore, this doesn't allow for having multiple versions of the same module available and picking the one matching the specification in the use statement. Again, ideal for development, when you just want it to use your latest changes, but less so for installation of modules from the ecosystem.
The other is an installation repository. Here, specific versions of modules are installed and precompiled. It is expected that all interactions with such a repository will be done through the API or tools using the API (for example, zef locate Some::Module). It's assumed that once a specific version of a module has been installed, then it is immutable. Thus, no checks need to be done against source, and it can go straight to loaded the compiled version of the module.
Thus, the installation repository is not intended for direct human consumption. The SHA-1s are primarily an implementation convenience; an alternative scheme could have been used in return for a bit more effort (and may well be used in the future). However, the SHA-1s do also create the appearance of something that wasn't intended for direct manipulation - which is indeed the case: editing a source file in there will have no effect in the immediate, and probably confusing effects next time the compiler is upgraded to a new version.
I have a CMake project to build multiple shared libraries and tools, most of these under subdirectories:
add_directory(libFirst)
add_directory(libSecond)
add_directory(myTool)
# etc...
The install(TARGET "someTarget" COMPONENT "someTarget" ...) rules are in the respective subdirectory/CMakeLists.txt files.
I would like to generate Debian packages for all of these using a make package command from the build directory. I have CPACK_DEB_COMPONENT_INSTALL set to ON.
The problem I'm facing, is that not all of the targets have the same VERSION and/or SOVERSION. For example, libFirst is at version 1.0.0.0 and libSecond is version 4.3.0.0. This means that the generated packages should also have different version, but the only way I've found to specify the version is to specify the CPACK_PACKAGE_VERSION_MAJOR, CPACK_PACKAGE_VERSION_MINOR and CPACK_PACKAGE_VERSION_PATCH variables (and perhaps the internal CPACK_PACKAGE_VERSION variable), which set the version for all generated packages.
Is there a way to set package versions per-component, for example by setting some variables similarly to the other CPACK_COMPONENT_<COMPONENT>_* or CPACK_DEBIAN_<COMPONENT>_* variables?
I don't think this is possible at the moment but I have created a merge-request (https://gitlab.kitware.com/cmake/cmake/merge_requests/2305) which provides this functionality.
I hope it will get approved but in the meantime you can locally change your CPackDeb.cmake as shown in this diff: https://gitlab.kitware.com/cmake/cmake/merge_requests/2305/diffs. The default location of that file is in /usr/share/cmake/Modules/CPackDeb.cmake.
I'm trying to convert our build system at work over to cmake and have run into an interesting problem with the RPMs that it generates (via cpack): It automatically adds all of the dependencies that it thinks your RPM has to its list of required libraries.
In general, that's great, but in my case, it's catastrophic. Unfortunately, the development packages that we build end up getting installed with one our home-grown tool that uses rpm to install them in a separate RPM database from the system one. It's stupid, but I can't change it. What this means is that all of the system libraries that any normal library will rely on (like libc or libpthread) aren't in the RPM database that is being used with our development packages. So, if an RPM for one of our development packages lists system libraries as being required, then we can't install it, as rpm will think that they're not installed (since they're listed in the normal database rather than the one that it's being told to use when installing our packages). Our current build stuff handles this just fine, because it doesn't list any system libraries as dependencies in the RPMs, but cpack automatically populates the RPM's list of required libraries and puts the system libraries in there. I need a way to stop it from doing so.
I tried setting CPACK_RPM_PACKAGE_REQUIRES to "", but that has no effect. The RPM cpack generates still ends up with the system libraries listed as being required. All I can think of doing at this point is to copy the RPM cpack generator and hack it up to do what I want and use that instead of the standard one, but I'd prefer to avoid that. Does anyone have any idea how I could get cpack to stop populating the RPM with required libraries?
See bottom of
http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-depend-auto-depend.html
The autoreqprov Tag — Disable Automatic Dependency Processing
There may be times when RPM's automatic dependency processing is not desired. In these cases, the autoreqprov tag may be used to disable it. This tag takes a yes/no or 0/1 value. For example, to disable automatic dependency processing, the following line may be used:
AutoReqProv: no
EDIT:
In order to set this in cmake, you need to do set(CPACK_RPM_PACKAGE_AUTOREQPROV " no"). The extra space seems to be required in front of (or behind) the no in order for it to work. It seems that the RPM module for cpack has a bug which makes it so that it won't let you set some its variables to anything shorter than 3 characters long.
To add to Mark Lakata's answer above, there's a snapshot of the "Maximum RPM" doc
http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm-snapshot/s1-rpm-depend-auto-depend.html
that also adds:
The autoreq and autoprov tags can be used to disable automatic processing of requirements or "provides" only, respectively.
And at least with my version of CPackRPM, there seems to be similar variables you can set e.g.
set(CPACK_RPM_PACKAGE_AUTOREQ " no")
to only disable the automatic dependency processing of 'Requires'.
I'm using PMEase QuickBuild to perform automated builds of our Maven2 projects and a nightly sanity test to ensure nothing is broken.
The test needs to untar packages which are created by the automated Maven2 projects. The problem is that the package names change frequently due to project versions being incremented all the time.
Does anyone know how I can configure QuickBuild to pick up the version (ideally from the POM file of the individual components), if this is possible at all?
I don't know if this is an option for you but it looks like you can do it the other way around. Quoting Build with Maven:
Control build version
If you want to control the build
version from QuickBuild side, please
follow below steps:
Change the POM file and define the project version as
${buildVersion}. Do not forget to
commit the file into your SCM after
change.
Define a build property like below when define the Maven build
step:
buildVersion=${build.version}
There are maybe other options but I must admit that my knowledge (zero) of QuickBuild is very limited
I created a work around to this issue by having QuickBuild execute a shell script which did the untarring by using wildcards, similar to the following (to avoid computing the exact version):
tar xzf filename-*.tar.gz
I couldn't figure out how to do this in QuickBuild, so I offloaded the work to the shell script.