$ sudo make install
Installing EPM programs in /usr/local/bin
Installing EPM manpages in /usr/local/share/man/man1
make[1]: d: Command not found
/bin/sh: line 1: -c: command not found
/bin/sh: line 1: -c: command not found
/bin/sh: line 1: -c: command not found
/bin/sh: line 1: -c: command not found
make[1]: *** [Makefile:87: install] Error 127
make: *** [Makefile:163: install] Error 2

$ sudo make -n install
echo Installing EPM programs in /usr/local/bin
/usr/bin/install -c -d -m 755 /usr/local/bin
for file in epm epminstall mkepmlist; do
/usr/bin/install -c -c -m 755 $file /usr/local/bin;
done
(cd doc; make -ns install)
echo Installing EPM manpages in /usr/local/share/man/man1
d -m 755 /usr/local/share/man/man1
for file in epm.1 epminstall.1 mkepmlist. setup.1; do
-c -m 644 $file /usr/local/share/man/man1;
done
echo Installing EPM manpages in /usr/local/share/man/man5
d -m 755 /usr/local/share/man/man5
for file in epm.list.5 setup.types.5; do
-c -m 644 $file /usr/local/share/man/man5;
done
echo Installing EPM documentation in
d -m 755
for file in ./COPYING ./README.md epm-book.epub epm-book.html epm-book.pdf; do
-c -m 644 $file ;
done

I have been using rpm on a x64 installation for a few years; recently I moved to an arm64 setup and as such did a clean (virtual) Fedora installation. Compiled and installed rpm 5.0.0 (tried some older versions as well) but get an error on the rpm -bb and --buildroot options. Any idea what I'm doing wrong?

I'm using:
epm -f rpm emma02 -v -v -k

...
Building RPM binary distribution...
/usr/bin/rpm -bb --buildroot "/media/psf/Home/workspace/emma_02/Linux build/linux-5.11-aarch64/buildroot" --target aarch64 linux-5.11-aarch64/emma02.spec
rpm: -bb: unknown option
Packaging failed!

Hello,

following OpenOffice bug 128413 I would like to suggest that if epm is unable to ensure the file permissions in a generated Debian archive, it should consider it a fatal error rather than a warning.

Apparently, epm can predict in advance whether the permissions will be respected or not, because the warning seems to disappear when the condition are met.

If you agree on this, and you do not have time do dedicate to it, I can look into the code and prepare a pull request.

Hi Jim,

I am building a package for arch. The Arch build tool is always executing make install including the installation of the documentation. I get Following error:

make[1]: [Makefile:86: install] Error 127 (ignore)

for file in epm.1 epminstall.1 mkepmlist. setup.1; do \
    -c -m 644 $file /home/legine/workspace/arch/epm/pkg/epm/usr/share/man/man1; \
done

After some further Analysis I figured that the makefile in doc does not state to use install. which seems to result in this rather messy situation.
epm-5.0.0/doc/Makefile:

[...]
Programs...
CC    =    cc
HTMLDOC    =    /usr/bin/echo
RM    =    /usr/bin/rm -f
[...]
# Install documentation
install:
	echo Installing EPM manpages in $(BUILDROOT)$(mandir)/man1
	$(INSTALL) -d -m 755 $(BUILDROOT)$(mandir)/man1

I tried adding

INSTALL = @INSTALL@

to Makefile.in, but no luck.

Any ideas?

The commit, inter alia, renamed the file COPYING to LICENSE.

I tried to do make test and the lack of a file called 'COPYING' caused the tests to fail.

The files epm.list.in, and jimjag.patch all refer to COPYING which stops epm building the test package.

Also there are many places in doc/... files that refer to COPYING which ought to be corrected to avoid confusing Joe Public.

I tried to create a package with epm for FreeBSD. Unfortunately, epm creates something else as pkg expects nowadays.
pkg-create does not exist anymore.
When trying to create a package name boca (epm -vv -f native -a amd64 boca.amd64) I get this error:
/usr/sbin/pkg_create -p / -c freebsd-14.0-amd64/boca.amd64.comment -d freebsd-14.0-amd64/boca.amd64.descr -f freebsd-14.0-amd64/boca.amd64.plist freebsd-14.0-amd64/boca.amd64-3.3.2-freebsd-14.0-amd64.tbz
epm: Unable to execute "/usr/sbin/pkg_create" program: No such file or directory
Packaging failed!

This is what is available in freebsd-14.0-amd64
This is what epm creates:
drwxr-xr-x 3 root wheel 3 Dec 7 16:27 boca.amd64.buildroot
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 355 Dec 8 14:23 boca.amd64.comment
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 43 Dec 8 14:23 boca.amd64.descr
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 657 Dec 8 14:23 boca.amd64.plist

pkg create expects something like this:
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 1820 Dec 7 23:51 +MANIFEST
drwxr-xr-x 3 root wheel 8 Dec 7 23:51 .
drwxr-xr-x 5 root wheel 7 Dec 8 03:08 ..
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 312 Dec 7 16:08 LICENSE
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 55 Dec 7 16:08 pkg-deinstall
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 57 Dec 7 16:08 pkg-install
drwxr-xr-x 3 root wheel 3 Dec 7 16:08 usr

Or is there perhaps a pkg-create that I have to install from somewhere?

First of all thank you very much for the maintenance.

I am experiencing an issue with building rpms with epm v5.0.0: When compiling the sources and using the binary as follows:

#> epm -g -f rpm -vvvvv --keep-files <product> <listfile>
Searching for product information...
Creating RPM distribution...
Creating spec file...
Copying temporary distribution files...
Directory linux-4.12-x86_64/<path>
...
Building RPM binary distribution...
/usr/bin/rpmbuild -bb --buildroot "<path/to/buildroot>" --buildarch x86_64 linux-4.12-x86_64/<product>.spec
rpmbuild: --buildarch: unknown option
Packaging failed!

I assume the configure script has some flaw, i.e. if I comment out lines 5259-5281 in configure

#       cat >>confdefs.h <<_ACEOF
##define EPM_RPMARCH "--buildarch "
#_ACEOF

the correct flag --target x86_64 is used for rpmbuild.

But maybe I am missing some subtile differences between the OS vendors. This was found on:

• SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 12 SP5
• RPM version 4.11.2