Somebody in the thread at some point said: > On 19/08/07, Andy Green <andy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> There are two "problems" here though, getting his build working at all >> and tracking down the segfault. >> >> I don't mind agreeing that resolving it with the unowned link thing >> taken care of is "more correct". But so far you didn't get the guy over >> his actual problem in front of him. > > Then don't rush. Give him time to reply with a full listing of the > buildroot and rpmbuild output, so the problem can be looked at in more > detail in order to analyze it. Taking a look at a verbose listing of > the buildroot before creating a %files section is something every > packager ought to do. > Based on just the excerpt from his %install section, one cannot jump > to bullet-proof conclusions. It is likely that something with the Okay, summary: In this case the whole proposition is that the symlink makes the problem at rpmbuild time. Removing the symlink from the rpmbuild action and doing it on the target at install time should stop the segfault happening if the report is to be believed at all.... but you don't seem to think that has any value for the guy experiencing the problem. You think it is "false advice" and the product of some "rush" on my part. Have a nice evening! -Andy -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
