Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> I cannot mock-rebuild packages that have /some/ BuildRequires: with explicit
> file dependencies, for F40. I have no idea why just /some/ of them are
> rejected.
>
> I'm using mock to rebuild SRPMS in an F40 chroot, and it fails thusly:
>
> Updating and loading repositories:
> updates 100% | 286.7 KiB/s | 23.8 KiB | 00m00s
> fedora 100% | 229.3 KiB/s | 19.7 KiB | 00m00s
> Repositories loaded.
> Failed to resolve the transaction:
> No match for argument: /usr/include/ltdl.h
> No match for argument: /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.systemd
>
> These are absolute file paths referenced by BuildRequires:.
>
> I replaced the problematic BuildRequires: with package names, libtool-ltdl-devel
> and systemd-rpm-macros. This allowed the build to proceed.
>
> But here's a head-scratcher. Here's (a part of) my diff:
>
> --- a/courier-authlib/courier-authlib.spec.in
> +++ b/courier-authlib/courier-authlib.spec.in
> @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ BuildRequires: redhat-rpm-config
> BuildRequires: courier-unicode-devel
> BuildRequires: %{__make}
> BuildRequires: shadow-utils
> -BuildRequires: %{_includedir}/ltdl.h
> +BuildRequires: libtool-ltdl-devel
>
> That %{__make} is still there. Somewhat unneeded, but it's there. And this
> built fine.
>
> So, can anyone tell me why %{_includedir}/ltdl.h, which is
> /usr/include/ltdl.h, got rejected by mock+dnf5, but %{__make}, which is
> /usr/bin/make was just peachy?
Using file or directory paths in requires is only allowed
for /usr/bin /usr/sbin, and /etc, per the packaging
guidelines¹.
I didn't dig through the dnf5 changes for a link, but I
believe that it doesn't support such out-of-scope path
dependencies like /usr/include.
Additionally, using installation path macros aren't allowed
anymore:
When declaring file and directory dependencies,
installation path macros like %{_bindir} MUST NOT be
used. %{_bindir} of the package that provides sometool
may be different from %{_bindir} of a package that
requires sometool. In such case, BuildRequires:
%{_bindir}/sometool does not work as expected.
That's not relevant to this specific case, but it's a close
tangent and seemed worth mentioning.
¹ https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_and_directory_dependencies
--
Todd
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- _______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
