On 08/03/16 01:51 PM, James Hogarth wrote:
> On 8 March 2016 at 17:22, Digimer <lists@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On 08/03/16 11:36 AM, James Hogarth wrote:
>>> On 8 March 2016 at 16:15, Digimer <lists@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 08/03/16 07:11 AM, James Hogarth wrote:
>>>>> On 8 March 2016 at 10:07, Leon Fauster <leonfauster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 08.03.2016 um 01:50 schrieb Digimer <lists@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>>>> I'm not surprised, given that it is in the repo. That's why I was
>>>> asking
>>>>>>> if anyone tried building it themselves and, if so, did they have the
>>>>>>> same issue as I describe below?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alternatively, any tips/advice on solving my build issue would be
>>>>>> helpful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> what says /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.gu9Ds0?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> all dependencies installed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> No need to check that .... the error is clear "make: *** No rule to
>> make
>>>>> target `install'. Stop." ... that mini Makefile he posted doesn't
>>>> include
>>>>> an install: section
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course what the OP is missing is *that* makefile does not get used.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the tarball there is a Makefile.in that gets processed into the
>> actual
>>>>> makefile by ./configure (well %configure in the spec but you get the
>>>> point)
>>>>>
>>>>> So we come back round the houses to the key point - Digimer what are
>> you
>>>>> *actually* trying to do?
>>>>>
>>>>> You obviously aren't building from the spec in that src.rpm or using
>> mock
>>>>> as those have configure which would generate the valid makefile with
>> the
>>>>> make install target... so what are you doing and what do you want to
>>>>> achieve?
>>>>>
>>>>> The %install phase you posted is really not of interest to your
>> 'problem'
>>>>> but rather the %build phase would be telling.
>>>>
>>>> As I've done with several other RPMs, I did the following;
>>>>
>>>> ===
>>>> yumdownloader --source mtr-gtk
>>>>
>>>> rpm -Uvh mtr-0.75-5.el6.src.rpm
>>>>
>>>> cd rpmbuild/SPECS/
>>>>
>>>> # Change "Release"
>>>>
>>>> rpmbuild -ba mtr.spec
>>>> ===
>>>>
>>>> If you're asking a more generic "why are you doing this?" question; I am
>>>> including the RPM in a project we're working on and I don't want to risk
>>>> running fould of the CentOS project by directly redistributing their
>>>> (and RHEL's) rpms.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I'm sure Karanbir and Johnny can weigh in here more but so long as you
>> are
>>> not claiming to be CentOS and using their trademarks (see the modified
>> ones
>>> with centos in the name) I'm pretty certain that you are safe building an
>>> appliance on CentOS and can ship the RPMs on that ...
>>>
>>> Regardless of that issue what you've described above should work (or
>> freak
>>> out if a build dependency was missing ... unless one isn't defined as a
>>> BuildRequires but is in the default mock root and is causing %configure
>>> not to generate the Makefile).
>>>
>>> Again the right answer here is "use mock" ...
>>>
>>> yumdownloader --source mtr-gtk
>>>
>>> rpm -Uvh mtr-0.75-5.el6.src.rpm
>>>
>>> cd rpmbuild
>>>
>>> vi SPECS/mtr.spec (change release etc ... bear in mind that bumping
>> release
>>> may not help you when a centos update happens ... may not care for an
>>> appliance)
>>>
>>> rpmbuild -bs SPECS/mtr.spec
>>>
>>> mock -r epel-6-x86_64 SRPMS/mtr-*.src.rpm
>>>
>>> ====================
>>>
>>> That will get you a reproducible clean build environment in a way not
>>> dependent on the state of your workstation and avoid any accidental
>>> depednencies etc popping up
>>
>> Thanks for the help, but I got the same results;
>>
>> ====
>> mock /home/digimer/rpmbuild/SRPMS/mtr-0.75-5.el6.anvil.src.rpm
>>
>> <dependencies installed>
>> <build messages>
>> + make DESTDIR=/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/mtr-0.75-5.el6.anvil.x86_64
>> install
>> make: *** No rule to make target `install'. Stop.
>>
>>
>> RPM build errors:
>> error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.8atuER (%install)
>> Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.8atuER (%install)
>> ERROR:
>> Exception(/home/digimer/rpmbuild/SRPMS/mtr-0.75-5.el6.anvil.src.rpm)
>> Config(epel-6-x86_64) 5 minutes 54 seconds
>> INFO: Results and/or logs in: /var/lib/mock/epel-6-x86_64/result
>> ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output.
>> # bash --login -c /usr/bin/rpmbuild -bb --target x86_64 --nodeps
>> /builddir/build/SPECS/mtr.spec
>> ====
>>
>> As for redistribution; I spoke to someone here some months back about
>> creating a custom ISO and I was told I couldn't modify 'Packages', which
>> is what I needed to do. I am also making a RHEL variant, and emailing
>> their legal didn't get a reply, so I am going this route to not step on
>> toes.
>>
>>
>>
> okay looks like you've uncovered an bug in mock that should be reported in
> EPEL
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Fedora%20EPEL&version=el6&component=mock
>
> I don't see any existing bug that would seem to apply ...
>
> You can see the build completes with a target of epel6 on an F23 install
> but a clean C6 install that uses the mock from epel6 fails:
>
> http://pastebin.centos.org/41116/
>
> Can't see anything that differs in the output from that to explain why the
> Makefile isn't regenerated on the epel6 mock unlike the F23 one.
>
> Right now I don't have time to look into this myself - perhaps Jim,
> Karanbir or Johnny can check build logs for how mtr was built at the 6.7
> release.
>
> Given the different behaviour I'm guessing a mock bug ... would need to
> spend a while digging through those full build logs to compare if any
> packages differed, perhaps add some debug statements to the spec to track
> the changes to the Makefile and see why it isn't generated correctly on the
> second build.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315856
--
Digimer
Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/
What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without
access to education?
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
