On 8 March 2016 at 19:02, Digimer <lists@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
>
What's odd is how it works in Fedora using mock but not EPEL6 with mock ...
got to be down to how the build roots are constructed.
Decided to do a quick test of something given how EPEL has adjusted macros
recently to reduce boilerplate between Fedora and itself ...
I just removed the rm -rf line from %clean and got a clean mock build on a
CentOS6 base.
It must have cleaned out the generated makefile between %build and %install
and that left it with the bare one that had no install: section
This will bite Red Hat at the 6.8 milestone (unless they build on Fedora)
and presumably CentOS when 6.8 rolls round if RH don't remove the rm -rf
from %clean ;)
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
