On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 04:35:24PM +0200, Simone Caronni wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a package that needs procps. While building it in EPEL, i stepped
> onto a packaging problem [1] in the RHEL 6 package.
>
> I've opened the bug, but nobody is looking at it and (my guess) it will be
> probably fixed for RHEL 6.5. Note that the bug has been tagged as "EasyFix"-
>
> The workaround for the problem would be as follows:
>
> %if 0%{?rhel} == 6
> BuildRequires: procps
> %else
> BuildRequires: procps-devel
> %endif
>
> I suppose there's no "provenpackager" group in RHEL, so what should I do in
> this case? Build the package with a workaround in place until the bug is
> fixed or wait on building the package at all?
>
> Thanks,
> --Simone
>
> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=950748
It's definitely a bug. The spec file has:
%files
%attr(755,root,root) /%{_lib}/*
[...]
%files devel
/%{_lib}/libproc.so
which means that libproc.so is included in both RPMs. Although this
doesn't stop installation for me -- RPM notices that both files are
the same and allows it. I don't know why mock disallows this.
Nevertheless RHEL has a 6 month release cycle, so even if you managed
to get the packager to fix this, it would be aeons before the fix
appeared in RHEL. I suggest you go with your workaround.
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Fedora Windows cross-compiler. Compile Windows programs, test, and
build Windows installers. Over 100 libraries supported.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
