On 04/24/2013 05:49 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
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.
[pmatilai@turre tmp]$ rpm -qplv --nosignature
procps-devel-3.2.8-25.el6.x86_64.rpm procps-3.2.8-25.el6.x86_64.rpm
|grep proc.so
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 16 Nov 15 15:54
/lib64/libproc.so -> libproc-3.2.8.so
lrwxr-xr-x 1 root root 16 Nov 15 15:54
/lib64/libproc.so -> libproc-3.2.8.so
[pmatilai@turre tmp]$
The mode differs which is a conflict in rpm >= 4.10, older ones silently
slip it through.
There's an apparent rpm bug or two here as well: symlink permissions are
not meaningful so they shouldn't conflict, and the latter "lrwxr-xr-x"
mode is not what is expected for symlinks.
- Panu -
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
