On 12.05.2014 10:30, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 10:15:50AM +0200, poma wrote: >> On 10.05.2014 18:22, poma wrote: >>> On 09.05.2014 15:51, Peter Jones wrote: >>>> On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 07:18:37AM +0200, poma wrote: >>>>> On 08.05.2014 16:05, Peter Jones wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 08:21:44AM +0200, poma wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> $ rpmbuild -ba ./SPECS/syslinux.spec >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> $ find -name syslinux*.rpm >>>>>>> ./SRPMS/syslinux-6.02-4.fc21.src.rpm >>>>>>> ./RPMS/x86_64/syslinux-perl-6.02-4.fc21.x86_64.rpm >>>>>>> ./RPMS/x86_64/syslinux-6.02-4.fc21.x86_64.rpm >>>>>>> ./RPMS/x86_64/syslinux-devel-6.02-4.fc21.x86_64.rpm >>>>>>> ./RPMS/x86_64/syslinux-extlinux-6.02-4.fc21.x86_64.rpm >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> # rpm -ivh $(ls ./RPMS/x86_64/syslinux*.rpm) >>>>>>> error: Failed dependencies: >>>>>>> syslinux-nonlinux = 6.02-4.fc21 is needed by syslinux-6.02-4.fc21.x86_64 >>>>>>> syslinux-extlinux-nonlinux = 6.02-4.fc21 is needed by syslinux-extlinux-6.02-4.fc21.x86_64 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Peter, why these three noarches are not built on x86_64? >>>>>>> - syslinux-extlinux-nonlinux-6.02-4.fc21.noarch.rpm >>>>>>> - syslinux-nonlinux-6.02-4.fc21.noarch.rpm >>>>>>> - syslinux-tftpboot-6.02-4.fc21.noarch.rpm >>>>>> >>>>>> Because that'll result in a different 32-bit build on i686 vs x86_64. >>>>>> Get them from the i686 build. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> OK, can you explain this[5]? >>>> >>>> I can't - can you reproduce this with mock build instead of just raw >>>> rpmbuild with the target set? When I use mock or koji to build them, I >>>> get syslinux64.exe in one and syslinux.exe in the -nonlinux one. >>>> >>>> That's still a (minor) packaging bug, but it shouldn't be a >>>> conflict. >>>> >>> >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> x86_64 - mock rebuild >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> $ mock -r fedora-rawhide-$(uname -i) syslinux-6.02-4.fc21.src.rpm >>> $ mock -r fedora-rawhide-i386 syslinux-6.02-4.fc21.src.rpm >>> >>> ~~~~~~~~~~ >>> syslinux >>> ~~~~~~~~~~ >>> # rpm -qlp builddir/build/RPMS/syslinux-6.02-4.fc21.x86_64.rpm | grep exe >>> /usr/share/syslinux/syslinux64.exe >>> >>> $ repoquery -l syslinux-6.02-4.fc21.x86_64 | grep exe >>> /usr/share/syslinux/syslinux64.exe >>> >>> # rpm -qlp builddir/build/RPMS/syslinux-6.02-4.fc21.i686.rpm | grep exe >>> /usr/share/syslinux/syslinux.exe >>> >>> $ repoquery --archlist=i686 -l syslinux-6.02-4.fc21.i686 | grep exe >>> /usr/share/syslinux/syslinux.exe >>> >>> $ rpm -qf /usr/share/syslinux/syslinux64.exe >>> syslinux-6.02-4.fc21.x86_64 >>> >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> syslinux-nonlinux >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> # rpm -qlp builddir/build/RPMS/syslinux-nonlinux-6.02-4.fc21.noarch.rpm | grep exe >>> /usr/share/syslinux/syslinux.exe >>> >>> $ repoquery -l syslinux-nonlinux-6.02-4.fc21.noarch | grep exe >>> /usr/share/syslinux/syslinux.exe >>> >>> $ rpm -qf /usr/share/syslinux/syslinux.exe >>> syslinux-nonlinux-6.02-4.fc21.noarch >>> >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> x86_64 - rpmbuild >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> $ rpmbuild -ba rpmbuild/SPECS/syslinux.spec >>> >>> $ rpm -qlp rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/syslinux-6.02-4.fc21.x86_64.rpm | grep exe >>> /usr/share/syslinux/syslinux64.exe >>> >>> $ rpm -qlp rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/syslinux-nonlinux-6.02-4.fc21.noarch.rpm | grep exe >>> /usr/share/syslinux/syslinux.exe >>> /usr/share/syslinux/syslinux64.exe >>> >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> ix86 - rpmbuild >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> $ rpmbuild -ba rpmbuild/SPECS/syslinux.spec >>> >>> $ rpm -qlp rpmbuild/RPMS/i686/syslinux-6.02-4.fc21.i686.rpm | grep exe >>> /usr/share/syslinux/syslinux.exe >>> >>> $ rpm -qlp rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/syslinux-nonlinux-6.02-4.fc21.noarch.rpm | grep exe >>> /usr/share/syslinux/syslinux.exe >>> /usr/share/syslinux/syslinux64.exe >>> >>> $ rpm -qf /usr/share/syslinux/syslinux.exe >>> syslinux-nonlinux-6.02-4.fc21.noarch >>> syslinux-6.02-4.fc21.i686 >>> >>> How these two packages manage to install without problem, since both contain a file of the same name? > > RPM allows you to install two files with identical content coming from > two different packages. Either that or multilib, but I don't think > it's multilib in this case. > >>> Whence the difference in the file handling between mock rebuild and vulgairs rpmbuild, in the first place? >>> >> >> Guys can you comment on this difference? >> >> The spec file in question is: >> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/syslinux.git/plain/syslinux.spec >> >> Richard, you mentioned in this thread[1]: >> "Mock is really just a python wrapper that allows you to build packages for >> different versions of Fedora in a clean chroot with just the build >> requirements specified in the spec file installed (and some standard ones)." >> >> What "and some standard ones" stands for? >> >> Rich, you mentioned in the same thread[2]: >> "You don't really need to use mock either. Just use 'rpmbuild -ba' >> directly or 'fedpkg local' which is a wrapper." >> >> Why this is not the case in this instance? > > I'm not exactly sure what the question is, but 'mock' and 'fedpkg > local' can have fairly different build environments. The syslinux*.exe tend to jump in where there shouldn't. > > 'fedpkg local' (or rpmbuild) builds with whatever you have installed > on your host, whereas 'mock' builds in a cleanly installed chroot with > just the base packages + BuildRequires. > > Extra installed packages can affect builds, eg if using ./configure > scripts, but in many other ways too. > >> Clark, as maintainer of the Mock, and Lubomir, as maintainer of the shortrpm i.e. rpmbuild, >> you are also welcome to comment. >> Adam and Kevin, too. :) > [...] >> "Differences between Fakeroot and Mock & Suggested method" >> [1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-October/190033.html >> [2] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-October/190051.html > > Rich. > The point is that after so many built packages I can not remember anything similar. Thank you for your response, Rich! poma -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
