On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 5:30 PM Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 16:28:47 +0200 > Fabio Valentini <decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > - autoreconf fails because %build needs a newer shell (protobuf): > > > > /usr/bin/autoconf: This script requires a shell more modern than all > > /usr/bin/autoconf: the shells that I found on your system. > > /usr/bin/autoconf: Please tell bug-autoconf@xxxxxxx about your system, > > /usr/bin/autoconf: including any error possibly output before this > > /usr/bin/autoconf: message. Then install a modern shell, or manually > > run /usr/bin/autoconf: the script under such a shell if you do have > > one. autoreconf: /usr/bin/autoconf failed with exit status: 1 > > > > - shell not executing stuff in backticks `command foo` but returns > > empty string (tonto): > > `build-classpath foo` # this doesn't work? > > > > > > I'm getting the sinking feeling that RPM scriptlets are broken? Do > > they get run in the wrong shell? sh instead of bash maybe? > > > > I'm grasping at straws here, but all those build failures are starting > > to be really disruptive to the work that I'm actually trying to do ... > > I had an issue with a configure script wanting a more modern shell. I > tried running mock with --isolation-simple and it stopped complaining. > Maybe that would help you too? > > Paul. It does! Running mock with --isolation=simple works around the issue. Looks like the glibc 2.32.9000 snapshot broke systemd-nspawn based chroots with this change: - Linux: Use faccessat2 to implement faccessat (bug 18683) Fabio _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
