On 9/16/22 15:22, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 11:02:22AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 10:53 AM Smith, Stewart via devel
<devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 14, 2022, at 4:17 AM, Tom Hughes via devel <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 14/09/2022 12:11, Florian Weimer wrote:
I see some new build failures in rawhide related to systemd RPM macros:
Processing files: opencryptoki-3.18.0-4.fc38.s390x
error: File must begin with "/": %{_tmpfilesdir}/opencryptoki.conf
error: File must begin with "/": %{_unitdir}/pkcsslotd.service
[…]
RPM build errors:
File must begin with "/": %{_tmpfilesdir}/opencryptoki.conf
File must begin with "/": %{_unitdir}/pkcsslotd.service
Child return code was: 1
EXCEPTION: [Error()]
Is this a package problem (missing dependency on systemd-rpm-macros), or
is this something that should be fixed at the buildroot level?
Guidelines say yes, you do need a BR on that:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Systemd/#packaging
I think there was some change “recently” where it needed to start being explicit rather than being brought in by some other dependency (possibly a change to systemd?). I hit the same thing in a package in Amazon Linux the other day, read the packaging guide and wondered how the package had ever built.
It happened because Zbigniew changed the rich dependency from Requires
to Requires(meta):
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/systemd/c/c971c5b980dff46fb9d7885f9e26b179a5a4749b
I don't think Requires(meta) works when weak dependencies are turned off.
Hmm, but that would be a bug in rpm (or whatever figures out the
dependencies in this case). There is no documentation for the
feature, except for the release notes for rpm 4.16.0:
Add support for meta dependencies (eg Requires(meta): somepkg) that
do not affect install/erase ordering (RhBug:1648721)
The addition of "(meta)" should only affect ordering, and not the "strength"
of the dependency.
Yes, meta is NOT a weak dependency at all, if something is treating it
as such then it's certainly a bug.
- Panu -
Zbyszek
_______________________________________________
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
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
