On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 9:01 AM Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
I know it's not, and at least DNF doesn't seem to have that problem on
my F37 system here...
If something has the problem, it'd be libsolv, but I can't reproduce it locally.
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
_______________________________________________
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
