On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 09:12:49AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> 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.
Thank you both for checking.
So… we certainly don't want people having to declare the dependency
manually everywhere. I can go back to 'Requires' from 'Requires(meta)',
but that'd be just a work-around for an issue that lies somewhere else.
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
