Hi, while learning a bit about doing this, I find similar to others eg:
Alexander in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191647#c4
"all files of the rpm are built, but there are still some MD5
differences shown with rpmdiff"
For some combinations,
Eg ncpfs: rpmdiff on i386
..5....T /usr/bin/nwpurge
..5....T /usr/bin/nwrevoke
..5....T /usr/bin/nwrights
* most common case where the binary is different contents, but of
identical size to the published rpm.
S.5....T /usr/bin/nwsfind
* rarer case detected where the original rpm's binary and the mock
build's size differ, and are not the same contents.
.......T /usr/bin/pqrm
* A rare case where a mock built binary is identical to the original
packages binary, except for time.
.......T /usr/include
.......T /usr/include/ncp
.......T /usr/include/ncp/eas.h
.......T /usr/include/ncp/ext
.......T /usr/include/ncp/ext/socket.h
* diff due to T=modifiedTime. Mock just extracted/made the dirs/files
this moment, so this should be ignored.
So, if a BuildRequires patch:
1. allows the rpms to get built *and*
2. there are no missing files shown via rpmdiff compared to devel i386 rpm,
should the patch be considered complete for BuildRequires purposes ?
I did read that one of the points of rpm packaging was to have
repeatable package builds. While this doesn't seem to fit this scenario,
perhaps it is normal when re-compiling an i386 package on an AMD Athlon
with possibly updated libraries / compilers etc (from mock devel as
well) that the built binaries would change (eg, even if it was just text
fields like:
# abcdtool
Built on blah machine on Fri blah) ?
Would the fact that cpp/gcc/gcc-c++ has been updated 2006-05, but the
ncpfs package not since 2006-04 explicitly cause this difference ?
DaveT.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
