On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 16:31 -0300, Marcio Oliveira wrote: > Dave, > > I tested your script in my FC5 and got the following results: > > Package tested: rpm-build-4.4.2-15.2 (FC5 original package) > Result: If RH bug 206841 is present, expect to see a series of error > lines complaining about missing fields > **** Start of rpmbuild log **** > error: Name field must be present in package: (main package) > error: Version field must be present in package: (main package) > error: Release field must be present in package: (main package) > error: Summary field must be present in package: (main package) > error: Group field must be present in package: (main package) > error: License field must be present in package: (main package) > > Package tested: rpm-build-4.4.2-15.2 (patched) > Result: success > Wrote: /tmp/tmp.dZYmu16297/rpmbuild/SRPMS/foobarbaz-1.0-1.src.rpm > Wrote: /tmp/tmp.dZYmu16297/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/foobarbaz-1.0-1.noarch.rpm > > After patch the rpm-build I build lots of rpm packages from tarball > packages, and all of them are working fine in my system. Thanks for testing the script: looks like this is a good minimal reproducer case for the bug. > > According to the tar command errors from FC5 original rpm-build > package, tar command expects to receive "--wildcards" as a parameter > (to accept the "*" character in "file to stract" field), and "xOvf" > parameters plus a "-" (-xOvf) to extract the file. That is what I > added to rpm-4.2.2/build.c file. > > Do you think this problem is a rpmbuild "wrong parameters problem" > or a tar "expected parameters problem"? A bit of both? IIRC a lot changed in the latest "tar", and it got fussier; does it support --wildcards in an earlier incarnation? If so, I'm inclined to suggest that rpm-build should supply the arg so it can work with old and new tar. I hope that regardless, FC6 would ship with an rpm-build/tar pair that work together - though I'm not the maintainer of either package, just another person who ran into the bug (hence the test) BTW, this is one of the tests I've written for testing Fedora in Will Wood's "beaker" lab. We've set things up so that tests can be packaged as RPMs, and I've got a yum repo here: http://people.redhat.com/dmalcolm/rhts-test-repo/ (the RPM containing the test is the rather verbosely-named rhts-testing108-sandbox-rpm-rpm-build-rpmbuild-of-tarball-smoketest-tests-1.1-102.noarch.rpm - the build process takes the path of the test within our result namespace) I'm gonna go and try the tests on a variety of boxes... > Thanks for the info. > Márcio > > On 9/29/06, David Malcolm <dmalcolm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 12:01 -0300, Marcio Oliveira wrote: > > > > > > >> Hi there, > > >> > > >> I got many error messages on FC5 fully updated > trying to > > compile tar > > >> packages using "rpmbuild -ta tar_package.tar.gz" > command. > > > > >This is already filed: > > > >https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206841 > > > > thank you... > > > > Thanks also. > > I've written a test case for this here, if anyone wants to try > it out: > > https://testing.108.redhat.com/source/browse/*checkout*/testing/trunk/rhts/tests/sandbox/rpm/rpm-build/rpmbuild-of-tarball-smoketest/run-rpmbuild-on-tarball.sh?content-type=text%2Fplain&rev=95 > > Dave > > -- > fedora-devel-list mailing list > fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list > > -- > fedora-devel-list mailing list > fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
