Hi, I believe there's something wrong in Koji Rawhide buildroot, as it appears nothings provides /sbin/ldconfig.
DEBUG util.py:264: Error: Package: foo DEBUG util.py:264: Requires: /sbin/ldconfig
http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/2927/5812927/root.log
Is this something known or intended?
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com wrote:
Hi, I believe there's something wrong in Koji Rawhide buildroot, as it appears nothings provides /sbin/ldconfig.
DEBUG util.py:264: Error: Package: foo DEBUG util.py:264: Requires: /sbin/ldconfig
http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.**org//work/tasks/2927/5812927/**root.loghttp://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/2927/5812927/root.log
Is this something known or intended?
I just got a few of these as well, started in the last few minutes, builds
older than about 20 minutes were fine.
-J
-- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.**org/mailman/listinfo/develhttps://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-**of-conducthttp://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 04:13:20PM -0400, Miro Hrončok wrote:
Hi, I believe there's something wrong in Koji Rawhide buildroot, as it appears nothings provides /sbin/ldconfig.
DEBUG util.py:264: Error: Package: foo DEBUG util.py:264: Requires: /sbin/ldconfig
http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/2927/5812927/root.log
Is this something known or intended?
it's probably related to glibc's UsrMove transition...
commit 62c3082486aa6e0341a978c15ca3903802c58a81 Complete `Move to /usr' transition for package.
All relevant files are not installed to /usr, with the expectation that the distribution will provide compatibility links from the old paths to the new paths. All uses of a bare `/usr' have been replaced with uses of `%{_prefix}' for files installed by the package.
Perhaps we should untag it for now.
--Kyle
On 08/13/2013 10:19 PM, Kyle McMartin wrote:
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 04:13:20PM -0400, Miro Hrončok wrote:
Hi, I believe there's something wrong in Koji Rawhide buildroot, as it appears nothings provides /sbin/ldconfig.
DEBUG util.py:264: Error: Package: foo DEBUG util.py:264: Requires: /sbin/ldconfig
http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/2927/5812927/root.log
Is this something known or intended?
it's probably related to glibc's UsrMove transition...
commit 62c3082486aa6e0341a978c15ca3903802c58a81 Complete `Move to /usr' transition for package. All relevant files are not installed to /usr, with the expectation that the distribution will provide compatibility links from the old paths to the new paths. All uses of a bare `/usr' have been replaced with uses of `%{_prefix}' for files installed by the package.
Perhaps we should untag it for now.
I have untagged glibc-2.17.90-12.fc20 to get builds going again, and looks like the glibc maintainers have reverted the changeset in git as well.
Everything should be back in order once the rawhide buildroots regenerate.
On Ter, 2013-08-13 at 16:13 -0400, Miro Hrončok wrote:
Hi, I believe there's something wrong in Koji Rawhide buildroot, as it appears nothings provides /sbin/ldconfig.
DEBUG util.py:264: Error: Package: foo DEBUG util.py:264: Requires: /sbin/ldconfig
repoquery --releasever=rawhide --disablerepo=*updates* --whatrequires /sbin/ldconfig --source | sort -u | wc -l 2222
2222 packages of 14327 requires /sbin/ldconfig instead glibc ...
maybe a mass rebuild for this /usr move ...
On Ter, 2013-08-13 at 19:54 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
Christopher Meng wrote:
Can we modify all affected specs to solve the problem?
Better to just not modify glibc in a way that's not backward compatible.
I take a look in "my" Virtualbox.spec and it use /sbin/ldconfig but not in Requires, is not a error use Requires: /sbin/ldconfig ?
Seems another victim appeared in test list.
This time is for /sbin/alternatives.
Sorry for no contexts, but what about removing /sbin or /bin from every spec? I think RPM can handle this without fullpath.
Thanks.
Sent from Note I
On 08/14/2013 12:59 PM, Christopher Meng wrote:
Seems another victim appeared in test list.
This time is for /sbin/alternatives.
Sorry for no contexts, but what about removing /sbin or /bin from every spec?
Not a clever idea.
Very oversimplified, in RPM-provides/requires, "full paths" symbols refer to files, while "non-full-path" symbols refer to packages.
As files/binaries may be moved between packages, there is no strict connection at all between a package's name and a binary.
I think RPM can handle this without fullpath.
RPM is pretty much irrelevant here.
Using full paths assures using the correct binary independently from whatever environment variables might be set and from packages.
Ralf
On Qua, 2013-08-14 at 18:59 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:
Seems another victim appeared in test list.
This time is for /sbin/alternatives.
rpm -qf /sbin/alternatives chkconfig-1.3.60-3.fc19.x86_64
once again , I think Requires: /sbin/alternatives is wrong should be Requires: chkconfig
Sorry for no contexts, but what about removing /sbin or /bin from every spec? I think RPM can handle this without fullpath.
Thanks.
Sent from Note I
Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Qua, 2013-08-14 at 18:59 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:
Seems another victim appeared in test list.
This time is for /sbin/alternatives.
rpm -qf /sbin/alternatives chkconfig-1.3.60-3.fc19.x86_64
once again , I think Requires: /sbin/alternatives is wrong should be Requires: chkconfig
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Alternatives
and use Requires(post): %{_sbindir}/update-alternatives ...etc...
-- rex
在 2013-8-15 AM1:23,"Rex Dieter" rdieter@math.unl.edu写道:
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Alternatives
and use Requires(post): %{_sbindir}/update-alternatives ...etc...
Good, don't hardcode paths.
What about creating an RFE for all affected packages?
Sérgio Basto wrote:
I take a look in "my" Virtualbox.spec and it use /sbin/ldconfig but not in Requires, is not a error use Requires: /sbin/ldconfig ?
depends, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Shared_libraries whether an explicit dependency is needed (or not).
-- rex