Dne 26. 01. 22 v 15:48 Iñaki Ucar napsal(a):
On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 at 15:46, Iñaki Ucar
<iucar(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> More issues with this change:
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2046246
>
> Packages such as R (octave and others, I suppose, as well) save the
> build flags because they are needed to build package extensions. With
> this change, a path that only exists during the parent package build
> stage is injected, and basically extensions are broken. I consider
> this a bug in rpm-config-macros. If later-non-valid flags are required
I meant redhat-rpm-config, apologies.
.
I'd suggest to build R and similar with:
~~~
%undefine _package_note_file
~~~
as a quick workaround and find better solution later. E.g. there is this
proposal for Ruby:
Iñaki
> for this change, then they should be injected via some private
> variable in order to keep %{build_*flags} clean.
>
> Iñaki
>
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 at 16:21, Mamoru TASAKA <mtasaka(a)fedoraproject.org>
wrote:
>> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote on 2022/01/24 17:55:
>>> On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 08:54:02PM -0700, Jerry James wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 5:35 PM Robert-André Mauchin
<zebob.m(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Sorry for the necro but there seems to be a problem with this change.
It
>>>>> broke multiple packages at the linking stage:
>>>>>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2043178
>>>>>
>>>>> On the package-note repo
https://github.com/systemd/package-notes
>>>>> it is said that it requires binutils (>= 2.38) but it hasn't
been
>>>>> released yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can the owners of this change chime in?
>>>> I would appreciate any insights that can be offered into why the
>>>> frama-c build is failing:
>>>>
>>>>
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=81690392
>>>>
>>>> It's got something to do with this change, since the linker is
>>>> complaining that it cannot find the package-note file, but I am
>>>> unclear how this change is supposed to interact with the OCaml
>>>> ecosystem.
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> the problem was that the %_package_note_file macro uses %buildsubdir,
>>> and %buildsubdir is set during %prep, but it seems it only available
>>> during %build and later. So the path was set wrong… I pushed a work-around
>>> to set %_package_note_file directly before prep and started a new build.
>>>
>>> (I wish we had something better for this. %buildsubdir is useful, but
>>> very fragile.)
>> Well, it turned up that this issue (that %buildsubdir is unusable in %prep)
>> also affects gabedit as:
>>
>> /usr/bin/ld: cannot open linker script file
/builddir/build/BUILD/.package_note-gabedit-2.5.1-11.fc36.x86_64.ld: No such file or
directory
>>
>>
https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/gabedit?collection=f36
>>
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=81664083
>>
>> Can't this issue be fixed in package-notes rpm side?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Mamoru
>> _______________________________________________
>> devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>> 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
>> Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
>
>
> --
> Iñaki Úcar