On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 17:48 -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> 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 not sure about the --wildcards support in earlier tar versions, but I found a message at http://www.gnu.org/software/tar/, talking about globbing changes in tar 1.15.91 (same version of FC5 tar pkg), named as "Incompatible changes". Take a look at the message I found :


It seems that --wildcards option became required for tar.  I will test the patched rpmbuild with earlier tar versions (in FC1, FC2, FC3, FC4 and FC5, maybe in RH9, RH8, RHEL2.1, RHEL3, RHEL4  and RHEL5 Beta too) to confirm if it supports --wildcards.

> 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)

Do you know who are the maintainers of this packages?

> 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...
Fails on rawhide-20060929/i386:   http://tinyurl.com/n86xa
Fails on rawhide-20060929/x86_64: http://tinyurl.com/po83j

Passes on FC5-GOLD/i386:          http://tinyurl.com/qd48s
Passes on FC5-GOLD/x86_64:        http://tinyurl.com/rcvgp

Hope this helps


fedora-devel-list mailing list