Executive summary: a bug in package generation of rpm 4.12, presumably related to hardlinked files has been spotted. I've untagged 4.12 while we're investigating, some packages might need a rebuild because of this. If you haven't built packages for rawhide today, you can probably stop reading.
e2fsprogs-1.42.10-4.fc21 (builder/owner cc'd) is known to be slightly broken because of this and I've untagged that as well, a rebuild will be needed. Other packages (less than two dozen or so) *might* be affected if you've built something for rawhide in the last four hours or so, but the exact issue is not known yet so dont know...
The manifests in files missing from package payload, which rpm 4.12 will actually notice during install:
[root@localhost rpm]# rpm -Uvh --nodeps --noscripts --root /tmp/testroot ~pmatilai/Downloads/e2fsprogs-1.42.10-4.fc21.x86_64.rpm Preparing... ################################# [100%] Updating / installing... 1:e2fsprogs-1.42.10-4.fc21 ################################# [100%] error: unpacking of archive failed: cpio: Missing file(s) error: e2fsprogs-1.42.10-4.fc21.x86_64: install failed
Older rpm versions will merrily install this package, but report breakage on verify: [root@localhost rpm-4.11.x]# ./rpm -Uvh --nodeps --noscripts --root /tmp/testroot ~pmatilai/Downloads/e2fsprogs-1.42.10-4.fc21.x86_64.rpm Preparing... ################################# [100%] Updating / installing... 1:e2fsprogs-1.42.10-4.fc21 ################################# [100%] [root@localhost rpm-4.11.x]# ./rpm -Va --nodeps --root /tmp/testroot/ missing /usr/sbin/e2label missing /usr/sbin/tune2fs [root@localhost rpm-4.11.x]#
This is bug in package generation so any thusly affected packages need to be rebuilt.
- Panu -
On 06/30/2014 02:04 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
Executive summary: a bug in package generation of rpm 4.12, presumably related to hardlinked files has been spotted. I've untagged 4.12 while we're investigating, some packages might need a rebuild because of this. If you haven't built packages for rawhide today, you can probably stop reading.
e2fsprogs-1.42.10-4.fc21 (builder/owner cc'd) is known to be slightly broken because of this and I've untagged that as well, a rebuild will be needed. Other packages (less than two dozen or so) *might* be affected if you've built something for rawhide in the last four hours or so, but the exact issue is not known yet so dont know...
The bug was on handling of multiple interleaved hardlinked sets of files within package. Not the most common situation but not impossibly rare either. Packages which dont have hardlinked files do not need rebuilds for this, otherwise it depends on the exact contents.
Fixed in rpm-4.11.90-0.git12844.2.fc20.
- Panu -
Hi every one ,
This commit add number after %{?dist} .. is this OK !!
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/gnulib.git/commit/?id=c2f0d77aba7a2b74588...
See full package name
http://fr2.rpmfind.net//linux/RPM/fedora/devel/rawhide/src/g/gnulib-0-8.2014...
Regards Mosaab
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 5:02 PM, مصعب الزعبي moceap@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi every one ,
This commit add number after %{?dist} .. is this OK !!
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/gnulib.git/commit/?id=c2f0d77aba7a2b74588...
Yes, it's fine.
josh
Yes, it's fine.
If you want to avoid such bump you shouldn't use %tag, just fill in the number. I couldn't see the reason of using this one-off macro.
Release: %{tag}.%{gitdate}git%{?dist}
to
Release: 8.%{gitdate}git%{?dist}
Yours sincerely, Christopher Meng
Noob here.
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 11:02:11PM +0200, مصعب الزعبي wrote:
This commit add number after %{?dist} .. is this OK !!
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/gnulib.git/commit/?id=c2f0d77aba7a2b74588...
See full package name
http://fr2.rpmfind.net//linux/RPM/fedora/devel/rawhide/src/g/gnulib-0-8.2014...
It is normally only used if a package is only updated in Fedora 20 but not Fedora 21 and the version and release are the same otherwise. But it is also used by the script to increase the release automatically if the release is too complex to increase it correctly otherwise.
Regards Till
Hi all.
As you know there are millions of Android applications , there is a lot of emulators , but is time to run them native came ??
I saw this uncompleted project for (Android runtime) : https://github.com/icedrobot
Regards Mosaab