On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:33:41AM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> On (14/01/16 11:22), Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> >On (14/01/16 11:16), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> >>On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 04:27:16PM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> >>> On (12/01/16 10:38), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> >>> >On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:49:45AM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> >>> >> On (11/01/16 10:29), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> >>> >> >On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 09:29:57AM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik
wrote:
> >>> >> >> ehlo,
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> patch should fix fedora bug 1266940
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> LS
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >Thanks for the patch, but what other patches should I have
in order to
> >>> >> >apply?
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >Right now I have:
> >>> >> >a055c02 SPEC: Move libsss_sudo.so outside sssd-common
> >>> >> >18d722c SPEC: Change package ownership of
%{pubconfpath}/krb5.include.d
> >>> >> >fc3cf30 AD SRV: prefer site-local DCs in LDAP ping
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> I created all patches on top of master and i didn't realize
there might be
> >>> >> conflicts. There still might be conflict with the patch
"libsss_sudo.so".
> >>> >> First patch will win :-)
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Updated patch is attached.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> There is also a small change in sssd-client and
sssd-libwbclient
> >>> >> previous I added there only directory "%dir
%{_libdir}/%{name}/modules"
> >>> >> because directory "%dir %{_libdir}/%{name}" was owned
by sssd-common.
> >>> >> However, it was not right because sssd-cliet does not depend on
sssd-common.
> >>> >> So this directory woudl not be owned by annyone iff only
sssd-client is
> >>> >> installed (container use-case)
> >>> >>
> >>> >> LS
> >>> >
> >>> >I can't build a package locally in mock after applying this
patch..
> >>> >
> >>> >RPM build errors:
> >>> > Empty %files file
/builddir/build/BUILD/sssd-1.13.90/sssd_client.lang
> >>> > Directory not found:
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/sssd-1.13.90-0.20160112.1027.git990e793.fc22.x86_64/etc/cifs-utils
> >>> I did the same think as in package cifs-utils
> >>> but I didn't notice they create directory for alternative
> >>> in "%install" section of spec file.
> >>>
> >>> After this issue I realized there are another unowened files in fedora.
> >>> sh$ rpm -qf /usr/lib64/libwbclient.so.0*
> >>> file /usr/lib64/libwbclient.so.0 is not owned by any package
> >>> file /usr/lib64/libwbclient.so.0.12 is not owned by any package
> >>>
> >>> it's not problem of upstream spec file because we do not install
> >>> alternatives for libwbclient. But I might add "%ghost" to the
> >>> downstream (fedora) spec file
> >>>
> >>> LS
> >>
> >>> +%dir %{_libdir}/cifs-utils
> >>> %{_libdir}/cifs-utils/cifs_idmap_sss.so
> >>> +%dir %{_sysconfdir}/cifs-utils
> >>
> >>Why do we need to own these? On my system, they are already owned by
> >>cifs-utils..
> >Because you do not have a minimal system
> >and sssd-client does not depend on cifs-utils.
> >https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories
> >
> >[root@host /]# rpm -q sssd-client cifs-utils
> >sssd-client-1.13.1-3.fc23.x86_64
> >package cifs-utils is not installed
> >
> >[root@host /]# rpm -qf /etc/cifs-utils/ /etc/cifs-utils/idmap-plugin
> >file /etc/cifs-utils is not owned by any package
> >sssd-client-1.13.1-3.fc23.x86_64
> >
> >[root@host /]# rpm -qf /usr/lib64/cifs-utils/
/usr/lib64/cifs-utils/cifs_idmap_sss.so
> >file /usr/lib64/cifs-utils is not owned by any package
> >sssd-client-1.13.1-3.fc23.x86_64
> >
> Attached is a patch which fixes conflict due to libsss_sudo changes
>
> LS
Stephen confirmed on IRC that this is the right approach.
The packages build in mock fine, also in CI:
http://sssd-ci.duckdns.org/logs/job/35/69/summary.html
RB: me
RB: sgallagh