[SSSD] [PATCH] Adding Requires: libsemanage

Jeff Schroeder jeffschroeder at computer.org
Wed Jun 2 14:37:51 UTC 2010


On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 7:12 AM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 06/01/2010 10:26 AM, Jeff Schroeder wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:24 AM, Stephen Gallagher<sgallagh at redhat.com>  wrote:
>>> On 05/30/2010 06:34 PM, Jeff Schroeder wrote:
>>>> On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Jakub Hrozek<jhrozek at redhat.com>    wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 05/28/2010 08:59 PM, Jeff Schroeder wrote:
>>>>>> Tested against master and cherry-picked to sssd-1-2. Applies cleanly to both.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeff,
>>>>> thank you for the patch, but can you describe if you had any problem
>>>>> without it? RPM is usually pretty good in determining runtime
>>>>> dependencies, so adding explicit Requires: should not be necessary.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I tried rpm -Uvh *.rpm on an existing sssd host (1.0.5 +
>>>> enumerate=False cpu hog fix cherry picked). The rpm install failed due
>>>> to libsemanage.so.6 missing.
>>>>
>>>> If you are adding _new_ dependencies like this, it is my thought it
>>>> should be explicit in the spec file. When I asked on IRC simo said to
>>>> go ahead and send the patch out. What do you think?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ack.
>>>
>>> This is something we weren't seeing simply because libsemanage is a
>>> default package on Fedora 11, 12 and 13. But if you're building a custom
>>> OS from the 'core' packageset (as Jeff is doing), this would be missing.
>>
>> That is correct. My kickstart uses this with a minimal packageset:
>> %packages --nobase
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>
> OK, here's the explanation for why this behavior is happening to Jeff.
> He's using an older version of RPM (4.6, I believe). Newer versions of
> rpmbuild automatically detect library dependencies from the built
> binaries and create the appropriate dependency on the resulting RPM,
> without being specified explicitly.
>
> However, older versions of RPM do not have this autodetection
> capability, and so Jeff's build from 'core' is missing this feature.

Actually, I am using: rpm-4.6.1-3.fc10. It properly added a dep on
libsemanage.so.6, but I thought a new dependency should be explicit vs
implicit sort of like the zen of python. Perhaps I was wrong in
thinking this but it is a bit annoying to not see a dep like that when
staring at the spec file. No worries either way as this patch is very
trivial.

> I'm rescinding my ack on this, as the upstream contrib RPM is meant to
> be a reference only for supported versions of Fedora, and all
> currently-supported Fedora releases support the autodetection correctly.
>
> This fix will, however, go in as a custom change to the EPEL5 version of
> SSSD, as it will be necessary there.
>
> --
> Stephen Gallagher
> RHCE 804006346421761
>
> Delivering value year after year.
> Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors.
> http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/
> _______________________________________________
> sssd-devel mailing list
> sssd-devel at lists.fedorahosted.org
> https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
>



-- 
Jeff Schroeder

Don't drink and derive, alcohol and analysis don't mix.
http://www.digitalprognosis.com



More information about the sssd-devel mailing list