Bug 1024517
Summary: | perl.req returns wrong set of required modules due parsing bug | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 | Reporter: | jernej.porenta | |
Component: | rpm | Assignee: | Packaging Maintenance Team <packaging-team-maint> | |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Marek Marusic <mmarusic> | |
Severity: | low | Docs Contact: | ||
Priority: | unspecified | |||
Version: | 6.4 | CC: | dustymabe, ffesti, jherrman, ksrot, lkardos, mmarusic, pmatilai | |
Target Milestone: | rc | |||
Target Release: | --- | |||
Hardware: | x86_64 | |||
OS: | Linux | |||
Whiteboard: | ||||
Fixed In Version: | rpm-4.8.0-40.el6 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: |
If a Perl script in a package contained a string declared as a here-document that included the "use" or "require" words, or a multiline string with these words, the package in some cases had incorrect dependencies when it was created using the "rpmbuild" command. Now, the "use" and "require" strings are ignored as keywords in here-documents and multiline strings, which prevents the problem from occurring.
|
Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | ||||
: | 1191121 (view as bug list) | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2015-07-22 07:02:58 UTC | Type: | Bug | |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | ||
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | ||
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | ||
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | ||
Embargoed: |
Description
jernej.porenta
2013-10-29 20:19:49 UTC
Moving to rpm component as the rpm-build package is a subpackage of rpm. This looks like a dup of 1026750. Can someone else confirm and mark it as such? Patch available upstream. (In reply to Florian Festi from comment #4) > Patch available upstream. That's great news. Do you have a link to the patch? Thanks Hi Florian, could you please tell me how is this different from the bug 1026750? I can see that patches are different, the description seems similar though. (In reply to Karel Srot from comment #7) > Hi Florian, > could you please tell me how is this different from the bug 1026750? I can > see that patches are different, the description seems similar though. Please ignore. Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2015-1452.html |