Bug 118101
Summary: | rpm missing-files-terminate-build bug | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Mike A. Harris <mharris> |
Component: | rpm | Assignee: | Jeff Johnson <jbj> |
Status: | CLOSED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | Mike McLean <mikem> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | sopwith |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2006-02-21 19:01:56 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 108778 *** Changed to 'CLOSED' state since 'RESOLVED' has been deprecated. |
If the file present in the RPM_BUILD_ROOT is a symbolic link, and it is not listed in one of the %files lists, it will not get included in the rpm, and rpm will not complain. It does this in dist-fc2 for me. I discovered this after adding the new lib*.so.* files to the spec file, but forgetting to add the lib*.so symlinks to the file lists, and later noticing by luck that they were not present in the generated -devel package. Since the code I have in the spec file to generate the .so symlinks works on all .so.* libraries: pushd $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_x11libdir} for lib in *.so.*; do ln -sf $lib ${lib%.so*}.so ; done popd ... I was surprised to not get an rpm failure error, since I know rpm is checking because it complained about other missing files. Let me know if I should bugzilla this, or if it is a quickie fix not needing that. ... Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 10:27:00 -0500 (EST) From: Elliot Lee <sopwith> To: Mike A. Harris <mharris> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Re: rpm missing-files-terminate-build bug > Let me know if I should bugzilla this, or if it is a quickie fix > not needing that. So it doesn't get lost, bugzilla please! -- Elliot