Bug 1241555

This package has changed ownership in the Fedora Package Database.  Reassigning to the new owner of this component.

This package has changed ownership in the Fedora Package Database.  Reassigning to the new owner of this component.

This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 25 development cycle.
Changing version to '25'.

Hi, 

fakechroot-libs is already an multilib in F24 ,

https://pagure.io/mash/issue/5
https://pagure.io/pungi/issue/276
https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/issue/21

dnf repoquery  --releasever=24 "fakeroot*"

fakeroot-0:1.20.2-3.fc23.x86_64
fakeroot-0:1.20.2-4.fc24.x86_64
fakeroot-libs-0:1.20.2-3.fc23.x86_64
-->    fakeroot-libs-0:1.20.2-4.fc24.i686
fakeroot-libs-0:1.20.2-4.fc24.x86_64


Can you check if this bug is fixed ? please 

Thanks.

(In reply to Sergio Monteiro Basto from comment #4)
> dnf repoquery  --releasever=24 "fakeroot*"
You tested fakeroot, not fakechroot.
The first one was fixed, the second one isn't (the two issues in comment #1 are still present).

ah, OK, I added a new ticket in mash [1] 

Thanks.


[1] https://pagure.io/mash/issue/9

(In reply to Sergio Monteiro Basto from comment #6)
> ah, OK, I added a new ticket in mash [1] 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> [1] https://pagure.io/mash/issue/9

ticket closed with : "@sergiomb fakechroot-libs is added to multilib in rawhide and f26. its not needed for f25 since we are not making any composes out of f25." 

Now, we just need verify that we have this bug fixed or if we still need more changes . 
Thanks

# dnf repoquery "fakechroot*"
fakechroot-0:2.18-1.fc25.x86_64
fakechroot-0:2.19-1.fc25.x86_64
fakechroot-debuginfo-0:2.18-1.fc25.x86_64
fakechroot-debuginfo-0:2.19-1.fc25.x86_64
fakechroot-libs-0:2.18-1.fc25.x86_64
fakechroot-libs-0:2.19-1.fc25.x86_64

So the i686 package still isn't in the F25 repo, so a change is still needed.
On Rawhide the i686 package is in the repo.

There is still the library path issue in /usr/bin/fakechroot :
fakechroot_paths=/usr/lib64/fakechroot
It needs to be fakechroot_paths=/usr/lib64/fakechroot:/usr/lib/fakechroot, to be able to load the 32-bit libs.

dnf-3 --disablerepo='*' --releasever=26 --enablerepo=fedora  repoquery "fakechroot*"
fakechroot-0:2.18-1.fc24.x86_64
fakechroot-0:2.19-1.fc26.x86_64
fakechroot-libs-0:2.18-1.fc24.x86_64
fakechroot-libs-0:2.19-1.fc26.i686
fakechroot-libs-0:2.19-1.fc26.x86_64

(In reply to Loïc Yhuel from comment #8)
> So the i686 package still isn't in the F25 repo, so a change is still needed.

yes only in F26+ we got multilib like I wrote in previous comment. 

> On Rawhide the i686 package is in the repo.
> 

yes 

> There is still the library path issue in /usr/bin/fakechroot :
> fakechroot_paths=/usr/lib64/fakechroot
> It needs to be fakechroot_paths=/usr/lib64/fakechroot:/usr/lib/fakechroot,
> to be able to load the 32-bit libs.

hum it is a bug ? , shouldn't be reported upstream fakechroot develelopment ? 
what you suggest ?

(In reply to Sergio Monteiro Basto from comment #9)
> yes only in F26+ we got multilib like I wrote in previous comment. 
I still don't understand the "not needed" comment.
Is it too late to change it for F25 ?

> > There is still the library path issue in /usr/bin/fakechroot :
> > fakechroot_paths=/usr/lib64/fakechroot
> > It needs to be fakechroot_paths=/usr/lib64/fakechroot:/usr/lib/fakechroot,
> > to be able to load the 32-bit libs.
> 
> hum it is a bug ? , shouldn't be reported upstream fakechroot develelopment
> ? 
> what you suggest ?

It's a bug since the user may want to run 32-bit programs with fakechroot, even on a 64-bit distribution.

The paths can be set with the --with-libpath configure argument, which is "$libdir/$PACKAGE_NAME" by default.
Upstream has no way to know where the 32-bit libdir is on a 64-bit build, since it depends on the distribution (/usr/lib on Fedora, /usr/lib32 on Archlinux, /usr/lib/<triplet> on Debian, ...).

(In reply to Loïc Yhuel from comment #10)
> (In reply to Sergio Monteiro Basto from comment #9)
> > yes only in F26+ we got multilib like I wrote in previous comment. 
> I still don't understand the "not needed" comment.
> Is it too late to change it for F25 ?

yes I think it is too late , but you may ask in https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/issue/93 , I mean you may ask directly why is not need and if is too late instead I intermediate .

> > > There is still the library path issue in /usr/bin/fakechroot :
> > > fakechroot_paths=/usr/lib64/fakechroot
> > > It needs to be fakechroot_paths=/usr/lib64/fakechroot:/usr/lib/fakechroot,
> > > to be able to load the 32-bit libs.
> > 
> > hum it is a bug ? , shouldn't be reported upstream fakechroot develelopment
> > ? 
> > what you suggest ?
> 
> It's a bug since the user may want to run 32-bit programs with fakechroot,
> even on a 64-bit distribution.
> 
> The paths can be set with the --with-libpath configure argument, which is
> "$libdir/$PACKAGE_NAME" by default.
> Upstream has no way to know where the 32-bit libdir is on a 64-bit build,
> since it depends on the distribution (/usr/lib on Fedora, /usr/lib32 on
> Archlinux, /usr/lib/<triplet> on Debian, ...).

ah I will check it , when got some time ... , patches for fakechroot.spec are welcome

This message is a reminder that Fedora 25 is nearing its end of life.
Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining
and issuing updates for Fedora 25. It is Fedora's policy to close all
bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time
this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora  'version'
of '25'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version'
to a later Fedora version.

Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not
able to fix it before Fedora 25 is end of life. If you would still like
to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version
of Fedora, you are encouraged  change the 'version' to a later Fedora
version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above.

Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes
bugs or makes them obsolete.

(In reply to Sergio Monteiro Basto from comment #11)
I haven't check this yet

This message is a reminder that Fedora 27 is nearing its end of life.
On 2018-Nov-30  Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for
Fedora 27. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases
that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as
EOL if it remains open with a Fedora  'version' of '27'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' 
to a later Fedora version.

Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not 
able to fix it before Fedora 27 is end of life. If you would still like 
to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version 
of Fedora, you are encouraged  change the 'version' to a later Fedora 
version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above.

Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's 
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a 
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes 
bugs or makes them obsolete.

This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 30 development cycle.
Changing version to '30.

FEDORA-2019-dc5bb36e39 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-dc5bb36e39

(In reply to Loïc Yhuel from comment #10)
> (In reply to Sergio Monteiro Basto from comment #9) 
> > > There is still the library path issue in /usr/bin/fakechroot :
> > > fakechroot_paths=/usr/lib64/fakechroot
> > > It needs to be fakechroot_paths=/usr/lib64/fakechroot:/usr/lib/fakechroot,
> > > to be able to load the 32-bit libs.
> > 
> > hum it is a bug ? , shouldn't be reported upstream fakechroot develelopment
> > ? 
> > what you suggest ?
> 
> It's a bug since the user may want to run 32-bit programs with fakechroot,
> even on a 64-bit distribution.
> 
> The paths can be set with the --with-libpath configure argument, which is
> "$libdir/$PACKAGE_NAME" by default.
> Upstream has no way to know where the 32-bit libdir is on a 64-bit build,
> since it depends on the distribution (/usr/lib on Fedora, /usr/lib32 on
> Archlinux, /usr/lib/<triplet> on Debian, ...).

is not fixed isn't it ? , can you do a patch to spec file ? 

Thanks

fakechroot-2.20.1-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-dc5bb36e39

fakechroot-2.20.1-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

(In reply to Loïc Yhuel from comment #10) #8 and #1

> There are two issues preventing to use fakechroot on 32 bit programs on a 64 bit distribution:
> - fakechroot-libs.i686 isn't in the x86_64 repo
> - fakechroot sets LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/lib64/fakechroot, it should be /usr/lib64/fakechroot:/usr/lib/fakechroot, so ld.so will pick up the correct libfakechroot.so depending on the program


> There is still the library path issue in /usr/bin/fakechroot :
> fakechroot_paths=/usr/lib64/fakechroot

> It needs to be fakechroot_paths=/usr/lib64/fakechroot:/usr/lib/fakechroot, to be able to load the 32-bit libs. 

> It's a bug since the user may want to run 32-bit programs with fakechroot, even on a 64-bit distribution.

> The paths can be set with the --with-libpath configure argument, which is "$libdir/$PACKAGE_NAME" by default.
> Upstream has no way to know where the 32-bit libdir is on a 64-bit build, since it depends on the distribution (/usr/lib on Fedora, /usr/lib32 on Archlinux, /usr/lib/<triplet> on Debian, ...).

I decided add this [1] to rpm spec. 
we may have rules in distros (which may not be covered), I mean maybe also add /usr/lib32 ? 
we may also have rules in arches powerpc / powerpc64 and arm / arm64  where I don't known if they can be multi-arch (so if shouldn't be also arch specific) ? 
And at last, if 32bits package shouldn't also have the same fakechroot_paths of 64bits ? 
 

[1] 
%if %{__isa_bits} == 64
%configure --disable-static --disable-silent-rules --with-libpath="%{_libdir}/fakechroot:/usr/lib/fakechroot"
%else
%configure --disable-static --disable-silent-rules --with-libpath="%{_libdir}/fakechroot"
%endif

FEDORA-2020-cffc8cb08d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-cffc8cb08d

fakechroot-2.20.1-2.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-cffc8cb08d

fakechroot-2.20.1-2.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.