Bug 1307345

Summary: bfast: FTBFS in rawhide
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Fedora Release Engineering <releng>
Component: bfastAssignee: Adam Huffman <bloch>
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 24CC: bloch, rc040203, yselkowi
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-03-23 11:44:40 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 1305208    
Attachments:
Description Flags
build.log
none
root.log
none
state.log
none
Patch to fix the FTBFS none

Description Fedora Release Engineering 2016-02-13 21:04:15 UTC
Your package bfast failed to build from source in current rawhide.

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12807655

For details on mass rebuild see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_24_Mass_Rebuild

Comment 1 Fedora Release Engineering 2016-02-13 21:04:18 UTC
Created attachment 1124105 [details]
build.log

Comment 2 Fedora Release Engineering 2016-02-13 21:04:19 UTC
Created attachment 1124106 [details]
root.log

Comment 3 Fedora Release Engineering 2016-02-13 21:04:20 UTC
Created attachment 1124107 [details]
state.log

Comment 4 Ralf Corsepius 2016-02-19 03:42:31 UTC
Created attachment 1128409 [details]
Patch to fix the FTBFS

Trigger of this FTFBS is this package is still relying on gnu89-inlining.

As this feature change was added to GCC-5, I wonder why this wasn't caught during the gcc-5 mass-rebuilt and didn't trigger an F23FTBFS. I assume it actually triggered an F23FTBFS (f23 still ships an f22 package), but the related BZ (RHBZ#1239386) seemingly was prematurely closed.

Anyway, the patch from the attachment should fix this issue and more related issues this package has and bring it back on track.

Unless somebody objects, I will apply this patch to rawhide and f23 in near future.

Comment 5 Upstream Release Monitoring 2016-02-19 09:01:42 UTC
verdurin's bfast-0.7.0a-14.fc24 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=736899

Comment 6 Jan Kurik 2016-02-24 14:34:36 UTC
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 24 development cycle.
Changing version to '24'.

More information and reason for this action is here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Program_Management/HouseKeeping/Fedora24#Rawhide_Rebase

Comment 7 Yaakov Selkowitz 2016-02-24 21:39:32 UTC
Shouldn't that be:

"CFLAGS=%optflags -fgnu89-inline"
%configure

Comment 8 Ralf Corsepius 2016-02-25 05:25:09 UTC
(In reply to Yaakov Selkowitz from comment #7)
> "CFLAGS=%optflags -fgnu89-inline"
> %configure
Well, it should not matter.

In %build, modern rpm first exports CFLAGS, which is where it later is picked up by %configure:

Executing(%build): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.e1SA4N
+ umask 022
+ cd /builddir/build/BUILD
+ cd bfast-0.7.0a
+ CFLAGS='-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -specs=/usr/lib/r
+ export CFLAGS
...
+ ./configure ...
...

But you are right, %optflags would have been an alternative.



@verdurin: Provided you applied this patch and rebuilt this package, please assign this BZ to you and close this BZ.

Comment 9 Ralf Corsepius 2016-03-23 11:44:40 UTC
Why wasn't this BZ closed? Closing