Bug 1607366
| Summary: | glibc: Add provides for command line tools | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Florian Weimer <fweimer> |
| Component: | glibc | Assignee: | Carlos O'Donell <codonell> |
| Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | 28 | CC: | aoliva, arjun.is, codonell, dj, fweimer, igor.raits, law, mfabian, mhroncok, pfrankli, psabata, rth, siddhesh, vondruch |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2019-05-02 23:17:58 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
Florian Weimer
2018-07-23 11:20:20 UTC
$ LANG=C.utf8 dnf install /usr/bin/iconv Package glibc-common-2.27-19.fc28.x86_64 is already installed, skipping. Dependencies resolved. Nothing to do. Complete! (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #1) > $ LANG=C.utf8 dnf install /usr/bin/iconv > Package glibc-common-2.27-19.fc28.x86_64 is already installed, skipping. > Dependencies resolved. > Nothing to do. > Complete! But: $ rpm -q --provides glibc-common config(glibc-common) = 2.26-28.fc27 glibc-common = 2.26-28.fc27 glibc-common(x86-64) = 2.26-28.fc27 So if a package requires /usr/bin/iconv, that can only be satisfied via the filelist file, which we generally avoid downloading, at least for the initial installation. (In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #2) > which we generally avoid downloading, at least for the > initial installation. Not sure about the initial installation, but DNF always downloads file lists no matter what [1]. And AFAIK, the /usr/bin files are part of the metadata, not part of the file list anyway. [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968006 Why not to use BuildRequires: /usr/bin/iconv? (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #4) > Why not to use BuildRequires: /usr/bin/iconv? My understanding is that the packaging guidelines strongly recommend avoiding pure file dependencies: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Dependencies Whatever is in - *bin/* - /etc/* Should be perfectly fine. https://github.com/openSUSE/libsolv/blob/75d03059cdaf7770d2217fafaba6af732cd860ba/src/repodata.c#L1274-L1286 (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #6) > Whatever is in > - *bin/* > - /etc/* > > Should be perfectly fine. > > https://github.com/openSUSE/libsolv/blob/ > 75d03059cdaf7770d2217fafaba6af732cd860ba/src/repodata.c#L1274-L1286 Oh. Can we please put this into the packaging guidelines, if such dependencies are indeed acceptable? This message is a reminder that Fedora 28 is nearing its end of life. On 2019-May-28 Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 28. 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 '28'. 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 28 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. > Oh. Can we please put this into the packaging guidelines, if such dependencies are indeed acceptable? That is already in for some time: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_and_directory_dependencies |