Bug 174962

Summary: Broken .spec file
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Carlo Wood <bugzilla>
Component: elfutilsAssignee: Roland McGrath <roland>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact:
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 4   
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: 2006-04-03 08:43:22 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:

Description Carlo Wood 2005-12-05 03:09:42 UTC
Description of problem:

rpmbuild errors out.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

elfutils-0.108-1.src.rpm

How reproducible:

rpm -i elfutils-0.108-1.src.rpm
rpmbuild -ba elfutils.spec

Actual results:

[...]
Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files /var/tmp/elfutils-root
error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
   /usr/lib/libasm.so
   /usr/lib/libasm.so.1


RPM build errors:
    Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
   /usr/lib/libasm.so
   /usr/lib/libasm.so.1

Expected results:

Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files /var/tmp/elfutils-root
Wrote: /usr/src/redhat/SRPMS/elfutils-0.108-1.src.rpm
Wrote: /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/elfutils-0.108-1.i386.rpm
Wrote: /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/elfutils-devel-0.108-1.i386.rpm
Wrote: /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/elfutils-libelf-0.108-1.i386.rpm
Wrote: /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/elfutils-libelf-devel-0.108-1.i386.rpm
Executing(%clean): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.20799
+ umask 022
+ cd /usr/src/redhat/BUILD
+ cd elfutils-0.108
+ rm -rf /var/tmp/elfutils-root
+ exit 0

Additional info:

I fixed this by changing the .spec file and
changing the line:

  rm -f .%{_libdir}/libasm-%{version}.so

into

  rm -f .%{_libdir}/libasm*.so*

(where it says 'Nuke unpackaged files')

Comment 1 Roland McGrath 2006-04-03 08:43:22 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 184597 ***

Comment 2 Carlo Wood 2006-04-03 14:33:45 UTC
I wonder how this can be a 'duplicate' of 184597 when
this bug report was reported three months BEFORE that one.
I'd think it's the other way around.