Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.

Bug 54790

Summary: BuildRequires needed in gnome-applets-1.4.0.1-6.src.rpm
Product: [Retired] Red Hat Raw Hide Reporter: R P Herrold <herrold>
Component: gnome-appletsAssignee: Mark McLoughlin <markmc>
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX QA Contact: Aaron Brown <abrown>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 1.0   
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: 2001-10-19 14:06:10 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 R P Herrold 2001-10-19 00:01:31 UTC
gnome-applets-1.4.0.1-6.src.rpm

hmmm ... a BuildRequires: is needed for apmd to get rid of 
the shell script missing dependency detection ...

Add:

BuildRequires: apmd

to the .SPEC file

Subject: ORCprospector 0.01-011017 -- gnome-applets
    gnome-applets-1.4.0.1-6.src.rpm

gnome-applets   gnome-applets-1.4.0.1-6.src.rpm
/var/ftp/./pub/mirror/redhat/rawhide/SRPMS/gnome-applets-1.4.0.1-6.src.rpm
=================================

Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.11236
You must have apmd installed

Comment 1 Havoc Pennington 2001-10-19 14:58:02 UTC
The problem is that apmd is only required/present on i386, and rpm doesn't
support per-architecture BuildRequires. So if it required apmd, it wouldn't
build on alpha/ia64/etc. Thus the %prep phase has a manual check for 
apmd on i386.

%ifnarch %{no_apm_archs}
%setup -q -a 5

if ! test -e /usr/lib/libapm.a ; then
    echo "You must have apmd installed"
    exit 1
fi

%else
%setup -q
%endif

You could imagine hacking rpm to fix this, of course, but can't be fixed in 
gnome-applets, and not sure it's worth the complexity/breakage in rpm.

Comment 2 R P Herrold 2001-10-26 00:55:06 UTC
OK by me -- Thanks -- This is interesting so I will 'mention' it to JBJ