Bug 569066

Summary:	[dx] wrong include path to netcdf header files
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Joachim Frieben <jfrieben>
Component:	dx	Assignee:	Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	low
Version:	13	CC:	dominik, itamar
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:	dx-4.4.4-15.fc13	Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2010-03-05 03:38:23 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 Joachim Frieben 2010-02-27 21:40:55 UTC

Description of problem:
When rebuilding dx, configure fails to detect a working netcdf package. However, both netcdf and netcdf-devel are installed:

  configure: checking for NETCDF support ......
  checking netcdf/netcdf.h usability... no
  checking netcdf/netcdf.h presence... no
  checking for netcdf/netcdf.h... no
  checking for nc_copy_att in -lnetcdf... yes
  checking if NETCDF package is complete... no -- some components failed test

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
dx-4.4.4-14.fc13.src.rpm

How reproducible:
Always.

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Execute 'rpmbuild --rebuild dx-4.4.4-14.fc13.src.rpm'.
  
Actual results:
rpmbuild returns 'checking if NETCDF package is complete... no --
  some components failed test.

Expected results:
rpmbuild returns 'checking if NETCDF package is complete... yes

Additional info:
- header location is back to normal making the path modification in dx-rpm.patch obsolete.
- hdf does not seem to be linked in either

Comment 1 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski 2010-02-27 23:26:38 UTC

Confirmed, thanks for the report.

Comment 2 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski 2010-02-27 23:27:36 UTC

(In reply to comment #0)
[...]
> - hdf does not seem to be linked in either    

This, however, is not true. What makes you think hdf isn't linked in?

Comment 3 Fedora Update System 2010-02-28 00:11:56 UTC

dx-4.4.4-15.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dx-4.4.4-15.fc13

Comment 4 Joachim Frieben 2010-02-28 10:02:49 UTC

The spec file says:

  BuildRequires: hdf-static, hdf-devel

but 'ldd' tells something different, e.g.:

ldd dxexec  | grep hdf
  libhdf5_hl.so.6 => /usr/lib64/libhdf5_hl.so.6 (0x00000031caa00000)
  libhdf5.so.6 => /usr/lib64/libhdf5.so.6 (0x00000031cce00000)

thus, the binary depends on package hdf5 and hdf5-devel is presumably required for building dx. Btw, package hdf5-devel is pulled in by netcdf-devel.

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2010-02-28 14:46:45 UTC

dx-4.4.4-15.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update dx'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F13/FEDORA-2010-3148

Comment 6 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski 2010-03-01 01:19:14 UTC

(In reply to comment #4)
> The spec file says:
> 
>   BuildRequires: hdf-static, hdf-devel
> 
> but 'ldd' tells something different, e.g.:
> 
> ldd dxexec  | grep hdf
>   libhdf5_hl.so.6 => /usr/lib64/libhdf5_hl.so.6 (0x00000031caa00000)
>   libhdf5.so.6 => /usr/lib64/libhdf5.so.6 (0x00000031cce00000)

ldd won't tell you about statically linked libraries. hdf is static-only.

> thus, the binary depends on package hdf5 and hdf5-devel is presumably required
> for building dx. Btw, package hdf5-devel is pulled in by netcdf-devel.

It may be pulled in, but it's not used. dx uses hdf, not hdf5. hdf5 is incompatible with hdf as far as I can tell: http://www.hdfgroup.org/h5h4-diff.html

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2010-03-05 03:38:15 UTC

dx-4.4.4-15.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.