Bug 672608
| Summary: | Invalid BuildArch value should be reported | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Petr Pisar <ppisar> | ||||
| Component: | rpmlint | Assignee: | Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa> | ||||
| Status: | CLOSED EOL | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> | ||||
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |||||
| Priority: | unspecified | ||||||
| Version: | 23 | CC: | a.badger, manuel.wolfshant, tcallawa, tmz, ville.skytta | ||||
| 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: | 2016-12-20 12:05:37 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: | |||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||
|
Description
Petr Pisar
2011-01-25 17:33:20 UTC
Created attachment 475224 [details]
Test case
Spec file with invalid BuilArch values.
That could be useful, but I'm not aware of any source from which we could get a list of valid values for BuildArch, so perhaps the best that could be done is to make it configurable. And FWIW it seems that rpmbuild (4.8.1 on F-13) silently ignores all but the first BuildArch in the specfile; perhaps it should fail the build if there are more of them or just process them all (like it does if there are multiple values in the first BuildArch line). Panu, thoughts? The rpmbuild issue is tracked under bug #672605. (In reply to comment #2) > That could be useful, but I'm not aware of any source from which we could get a > list of valid values for BuildArch, so perhaps the best that could be done is > to make it configurable. Obviously rpm has some ideas about architecture validity, but the information is not exported in any meaningful way. > And FWIW it seems that rpmbuild (4.8.1 on F-13) > silently ignores all but the first BuildArch in the specfile; perhaps it should > fail the build if there are more of them or just process them all (like it does > if there are multiple values in the first BuildArch line). > > Panu, thoughts? Actually AFAICS it's the /last/ BuildArch line encountered that "wins", all the earlier ones get simply replaced causing memory leakage too. But yeah, it should either error out with "Duplicate buildarch entries" or (the more productive option) actually accept them all. This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 19 development cycle. Changing version to '19'. (As we did not run this process for some time, it could affect also pre-Fedora 19 development cycle bugs. We are very sorry. It will help us with cleanup during Fedora 19 End Of Life. Thank you.) More information and reason for this action is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora19 This message is a notice that Fedora 19 is now at end of life. Fedora has stopped maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 19. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '19'. 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 19 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. This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 23 development cycle. Changing version to '23'. (As we did not run this process for some time, it could affect also pre-Fedora 23 development cycle bugs. We are very sorry. It will help us with cleanup during Fedora 23 End Of Life. Thank you.) More information and reason for this action is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora23 This message is a reminder that Fedora 23 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 23. 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 '23'. 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 23 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. Fedora 23 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2016-12-20. Fedora 23 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed. |