| Summary: | Required package "asciidoc" missing from distribution | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 | Reporter: | Quentin Barnes <qbarnes> |
| Component: | distribution | Assignee: | RHEL Program Management <pm-rhel> |
| Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Petr Šplíchal <psplicha> |
| Severity: | low | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | 6.0 | CC: | ohudlick, psplicha, syeghiay |
| Target Milestone: | rc | Keywords: | FutureFeature |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Enhancement | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2012-02-01 10:02:52 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in the current release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Because the affected component is not scheduled to be updated in the current release, Red Hat is unfortunately unable to address this request at this time. Red Hat invites you to ask your support representative to propose this request, if appropriate and relevant, in the next release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. If you would like it considered as an exception in the current release, please ask your support representative. I looked on RHN under the normal "RHEL Server" and the "RHEL Server Supplementary" for RHEL6 packages download area. I didn't realize that these two areas don't include all packages that are available for a particular release. This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in the current release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Because the affected component is not scheduled to be updated in the current release, Red Hat is unfortunately unable to address this request at this time. Red Hat invites you to ask your support representative to propose this request, if appropriate and relevant, in the next release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. If you would like it considered as an exception in the current release, please ask your support representative. This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in the current release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Because the affected component is not scheduled to be updated in the current release, Red Hat is unfortunately unable to address this request at this time. It has been proposed for the next release. If you would like it considered as an exception in the current release, please ask your support representative. With Comment 3, the bug should have closed (when I found the RPM in "Server Optional" repository. Not sure why it's there.). I didn't realize the bug didn't close then. Closing now. Ah, I see, as an "ordinary" user I'm not allowed to change the status of my own bug to closed. :-( Would someone close this "notabug" please? I see. Thanks for making this clear, Quentin. Closing. |
Description of problem: The kernel spec file requires the package "asciidoc", but "asciidoc" is not part of the distribution. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: 100% Steps to Reproduce: 1. mkdir /tmp/junk 2. rpm -i --define '_topdir /tmp/junk' {...}/kernel-2.6.32-71.18.1.el6.src.rpm 3. rpmbuild -bb --define '_topdir /tmp/junk' --target=noarch --without perf --without firmware /tmp/junk/SPECS/kernel.spec Actual results: [...] error: Failed build dependencies: asciidoc is needed by kernel-2.6.32-71.18.1.el6.noarch Building target platforms: noarch Building for target noarch I cannot find the asciidoc RPM as part of the RHEL6 distribution to install. Expected results: The RPM package kernel-doc-2.6.32-71.18.1.el6.noarch.rpm is built. Additional info: If I download the asciidoc RPM from non-RH sources, the kernel-doc package builds fine. However, I would expect that if RH requires an RPM for building its software that that RPM would be provided. Is this just a simple oversight, or is there a reason the package isn't provided?