If you try to build a noarch metapackage on 64 bit machine, you'll end up with error like this: RPM build errors: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /opt/rh/python27/root/lib64 This is caused by these lines in macros.scl: %ifarch x86_64 ppc ppc64 sparc sparc64 s390 s390x %{_scl_root}/%{_lib} %endif The problem is, that %ifarch conditionals seems not to expand in %files section. To reproduce this, just write a specfile with %files section like this: %files %ifarch <yourarch> this_file_wont_be_searched_for %endif this_file_wont_be_searched_for doesn't exist in BUILDROOT, but RPM raises no error (so this could as well be RPM error, not scl-utils problem). It'd seem that the same should happen to %{_scl_root}/usr/%{_lib}, which uses the same conditionals, but this is included because there are lots of other directories included inside it, which masks the error.
Could you please send me the srpm that caused this? I tried to reproduce the issue, without any success, everything works as expected. Thanks
Hmm, strange, I currently can't reproduce this. I'm however not the only one who experienced this problem. CC @Remi, I know you said you hit this, can you still reproduce?
Take any spec and add BuildArch: noarch Try to build on x86_64 computer /opt/rh/php55/root/lib64 is not listed in %files.
(In reply to Remi Collet from comment #3) > Take any spec and add > > BuildArch: noarch > > Try to build on x86_64 computer > > /opt/rh/php55/root/lib64 is not listed in %files. Well, yeah, that's why the condition Slavek quoted is there - to avoid creating /lib64 for 32bit and noarch packages. See the package "filesystem", there is the same thing there. It also kinda makes sense, doesn't it? If you want the package to be noarch, then you don't need /lib64, do you? Maybe I'm wrong but I honestly don't see the use case. Maybe the problem is elsewhere. Do you install some files into /lib64 manually? Or are they somehow included by the %scl_install macro?
*** Bug 988565 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 1017088 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Yes, directory is created by %scl_install macro. So %scl_files and %scl_install are not consistent. I don't think having noarch metapackage make sense.. but... https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bkabrda/SCLGuidelinesDraft
Thanks Remi, the fix is coming.
Just for reference, there is a related post on Fedora devel ML from Spot: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-October/190036.html
scl-utils-20131015-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/scl-utils-20131015-1.fc20
scl-utils-20131015-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/scl-utils-20131015-1.fc19
The "updated update" is here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/scl-utils-20131016-1.fc19
While testing on real-life collections I found one unrelated issue in scl-utils, a new update has been issued: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/scl-utils-20131017-1.fc19
Package scl-utils-20131017-1.fc20: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing scl-utils-20131017-1.fc20' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-19205/scl-utils-20131017-1.fc20 then log in and leave karma (feedback).
scl-utils-20131017-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
scl-utils-20131017-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.