The documentation specifies how should the metapackage look like. However the description of the %files sections is wrong. The documentation specifies that for the -runtime subpackage, the section should be: %files runtime %scl_files The first line should in fact read %files runtime -f filesystem The reason is that there are some directories in the base layout that are generated dynamically by a bash script. To list the ownership of those directories in %files section, one has to include the file containing that list. Some more information can be found in bug 1072319
I'd like to point out that when I use a different _scl_prefix, what gets generated in the build root are two trees. One for /opt/rh/ and another for /opt/da (my custom _scl_prefix) I think either the actual buildroot files or %scl_files gets the /opt/rh prefix changed to my custom _scl_prefix of /opt/da, but it leaves duplicates in %scl_files.
(In reply to Jay Hilliard from comment #6) > I'd like to point out that when I use a different _scl_prefix, what gets > generated in the build root are two trees. One for /opt/rh/ and another for > /opt/da (my custom _scl_prefix) > I think either the actual buildroot files or %scl_files gets the /opt/rh > prefix changed to my custom _scl_prefix of /opt/da, but it leaves duplicates > in %scl_files. Thanks for your comment, Jay. Ahoj Lubos, could you possibly shed more light into this as to why this is happening? Thank you. Not really sure atm if our docs need to be updated.
(In reply to Petr Kovar from comment #8) > (In reply to Jay Hilliard from comment #6) > > I'd like to point out that when I use a different _scl_prefix, what gets > > generated in the build root are two trees. One for /opt/rh/ and another for > > /opt/da (my custom _scl_prefix) > > I think either the actual buildroot files or %scl_files gets the /opt/rh > > prefix changed to my custom _scl_prefix of /opt/da, but it leaves duplicates > > in %scl_files. > > Thanks for your comment, Jay. > > Ahoj Lubos, could you possibly shed more light into this as to why this is > happening? Thank you. > > Not really sure atm if our docs need to be updated. This problem should be fixed in scl-utils-build-20120927-27.
I am still getting this: $ rpm -q scl-utils-build scl-utils-build-20120927-27.el6_6.x86_64 $ rpmbuild -ba python27ext.spec Processing files: python27ext-1.0.0.9.g05db6b8-1.wdas.el6.x86_64 Processing files: python27ext-runtime-1.0.0.9.g05db6b8-1.wdas.el6.x86_64 warning: File listed twice: /disk1/scl/python27ext/enable warning: File listed twice: /disk1/scl/python27ext/root warning: File listed twice: /disk1/scl/python27ext/root/bin warning: File listed twice: /disk1/scl/python27ext/root/bin warning: File listed twice: /disk1/scl/python27ext/root/boot warning: File listed twice: /disk1/scl/python27ext/root/dev warning: File listed twice: /disk1/scl/python27ext/root/etc warning: File listed twice: /disk1/scl/python27ext/root/etc/X11 warning: File listed twice: /disk1/scl/python27ext/root/etc/X11/applnk ... ... warning: File listed twice: /disk1/scl/python27ext/root/var/spool/lpd warning: File listed twice: /disk1/scl/python27ext/root/var/spool/mail warning: File listed twice: /disk1/scl/python27ext/root/var/tmp warning: File listed twice: /disk1/scl/python27ext/root/var/yp Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 Processing files: python27ext-build-1.0.0.9.g05db6b8-1.wdas.el6.x86_64 Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 Obsoletes: python27-scldevel Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files /disk1/scratch/rpmbuild-jhilliar/BUILDROOT/python27ext-1.0.0.9.g05db6b8-1.wdas.el6.x86_64 Wrote: /disk1/scratch/rpmbuild-jhilliar/SRPMS/python27ext-1.0.0.9.g05db6b8-1.wdas.el6.src.rpm Wrote: /disk1/scratch/rpmbuild-jhilliar/RPMS/x86_64/python27ext-1.0.0.9.g05db6b8-1.wdas.el6.x86_64.rpm Wrote: /disk1/scratch/rpmbuild-jhilliar/RPMS/x86_64/python27ext-runtime-1.0.0.9.g05db6b8-1.wdas.el6.x86_64.rpm Wrote: /disk1/scratch/rpmbuild-jhilliar/RPMS/x86_64/python27ext-build-1.0.0.9.g05db6b8-1.wdas.el6.x86_64.rpm Executing(%clean): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.Le7EaY + umask 022 + cd /disk1/scratch/rpmbuild-jhilliar/BUILD + /bin/rm -rf /disk1/scratch/rpmbuild-jhilliar/BUILDROOT/python27ext-1.0.0.9.g05db6b8-1.wdas.el6.x86_64 + exit 0 + rm python27ext-1.0.0.9.g05db6b8.tar.gz Uploading my spec file
Created attachment 1021812 [details] spec file Spec file, well, the .in file anyway.
I tried to build your spec file: $ rpm -q scl-utils-build scl-utils-build-20120927-27.el6_6.x86_64 $ rpmbuild -bi SPECS/python27ext.spec ... warning: File listed twice: /disk1/scl/python27ext/root/var/preserve warning: File listed twice: /disk1/scl/python27ext/root/var/run warning: File listed twice: /disk1/scl/python27ext/root/var/spool warning: File listed twice: /disk1/scl/python27ext/root/var/spool/lpd warning: File listed twice: /disk1/scl/python27ext/root/var/spool/mail warning: File listed twice: /disk1/scl/python27ext/root/var/tmp warning: File listed twice: /disk1/scl/python27ext/root/var/yp Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 Processing files: python27ext-build-1.0.0.9.g05db6b8-1.wdas.el6.x86_64 Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 Obsoletes: python27-scldevel Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files /home/test/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/python27ext-1.0.0.9.g05db6b8-1.wdas.el6.x86_64 # ls BUILDROOT/python27ext-1.0.0.9.g05db6b8-1.wdas.el6.x86_64/ disk1 etc As you can see there is only "disk1" and no "opt" in buildroot. So only one tree in buildroot. I can't find out if you have two trees in your buildroot from comment 11. So can you follow steps from this comment to see if you really have two trees in your buildroot.
I will agree that the two trees issue is resolved now I disagree that it's fixed properly, because although the package builds, I still continue to get those warnings: warning: File listed twice I think it's a problem with %scl_files. I am unable to use "-f filelist" and build a working package. WHICH OF THE TWO METHODS AM I "SUPPOSED" TO USE ON RHEL6? %scl_files or "%files -f filelist"????, and if it's % scl_files why am I still getting the warnings? If it's -f filelist, then why won't it work?
These are two different problems caused by different causes and only one problem is fixed, the problem with two trees. The other one is not but it is harmless. Some files are listed twice in spec file but no duplicates are created in build tree or rpm package. You have to use both, like this: %files runtime -f filesystem %scl_files The reason for this is explained in the first comment.
One correction, it should be: %files runtime -f filelist %scl_files So filelist instead of filesystem.
(In reply to Ľuboš Kardoš from comment #16) > One correction, it should be: > > %files runtime -f filelist > %scl_files > > So filelist instead of filesystem. Hi Jay, Could you please work with Red Hat Support in case adding "%files runtime -f filelist" didn't fix your problem? I'm closing this bug now since the original issue, "%files runtime -f filelist" not being documented in the RHSCL Packaging Guide, has been resolved. Thank you.