Spec URL: https://github.com/jondkent/gnubatch/blob/master/gnubatch.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/jondkent/gnubatch/blob/master/gnubatch-1.10-1.fc20.src.rpm Patch URL: https://github.com/jondkent/gnubatch/blob/master/gnubatch-systemd.tar.gz Description: gnubatch provides a comprehensive batch scheduling system for UNIX systems and GNU/Linux with transparently shared jobs and job control variables across the network. Provide jobs dependancy cross server/jobs functionality. Fedora Account System Username: jondkent
Hi, I'm slightly nervous about this package as I was surprised to find that it did not exist already, therefore I'm half expecting that this has been put forward before and refused. If this is so I can find any history of that. When you look at the spec file you'll see some embedded awk to modify /etc/services in the %post section. I've checked on ask.fedoraproject.org and the feedback looks positive, nevertheless not done that on a Fedora spec before. Before anyone asks, I maintain a Fedora package at the moment (ptpd). Fingers crossed that there aren't too many problems with this. Thanks, Jon
Uh...Surprise? Only gentoo has it so far.
Hi, For something that's been around since the 90s that's surprising isn't it? Are you doing the review of this package? Cheers, Jon
Hi, Found a build bug with the original source rpm when testing it on copr and on a new Fedora build. I've now fixed this and its built successfully for FC20/21(rawhide). New source rpm is here: https://github.com/jondkent/gnubatch/blob/master/gnubatch-1.10-2.fc20.src.rpm and here just in case: https://spideroak.com/share/MZSWI33SMEWXG4TDOJYG24Y/fedora-gnubatch-110/home/jon/src-rpms/gnubatch-1.10-2.fc20.src.rpm Regards, Jon
1. Summary: gnubatch provides enhanced job control Not good, uncapitalized. 2. Drop grop tag. 3. Drop BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) 4. Use %configure, currently the strip can't work properly and get these to users: ERROR: Command failed: # ['/usr/bin/yum', '--installroot', '/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/', '--releasever', '21', 'install', '/home/rpmaker/Desktop/gnubatch/results/gnubatch-1.10-2.fc21.i686.rpm', '--setopt=tsflags=nocontexts'] Error: Package: gnubatch-1.10-2.fc21.i686 (/gnubatch-1.10-2.fc21.i686) Requires: libgnubatch_int.so.1.debug Error: Package: gnubatch-1.10-2.fc21.i686 (/gnubatch-1.10-2.fc21.i686) Requires: libgnubatch_curs.so.1.debug Error: Package: gnubatch-1.10-2.fc21.i686 (/gnubatch-1.10-2.fc21.i686) Requires: libgnubatch_client.so.1.debug You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem Error: Package: gnubatch-1.10-2.fc21.i686 (/gnubatch-1.10-2.fc21.i686) Requires: libgnubatch_curs.so.debug Error: Package: gnubatch-1.10-2.fc21.i686 (/gnubatch-1.10-2.fc21.i686) Requires: libgnubatch_client.so.debug Error: Package: gnubatch-1.10-2.fc21.i686 (/gnubatch-1.10-2.fc21.i686) Requires: libgnubatch_int.so.debug You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest 5. rm -rf %{buildroot} 6. Executables should be set 755, others are 644, special files are custom. Therefore no 554/664/666 please. In order to not do this, please use install -pm$(PERMISSION) to install the relevant files to the correct dir in %install instead of cp. 7. /usr/share --> %{_datadir} 8. No need to %attr(664,root,root) in %config(noreplace) %attr(664,root,root) /etc/sysconfig/gnubatch.conf Remove that. 9. Scriptlet invalid, please don't use them. 10. Check and add missing syntax of systemd: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Systemd 11. Source0: http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/gnubatch/gnubatch-1.10.tar.gz Please use a macro at least for easier life: Source0: http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/gnubatch/gnubatch-%{version}.tar.gz 12. Do we really need to gzip the systemd files? Why not provide them directly as SOURCE1, SOURCE2? 13. %{buildroot}/%{_unitdir} No slash after buildroot macro. 14. /etc --> %{_sysconfdir} 15. Why not use standard %make_install? If you find problem, patch them. 16. cp -p LICENSE %{buildroot}%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}/ cp -p README %{buildroot}%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}/ Dont do that! Use %doc macro in %files! 17. Please remove %clean section forever. 18. Leave a blank line between each changelog entry. 19. Please put %post and such sections before %files. 20. Drop %defattr(-,root,root,-) Hint, by using rpm -E $(MACROS), you can get the details of them.
Hi, Thanks for the feedback. I've applied most of those changed now. The only one I haven't applied (afaik) is the use of %make_install as the multiple Makefiles make use of 2 perl scripts that verify that the user gnubatch exists and that the additional services are applied to /etc/services. To patch this out looks like it would be quite a brittle patch and doesn't gain much that I can see. All changes and source rpms are in github, and the new tag is 1.10-3. As before the source rpm in also in SpiderOak just in case. Hopefully this is a cleaner spec this time :) Thanks again, Jon
Please keep the "SRPM URL:" and "Spec URL:" lines in this ticket up-to-date, so the fedora-review tool may be pointed at this ticket. The links to the src.rpm give 404 Not Found. The results from "fedora-review -b 1084813" would be interesting. You've missed a few issues from the earlier comment(s). So, some of these may be redundant: > Summary: Gnubatch provides enhanced job control In many many cases it is just bad form to repeat the program name in the %summary, especially when the package name is the same. Better and more concise would be to immediately start summing up what the package provides. For example: Summary: Enhanced job control system Summary: Comprehensive batch scheduling system The latter is from the first sentence of the %description. I'm not a fan of the "Enhanced" in the summary when the description doesn't expand on _what_ has been enhanced, and how. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Examples_of_good_package_summaries > #%setup -a 1 Be very careful with commenting out macros like that. Some macros are expanded and evaluated even then and may cause side-effects. Better replace the '%' with a '#' or '%%'. > %configure --sysconfdir=/etc/gnubatch --sharedstatedir=/var --localstatedir=/var --exec-prefix=/usr --prefix=/usr Why do you redefine several of the options? See output of "rpm -E %configure". > install -m 755 Prefer adding option "-p" to preserve timestamps when installing prebuilt files. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps > %post > > echo "checking /etc/services setup for gnubatch" Scriptlets must not print anything deliberately. There's not even any guarantee that package install tools would show the output to the user. Only the scriptlet exit return code matters. > %attr(755,root,root) %{_bindir}/* > %attr(755,root,root) %{_libdir}/* > %attr(644,root,root) %{_unitdir}/* > %attr(755,root,root) /var/gnubatch Consider adjusting the file permissions in the buildroot with chmod (or via the supplied Makefiles, which you avoid because they seem unsuitable for installing into an empty buildroot). Overuse of %attr leads to problems occasionally and also raises the question whether/why you need to override default permissions. Prefer using %attr only for very special permissions you want to stick out in the spec file, e.g. setuid, setgid. The default for dirs is 0755,root,root and for files 0644,root,root already. > %attr(644,root,root) /usr/share/%{name}/help/* Either use %{_datadir} for /usr/share in all places, or hardcode /usr/share everywhere. Don't mix both forms: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Macros > %attr(644,root,root) /usr/share/%{name}/help/* Directory /usr/share/gnubatch is not included. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories
Below added for fedora-review SRPM : https://spideroak.com/share/MZSWI33SMEWXG4TDOJYG24Y/fedora-gnubatch-110/home/jon/src-rpms/gnubatch-1.10-3.fc20.src.rpm
Below added for fedora-review Spec URL: https://spideroak.com/share/MZSWI33SMEWXG4TDOJYG24Y/fedora-gnubatch-110/home/jon/src-rpms/gnubatch.spec
Below added for fedora-review SRPM : https://spideroak.com/share/MZSWI33SMEWXG4TDOJYG24Y/fedora-gnubatch-110/home/jon/src-rpms/gnubatch-1.10-4.fc20.src.rpm
Hi, Again, thanks for the quick feedback. As you've probably gathered from the previous 3 entries here I've been checking this against fedora-review (must admit I'd forgotten about that tool). I've done as you've suggested, does look cleaner and I think the summary is more descriptive now. Not idea why I added those flags to configure, just paranoid I think. I also updated the description to put more detail around what gnubatch does, which I think is better than before. The only bit I wasn't sure what you meant was the "Directory /usr/share/gnubatch is not included." comment. If this refers to the perms, then I'm happy with them as they now are. If not can you please let me know. The only error I'm seeing from Fedora Reviewer is : /sbin/ldconfig: /lib64/libgnubatch_curs.so.1 is not a symbolic link /sbin/ldconfig: /lib64/libgnubatch_client.so.1 is not a symbolic link /sbin/ldconfig: /lib64/libgnubatch_int.so.1 is not a symbolic link /sbin/ldconfig: /lib64/libgnubatch_curs.so.1 is not a symbolic link /sbin/ldconfig: /lib64/libgnubatch_client.so.1 is not a symbolic link /sbin/ldconfig: /lib64/libgnubatch_int.so.1 is not a symbolic link These really should be sym links but I can see a preserve flag to install (aside from selinux context). Am I missing something here, or is this expected and OK? Spec file and src rpms updated. I had to relocate the spec file to my SpiderOak share as 'fedora reviewer' had problems downloading from github. Thanks, Jon
fedora-review reports a couple of errors and warnings about gnubatch-1.10-4.fc20.src.rpm. Also notice the long list of W/E from rpmlint, which are included in the fedora-review report, too. > License: GPLv3 The fedora-review license check does not agree. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#.22or_later_version.22_licenses > The only bit I wasn't sure what you meant was the > "Directory /usr/share/gnubatch is not included." comment. The two links I added explain it well. Your spec file %files section does not include the directories /usr/share/gnubatch /usr/share/gnubatch/help but only the contents of /usr/share/gnubatch/help: $ rpmls -p gnubatch-1.10-4.fc20.x86_64.rpm |grep ^d drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/doc/gnubatch drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/man/man1 drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/man/man3 drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/man/man5 drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/man/man8 drwxr-xr-x /var/gnubatch * The build.log reveals that Fedora's global compiler flags are not used: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags * A simple "rpmbuild --rebuild …" on Fedora 20 ends with a built failure, which could mean that possibly something is installed that's not installed the cleaner Mock buildroot: ! LaTeX Error: File `xifthen.sty' not found. Type X to quit or <RETURN> to proceed, or enter new name. (Default extension: sty) Enter file name: > /sbin/ldconfig: /lib64/libgnubatch_int.so.1 is not a symbolic link > > These really should be sym links but I can see a preserve flag to > install (aside from selinux context). Am I missing something here, > or is this expected and OK? There are multiple packaging bugs related to it: $ rpmls -p gnubatch-1.10-4.fc20.x86_64.rpm |grep lib64 -rwxr-xr-x /usr/lib64/libgnubatch_client.a -rwxr-xr-x /usr/lib64/libgnubatch_client.la -rwxr-xr-x /usr/lib64/libgnubatch_client.lai -rwxr-xr-x /usr/lib64/libgnubatch_client.so -rwxr-xr-x /usr/lib64/libgnubatch_client.so.1 -rwxr-xr-x /usr/lib64/libgnubatch_client.so.1.0.0 -rwxr-xr-x /usr/lib64/libgnubatch_curs.a -rwxr-xr-x /usr/lib64/libgnubatch_curs.la -rwxr-xr-x /usr/lib64/libgnubatch_curs.lai -rwxr-xr-x /usr/lib64/libgnubatch_curs.so -rwxr-xr-x /usr/lib64/libgnubatch_curs.so.1 -rwxr-xr-x /usr/lib64/libgnubatch_curs.so.1.0.0 -rwxr-xr-x /usr/lib64/libgnubatch_int.a -rwxr-xr-x /usr/lib64/libgnubatch_int.la -rwxr-xr-x /usr/lib64/libgnubatch_int.lai -rwxr-xr-x /usr/lib64/libgnubatch_int.so -rwxr-xr-x /usr/lib64/libgnubatch_int.so.1 -rwxr-xr-x /usr/lib64/libgnubatch_int.so.1.0.0 About the .a files (static libs) and the .la files (libtool archives): https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries About the .so files, they should be a chain of symlinks: .so -> .so.1 -> .so.1.0.0 The executable is linked with the versioned libs: $ rpm -qpR gnubatch-1.10-4.fc20.x86_64.rpm |grep gnubat config(gnubatch) = 1.10-4.fc20 libgnubatch_client.so.1()(64bit) libgnubatch_curs.so.1()(64bit) libgnubatch_int.so.1()(64bit) That means the ldconfig scriptlets are missing: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Shared_Libraries The non-versioned .so files/symlinks need not be included in the package. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Devel_Packages > install -pm 644 doc/poddoc/man/*.3 %{buildroot}/%{_mandir}/man3/ Those are about an API. Hence its manual section 3. But where is the API? No headers in the package. Did you forget to install headers into the buildroot? If so, you will also need to create a -devel subpackage.
Oh, and while I visit the bugzilla comment I submitted, I notice the package includes directory it must not include directories included in -filesystem packages, such as these which are provided by the "filesystem" package: drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/man/man1 drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/man/man3 drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/man/man5 drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/man/man8 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
Hi, OK, I feel like I'm going round in circles here. When I use make %{?_smp_mflags} CFLAGS="%{optflags}" BINDIR=%{_bindir} The make completely fails, basically complaining about not being about to find header files, but I cannot figure out why. Initially I thought the include statements where not correct and patch quite a few sources to point to the correct location and indeed this worked, initially. But there is also dynamically generated code which also needs this and it confuses me that make works fine with no complaints about missing header files. Not being a dev I'm at a stage where I'm stuck for ideas on how to proceed here. I've got a feeling that I'm missing something obvious, but can't see it for the fog. Cheers, Jon
> Initially I thought the include statements where not correct That sounds correct. Indeed, it's overriding a CFLAGS definition (and any -I… options in there) instead of _adding_ to existing CFLAGS (as defined in either Makefiles or the configure script): | gcc -O -g -Wall -fno-stack-protector -I.. -I../src/hdrs -c | -o helpparse.o helpparse.c Compare with the build using modified CFLAGS: | gcc -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions | -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches | -m64 -mtune=generic -c -o helpparse.o helpparse.c Here's how it sets the variables: $ grep CFLAGS util/Makefile.in CCFLAGS = -O @gcc_useful_options@ @funny_compiler_options@ CFLAGS = $(CCFLAGS) -I$(BASE) -I$(HDRS) -$(CC) -c -o $@ $(CFLAGS) $(GTKINCL) xhostedit.c Multiple options: * Contact upstream and request a Makefile variable that could be used to append to CFLAGS at either configure-time or make-time. * Patch every file to achieve the same using either += or a new variable. That could get tedious. * An old-school hack to change and reapply configure script settings. I've noticed the script substitutes the @gcc_useful_options@ variable, so currently that one can be changed to add something: %configure sed -i 's!\(.*gcc_useful_options.*\)"$!\1 \${RPM_OPT_FLAGS}"!' config.status ; ./config.status make RPM_OPT_FLAGS="%{optflags}" Usually it's a good idea to add a grep-based guard before or after the sed substitution. As I'm not familiar with past gnubatch releases it could be that this hack will not work anymore for future releases.
Hi, Many thanks for the feedback. The sed hack, to me, seems the neatest of your suggestions so I've added this and test it. It all works now!!!! I've run a rpmbuild --rebuild as well. The only error I see is it warning: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/gnubatch/help warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/gnubatch/help/btint-config warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/gnubatch/help/btq.help warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/gnubatch/help/btrest.help warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/gnubatch/help/btuser.help warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/gnubatch/help/filemon.help warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/gnubatch/help/xmbtq.help warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/gnubatch/help/xmbtr.help warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/gnubatch/help/xmbtuser.help which I assume is because of this in the spec file: %dir %{_datadir}/%{name}/help %{_datadir}/%{name}/help/ Is the %dir required here? I've updated the src rpm and spec file: SRPMS : https://spideroak.com/share/MZSWI33SMEWXG4TDOJYG24Y/fedora-gnubatch-110/home/jon/src-rpms/gnubatch-1.10-5.fc20.src.rpm Spec URL: https://spideroak.com/share/MZSWI33SMEWXG4TDOJYG24Y/fedora-gnubatch-110/home/jon/src-rpms/gnubatch.spec Many thanks, Jon
> %dir %{_datadir}/%{name}/help > %{_datadir}/%{name}/help/ > > Is the %dir required here? It isn't. The second line includes the directory *and* everything in it. The %dir line includes only an entry for the directory, not for any of its contents. The real mistake, however, is two lines before that: %dir %{_datadir}/%{name} %{_datadir}/%{name}/* %dir %{_datadir}/%{name}/help %{_datadir}/%{name}/help/* The wildcard line %{_datadir}/%{name}/* also matches %{_datadir}/%{name}/help which includes that directory and its files the first time. You could replace the four lines with just %{_datadir}/%{name}/ or %{_datadir}/%{name} to include that dir and anything below it. The trailing slash is just for readability (to be explicit that the file entry is about a directory tree and not a single data file or such). https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership -> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories
Hi, OK, I've removed the offending line and rpmbuild --rebuild is certainly not longer complaining. As usual I've updated the src rpm and spec file: SRPMS : https://spideroak.com/share/MZSWI33SMEWXG4TDOJYG24Y/fedora-gnubatch-110/home/jon/src-rpms/gnubatch-1.10-6.fc20.src.rpm Spec URL: https://spideroak.com/share/MZSWI33SMEWXG4TDOJYG24Y/fedora-gnubatch-110/home/jon/src-rpms/gnubatch.spec Could this be close to the end ;) Thanks for the feedback, Jon
Hi, Just a bump to get the status of this package. Thanks, Jon
1. /etc --> %{_sysconfdir} 2. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Systemd 3. BuildRequires: flex flex-devel, redundant "flex" if you BR flex-devel. 4. %description too long 5. /var --> %{_localstatedir}
Hi, OK, believe I've resolved those point now SRPMS : https://spideroak.com/share/MZSWI33SMEWXG4TDOJYG24Y/fedora-gnubatch-110/home/jon/src-rpms/gnubatch-1.10-7.fc20.src.rpm Spec URL: https://spideroak.com/share/MZSWI33SMEWXG4TDOJYG24Y/fedora-gnubatch-110/home/jon/src-rpms/gnubatch.spec Spec URL: https://spideroak.com/share/MZSWI33SMEWXG4TDOJYG24Y/fedora-gnubatch-110/home/jon/src-rpms/gnubatch.service Regards, Jon
Hi, Just a bump to see how you think things are looking here. Thanks, Jon
Hi, Just another bump. Any news? Thanks, Jon
I'm not an idiot but your package failed to build again: + make 'RPM_OPT_FLAGS=-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -m32 -march=i686 -mtune=atom -fasynchronous-unwind-tables' cd util;make all make[1]: Entering directory '/builddir/build/BUILD/gnubatch-1.10/util' gcc -O -g -Wall -fno-stack-protector -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -m32 -march=i686 -mtune=atom -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -I.. -I../src/hdrs -c -o helpparse.o helpparse.c bison -y -d msgparse.y mv -f y.tab.c msgparse.c gcc -O -g -Wall -fno-stack-protector -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -m32 -march=i686 -mtune=atom -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -I.. -I../src/hdrs -c -o msgparse.o msgparse.c : -t msglex.l > msglex.c gcc -O -g -Wall -fno-stack-protector -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -m32 -march=i686 -mtune=atom -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -I.. -I../src/hdrs -c -o msglex.o msglex.c gcc -O -g -Wall -fno-stack-protector -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -m32 -march=i686 -mtune=atom -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -I.. -I../src/hdrs -c -o alloc.o alloc.c gcc -o helpparse helpparse.o msgparse.o msglex.o alloc.o helpparse.o: In function `fprintf': /usr/include/bits/stdio2.h:97: undefined reference to `line_count' helpparse.o: In function `main': /builddir/build/BUILD/gnubatch-1.10/util/helpparse.c:710: undefined reference to `line_count' /builddir/build/BUILD/gnubatch-1.10/util/helpparse.c:711: undefined reference to `resetlex' msgparse.o: In function `fprintf': /usr/include/bits/stdio2.h:97: undefined reference to `line_count' msgparse.o: In function `yyparse': /builddir/build/BUILD/gnubatch-1.10/util/y.tab.c:1274: undefined reference to `yylex' msgparse.o: In function `fprintf': /usr/include/bits/stdio2.h:97: undefined reference to `line_count' msgparse.o: In function `yyparse': /builddir/build/BUILD/gnubatch-1.10/util/msgparse.y:208: undefined reference to `line_count' /builddir/build/BUILD/gnubatch-1.10/util/msgparse.y:209: undefined reference to `yylex' /builddir/build/BUILD/gnubatch-1.10/util/msgparse.y:210: undefined reference to `line_count' alloc.o: In function `fprintf': /usr/include/bits/stdio2.h:97: undefined reference to `line_count' /usr/include/bits/stdio2.h:97: undefined reference to `line_count' collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status Makefile:50: recipe for target 'helpparse' failed make[1]: *** [helpparse] Error 1 rm msglex.c msgparse.c make[1]: Leaving directory '/builddir/build/BUILD/gnubatch-1.10/util' Makefile:61: recipe for target 'utild' failed make: *** [utild] Error 2 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.oxj6zH (%build) Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.oxj6zH (%build) RPM build errors: Child return code was: 1 EXCEPTION: Command failed. See logs for output. # ['bash', '--login', '-c', 'rpmbuild -bb --target i686 --nodeps builddir/build/SPECS/gnubatch.spec'] Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/mockbuild/trace_decorator.py", line 70, in trace result = func(*args, **kw) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/mockbuild/util.py", line 376, in do raise mockbuild.exception.Error, ("Command failed. See logs for output.\n # %s" % (command,), child.returncode) Error: Command failed. See logs for output. # ['bash', '--login', '-c', 'rpmbuild -bb --target i686 --nodeps builddir/build/SPECS/gnubatch.spec'] LEAVE do --> EXCEPTION RAISED Also, for linking the ldflags are not set yet.
Hi, Thanks for the feedback. Yup, you are right that doesn't build under mock (didn't think about checking that), though build OK directly on my PC so obviously missing something here. I'll dig into it a bit more. Thanks, Jon
Hi, I'm going to have to close this for the moment as I'm not getting the time to resolve the outstanding issues with it. If time frees itself up I might revisit. Thanks for your help, Regards, Jon