Hide Forgot
In trying to build gtk+extra from: http://magnet.fsu.edu/~feiguin/gtk/src/gtk+extra-0.99.5.tar.gz rpm generates a '\r \n' at the end of the temporary shell script produced to do the build. I ran: rpm -tb gtk+extra-0.99.5.tar.gz The last part of the shell script ( /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.16823 ) looks like cd gtk+extra-0.99.5 [ `/usr/bin/id -u` = '0' ] && /bin/chown -Rhf root . [ `/usr/bin/id -u` = '0' ] && /bin/chgrp -Rhf root . /bin/chmod -Rf a+rX,g-w,o-w . ^M exit 0 Dumping it with od -c: 0001440 h f r o o t . \n / b i n / c 0001460 h m o d - R f a + r X , g - 0001500 w , o - w . \n \r \n \n e x i t 0001520 0 Notice the \n \r (CR LF). When rpm runs "sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.16823", the CR LF is treated as a "command" by the shell, which of course it can't find: ++ /usr/bin/id -u + [ 0 = 0 ] + /bin/chgrp -Rhf root . + /bin/chmod -Rf a+rX,g-w,o-w . + : command not found823: As an asside, I tried to debug build a a debuging version of rpm and figure out what is going wrong. When I ran "make check" many of the tests failed. I am running a stock 6.2J system. Thanks, Andy
This is almost certainly a configuration problem rather than an rpm problem. RPM has never used (and probably never will) or needed CR. Check your macro configuration files (and the spec file itself) for lurking carriage returns. Simply building rpm will give you a "-g" unstripped binary for debugging. Get the binary from the build, not from the output package, as the spec file strips the executables. The make check examines components of packages, and is "noisy" when comparing package specific information like build host, build time, inode numbers, modify times, etc.
Duh. Why I went to all the effort to check everything but the spec file is beyond me. od -c on it turned up \r on every line. Arrrg. I have vi`d it, but these did not show up. Oh well, a quick tr -d `\r` on the spec file fixed it. As for the make check. It definately does fail. The tests that fail are: FAIL: ba FAIL: ckL FAIL: ckC FAIL: i FAIL: e As it is 3:30am, I am problably doing something equally stupid, so I'll leave it at that. Thanks for the quick response. Andy