Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 145009
RPM spec file is missing a number of BuildRequires lines
Last modified: 2015-01-07 19:09:19 EST
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
Description of problem:
I have a minimal RHEL 3 AS, Update 4 installation, and when attempting to run 'rpmbuild --rebuild' on the am-utils source RPM, it will begin the build process, but fail part way through due to missing tools & libraries. It would appear to need the following additional BuildRequires entries in the specfile:
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Install a minimal RHEL 3 AS disto, without automake, libtool, bison or flex
2. Run 'rpmbuild --rebuild' on the am-utils source RPM
Actual Results: The compilation fails part way through
Expected Results: rpmbuild exits detailing the missing build requirements.
Are u sure about bison? I had no problem rebuild am-utils without
Just double checked & yes it does fail for me. Looking more closely at the build
scripts, it appears that am-utils is capable of using either byacc or bison - so
I imagine you have the byacc package installed on your build machine. If I erase
both bison & byacc packages the build fails with
mv lex.yy.c conf_tok.c
yacc -d conf_parse.y
make: yacc: Command not found
make: *** [conf_parse.h] Error 127
make: Leaving directory `/home/berrange/rpm/BUILD/am-utils-6.0.9/amd'
make: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make: Leaving directory `/home/berrange/rpm/BUILD/am-utils-6.0.9'
make: *** [all] Error 2
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.92333 (%build)
So, guess need to figure out whether byacc or bison is the definitive tool for
building am-utils in RHEL & add the BuildRequires to match that choice.
The component this request has been filed against is not planned for inclusion
in the next update. The decision is based on weighting the priority and number
of requests for a component as well as the impact on the Red Hat Enterprise
Linux user-base: other components are considered having higher priority and the
number of changes we intend to include in update cycles is limited.
Product Management has reviewed and declined this request. You may appeal this
decision by reopening this request.