From Bugzilla Helper: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20041020 Epiphany/1.4.4 Description of problem: Building tetex-2.0.2-21.3 on a fully updated FC3 system fails with the message: + mkdir /var/tmp/tetex-root/usr/share/applications + desktop-file-install --vendor tetex --delete-original --dir /var/tmp/tetex-root/usr/share/applications --add-category X-Red-Hat-Extra --add-category Graphics --add-category Application xdvi.desktop /var/tmp/tetex-root/usr/share/applications/tetex-xdvi.desktop: warning: file contains key "MiniIcon", usage of this key is not recommended, since it has been deprecated + rm -f /var/tmp/tetex-root/var/lib/texmf/ls-R + head -n 1 /var/tmp/tetex-root/usr/share/texmf/ls-R head: cannot open `/var/tmp/tetex-root/usr/share/texmf/ls-R' for reading: No such file or directory error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.73780 (%install) Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): tetex-2.0.2-21.3 How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Execute "rpmbuild --rebuild tetex-2.0.2-21.3.src.rpm" Actual Results: Watch the above error message appear and "rpmbuild" abort the packaging of the binary packages. Additional info: The various tetex-2.0.2-21.3 binary packages should have built properly.
Identical output for the rebuild of "tetex-3.0-1".
The log context you presented here looks weird. Could you please send the whole compile log here as an attachment? I don't think it's a general problem since I build both the versions with no problems locally and also our build system and other users had no complains about it.
I have found the reason for the observed behaviour: I've got a local "texmf" tree, and via the "su" command the TEXMF shell variable got exported to the both local accounts (install/root) which I had used to try to rebuild the binary packages. After correction of this misleading setting, the packages do build as expected. Unless one does not consider rpmbuild taking into account a local TEXMF shell variable as undesirable, the issue can be qualified a "NOT A BUG".
Ok, thanks for the bugreport anyway. Jindrich