Description of problem: # dnf install binutils ... Installing: binutils Installing dependencies: binutils-gold elfutils-debuginfod-client # dnf remove binutils ... Removing: binutils Removing unused dependencies: binutils-gold elfutils-debuginfod-client ... Running transaction Preparing : 1/1 Running scriptlet: binutils-2.35.2-14.el9.x86_64 1/3 Erasing : binutils-2.35.2-14.el9.x86_64 1/3 warning: file /usr/bin/ld: remove failed: No such file or directory Running scriptlet: binutils-2.35.2-14.el9.x86_64 1/3 Erasing : binutils-gold-2.35.2-14.el9.x86_64 2/3 Erasing : elfutils-debuginfod-client-0.186-1.el9.x86_64 3/3 Running scriptlet: elfutils-debuginfod-client-0.186-1.el9.x86_64 3/3 Verifying : binutils-2.35.2-14.el9.x86_64 1/3 Verifying : binutils-gold-2.35.2-14.el9.x86_64 2/3 Verifying : elfutils-debuginfod-client-0.186-1.el9.x86_64 3/3 Installed products updated. I can't quite figure out where the warning: file /usr/bin/ld: remove failed: No such file or directory comes from - there is one "rm -f", but that is in the postinst scriptlet, the uninstall scripts don't have it. Maybe rpm(8) attempts to find a packaged file, $ rpm -ql -p binutils-2.35.2-14.el9.x86_64.rpm | grep /ld /usr/bin/ld ... and since alternatives(8) removed it, rpm throws a warning? If so, should /usr/bin/ld really be in %files ? Thanks! Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): binutils-2.35.2-14.el9
The binutils.spec files contains: # %%verify(symlink) does not work for some reason, so using "owner" instead. %verify(owner) %{_bindir}/%{?cross}ld In the %files section. This is presumably the cause. I will investigate changing this.
Fixed in binutils-2.35.2-16.el9
Verified with binutils-2.35.2-17.el9.
Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory (new packages: binutils), and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2022:3985