Bug 20499 – rpm ignore BuildPrereq: statement in the SPEC file

Bug 20499 - rpm ignore BuildPrereq: statement in the SPEC file

Summary:	rpm ignore BuildPrereq: statement in the SPEC file

Status:	CLOSED NOTABUG

Aliases:	None

Product:	Red Hat Linux
Classification:	Retired
Component:	rpm (Show other bugs)
Sub Component:
Version:	7.0
Hardware:	i386 Linux

Priority	medium Severity medium
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Assigned To:	Jeff Johnson
QA Contact:	David Lawrence
Docs Contact:

URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:

Depends On:
Blocks:
	Show dependency tree / graph

Reported:	2000-11-07 18:33 EST by Milan Kerslager
Modified:	2007-04-18 12:29 EDT (History)
CC List:	1 user (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points:	---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:	2000-11-08 08:33:10 EST
Type:	---
Regression:	---
Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---

Attachments	(Terms of Use)
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Groups: None (edit)

Description Milan Kerslager 2000-11-07 18:33:09 EST

RPM silently ignore the BuildPrereq statement in the SPEC file. I used rpm
-ba command.
The build process then fail by unresolved building dependencies.

Comment 1 Jeff Johnson 2000-11-08 08:13:28 EST

Add "--nodeps" to the build arguments if you wish to disable build dependency
checking.

Comment 2 Milan Kerslager 2000-11-08 08:33:07 EST

No, rpm *ignore* BuildPrereq: dependencies in SPEC file so when rebulding
packages the is no message about unresolved dependencies and compilation thus
fail (because there are no packages required by SPEC file in the system and rpm
did not inform about this unresolved dependencies). Simply BuildPrereq: do
nothing. I can write whatever here with no effect.

Comment 3 Jeff Johnson 2000-11-12 14:54:19 EST

Is your BuildPreReq: in the spec file preamble (i.e. near the top of the spec
file with other
tags?)

FWIW, I use BuildPreReq:'s routinely, and they "work for me" ...

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.