Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 207751
rpmbuild -ta broken by incompatible change in tar 1.15.91
Last modified: 2007-11-30 17:07:27 EST
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #207689 +++
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #206841 +++
Description of problem:
The -t option of rpmbuild (e.g. rpmbuild -ta mytarball.tar.bz2) doesn't work
anymore since the latest tar upgrade to FC5. The cause is an incompatible
change in tar's handling of wildcards passed on the command line. See:
You now have to pass the --wildcards parameter when looking for '*.spec'.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Create a tarball with a specfile in it.
2. rpmbuild -ta mytarball.tar.bz2
Spurious errors due to the specfile not being found, i.e.:
error: Name field must be present in package: (main package)
error: Version field must be present in package: (main package)
error: Release field must be present in package: (main package)
error: Summary field must be present in package: (main package)
error: Group field must be present in package: (main package)
error: License field must be present in package: (main package)
The package builds.
TAR_OPTIONS=--wildcards rpmbuild -ta mytarball.tar.bz2
-- Additional comment from email@example.com on 2006-09-17 02:38 EST --
Adding tar maintainer to CC.
-- Additional comment from firstname.lastname@example.org on 2006-09-20 03:27 EST --
*** Bug 207239 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
-- Additional comment from email@example.com on 2006-09-20 20:10 EST --
Me too on Rawhide: I end up with an empty file in rpmbuild/SPECS called:
"tar: Pattern matching characters used in file names. Please," which it tries to
interpret as the specfile, leading to the failure messages above.
Appears to prevent all of the -t options of rpmbuild from working in Rawhide
(ouch); this feels like a blocker to me.
-- Additional comment from firstname.lastname@example.org on 2006-09-20 20:14 EST --
Sorry, versions in rawhide exhibiting the bug are:
-- Additional comment from email@example.com on 2006-09-21 12:52 EST --
I've written a reproducer for this here:
fails on one machine with:
passes on another machine with:
-- Additional comment from firstname.lastname@example.org on 2006-09-22 12:57 EST --
This problem depends on bz #206979. It's still not clear whether we use
tar-1.15.91 or tar-1.15.1 in RHEL-5.
Apparently also seen on RHEL4
RHEL 4 has tar 1.14 so not affected AFAICT.