Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Terminal output: Running post-uninstall scriptlet: libgcc-0:14.1.1-4.fc41.x86_64warning: posix.fork(): .fork(), .exec(), .wait() and .redirect2null() are deprecated, use rpm.execute() instead warning: posix.wait(): .fork(), .exec(), .wait() and .redirect2null() are deprecated, use rpm.execute() instead Reproducible: Always
*** Bug 2337295 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 2338127 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 2343197 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
(In reply to Mark E. Fuller from comment #0) > warning: posix.wait(): .fork(), .exec(), .wait() and .redirect2null() are > deprecated, use rpm.execute() instead This RPM warning would be A LOT more helpful if it linked to: https://rpm-software-management.github.io/rpm/manual/lua.html#executepath--arg1- Trying to find that with a web search is hard. I think we want this fix: --- a/gcc.spec +++ b/gcc.spec @@ -2429,22 +2429,12 @@ fi # libgcc is installed %post -n libgcc -p <lua> if posix.access ("/sbin/ldconfig", "x") then - local pid = posix.fork () - if pid == 0 then - posix.exec ("/sbin/ldconfig") - elseif pid ~= -1 then - posix.wait (pid) - end + rpm.execute('/sbin/ldconfig') end %postun -n libgcc -p <lua> if posix.access ("/sbin/ldconfig", "x") then - local pid = posix.fork () - if pid == 0 then - posix.exec ("/sbin/ldconfig") - elseif pid ~= -1 then - posix.wait (pid) - end + rpm.execute('/sbin/ldconfig') end %ldconfig_scriptlets -n libstdc++
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4) > --- a/gcc.spec > +++ b/gcc.spec > @@ -2429,22 +2429,12 @@ fi > # libgcc is installed > %post -n libgcc -p <lua> > if posix.access ("/sbin/ldconfig", "x") then > - local pid = posix.fork () > - if pid == 0 then > - posix.exec ("/sbin/ldconfig") > - elseif pid ~= -1 then > - posix.wait (pid) > - end > + rpm.execute('/sbin/ldconfig') > end You should check if you still need to run /sbin/ldconfig. Fedora default is to ship the symbolic links pre-installed. If you need to keep this, you need to check if rpm.execute ~= nil and use the old code otherwise, to support in-place upgrades from older Fedora release/RHEL 10.
rpm.execute is in rpm >= 4.15 which mean fedora 31 had it. I don't think we support in-place upgrades from F31 to F41. RHEL 9 has rpm 4.16 so this would only be a problem for in-place upgrade from RHEL 8 to some future version of RHEL that would rebase on the Fedora spec.
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6) > rpm.execute is in rpm >= 4.15 which mean fedora 31 had it. I don't think we > support in-place upgrades from F31 to F41. RHEL 9 has rpm 4.16 so this would > only be a problem for in-place upgrade from RHEL 8 to some future version of > RHEL that would rebase on the Fedora spec. For Fedora using DNF (not RPM), Fedora supports a stride up to two. The most someone should perform is F31 -> F33. Also see <https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/upgrading-fedora-offline/>. I don't think I've seen Fedora documentation on using RPM to perform a system upgrade. Or I don't recall reading it.
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6) > rpm.execute is in rpm >= 4.15 which mean fedora 31 had it. I don't think we > support in-place upgrades from F31 to F41. RHEL 9 has rpm 4.16 so this would > only be a problem for in-place upgrade from RHEL 8 to some future version of > RHEL that would rebase on the Fedora spec. Ahh, I didn't realize that rpm.execute is not recent. With glibc, we also prefer the output redirection feature, and that is definitely quite recent.
Yes rpm.spawn needs rpm >= 4.20
So perhaps --- gcc.spec 2025-01-30 18:47:39.793081153 +0100 +++ gcc.spec 2025-01-31 17:55:39.378072567 +0100 @@ -2424,28 +2424,20 @@ if [ $1 = 0 ]; then %{_sbindir}/update-alternatives --remove go %{_prefix}/bin/go.gcc fi +%{?ldconfig: # Because glibc Prereq's libgcc and /sbin/ldconfig # comes from glibc, it might not exist yet when # libgcc is installed %post -n libgcc -p <lua> -if posix.access ("/sbin/ldconfig", "x") then - local pid = posix.fork () - if pid == 0 then - posix.exec ("/sbin/ldconfig") - elseif pid ~= -1 then - posix.wait (pid) - end +if posix.access ("%ldconfig", "x") then + rpm.execute ("%ldconfig") end %postun -n libgcc -p <lua> -if posix.access ("/sbin/ldconfig", "x") then - local pid = posix.fork () - if pid == 0 then - posix.exec ("/sbin/ldconfig") - elseif pid ~= -1 then - posix.wait (pid) - end +if posix.access ("%ldconfig", "x") then + rpm.execute ("%ldconfig") end +} %ldconfig_scriptlets -n libstdc++ then to make it compatible with %ldconfig_scriptlets in /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.ldconfig ?
*** Bug 2344146 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora Linux 42 development cycle. Changing version to 42.
also in f41
*** Bug 2391722 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
This message is a reminder that Fedora Linux 42 is nearing its end of life. Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora Linux 42 on 2026-05-13. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a 'version' of '42'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, change the 'version' to a later Fedora Linux version. Note that the version field may be hidden. Click the "Show advanced fields" button if you do not see it. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora Linux 42 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora Linux, you are encouraged to change the 'version' to a later version prior to this bug being closed.
Fedora Linux 42 entered end-of-life (EOL) status on 2026-05-27. Fedora Linux 42 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora Linux please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. Note that the version field may be hidden. Click the "Show advanced fields" button if you do not see the version field. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against an active release. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.