Bug 395551 - evolution-data-server.spec uses a patch provided by evolution's SRPM
evolution-data-server.spec uses a patch provided by evolution's SRPM
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: evolution-data-server (Show other bugs)
8
All Linux
low Severity low
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Matthew Barnes
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2007-11-22 06:19 EST by Paul Bolle
Modified: 2008-01-17 12:31 EST (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2008-01-17 12:31:54 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)

  None (edit)
Description Paul Bolle 2007-11-22 06:19:21 EST
Description of problem:
The evolution-data-server specfile has a Patch entry for a patch included in
evolution's SRPM.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
evolution-data-server-1.12.1-2.fc8

How reproducible:
Always.

Steps to Reproduce:
1. rpmbuild evolution-data-server.spec 
2.
3.
  
Actual results:
error: File [...]/SOURCES/evolution-1.4.4-ldap-x86_64-hack.patch: No such file
or directory

Expected results:
No error.

Additional info:
My guess is this (seemingly trivial) patch needs to be included in
evolution-data-server's SRPM too (using a different name, to avoid clashes with
the same patch for evolution).
Comment 1 Matthew Barnes 2007-11-22 09:34:16 EST
Actually the same patch _is_ included in both the Evolution and E-D-S SRPMs.  It
dates back to a time before E-D-S existed, then presumably was copied to the
E-D-S package when it was created.

The patches are identical down to the line number.  I can rename the E-D-S patch
if necessary, although I think our own build system would have caught this if it
were really a problem.

I think the patch may have somehow been deleted from your SOURCES directory. 
Can you please retest?
Comment 2 Matěj Cepl 2008-01-17 09:27:12 EST
Reporter, could you please reply to the previous question? If you won't reply in
one month, I will have to close this bug as INSUFFICIENT_DATA. Thank you.
Comment 3 Paul Bolle 2008-01-17 10:38:00 EST
Comment #1 is correct:
    $ rpm -qpl evolution-data-server-1.12.1-2.fc8.src.rpm | grep hack
    evolution-1.4.4-ldap-x86_64-hack.patch

    $ diff -us <(rpm2cpio evolution-2.12.1-3.fc8.src.rpm | cpio -i --quiet
--to-stdout evolution-1.4.4-ldap-x86_64-hack.patch) \
    <(rpm2cpio evolution-data-server-1.12.1-2.fc8.src.rpm | cpio -i --quiet
--to-stdout evolution-1.4.4-ldap-x86_64-hack.patch)
    Files /dev/fd/63 and /dev/fd/62 are identical

I've probably first installed evolution-2.12.1-3.fc8.src.rpm, installed
evolution-data-server-1.12.1-2.fc8.src.rpm after that end than did "rpmbuild
--rmsource" on evolution's specfile. 

You might indeed rename the E-D-S patch. However, that seems only useful for
people that use one SOURCES directory for multiple packages. That is what I do,
because until now I never ran into name clashes with the odd packages I've
(re)built.
Comment 4 Matthew Barnes 2008-01-17 10:52:59 EST
The patches are bound to diverge sooner or later so I'll rename the e-d-s patch.
Comment 5 Matthew Barnes 2008-01-17 12:31:54 EST
Renamed the ldap-x86_64-hack patch in evolution-data-server-2.21.5-3.fc9.

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