Bug 454083 - [RHEL5] gettext build should rm -f %{_datadir}/info/dir
[RHEL5] gettext build should rm -f %{_datadir}/info/dir
Status: CLOSED DEFERRED
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5
Classification: Red Hat
Component: gettext (Show other bugs)
5.2
All Linux
low Severity low
: rc
: ---
Assigned To: Jens Petersen
QE Internationalization Bugs
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2008-07-04 09:57 EDT by Vic
Modified: 2010-10-18 13:00 EDT (History)
0 users

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2009-03-04 20:51:48 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 Vic 2008-07-04 09:57:25 EDT
Description of problem:

Building SRPM bombs out with a "file not found" error.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
0.14.6

How reproducible:
Easily

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Log in as a *non-root* user
2. rpmbuild --rebuild the SRPM
3. Watch the error occur...
  
Actual results:
Build fails trying to rm /usr/share/info/dir

Expected results:
Should build me a shiny new RPM

Additional info:
/sbin/install-info is now set as a prerequisite, and there is an install_info
(note: underscore) define set to point to it - but the makefiles seem to use a
plain install-info command. If /sbin is not in path, this doesn't work.

The workaround for this is to append /sbin to your path when building (and then
it builds just fine) - but this is a bug really...
Comment 1 Jens Petersen 2008-07-07 01:01:31 EDT
This been fixed in Fedora for a while (just with "rm -f").

Comment 2 Jens Petersen 2009-03-04 20:51:48 EST
While it would be nice to fix, I don't see any plans for a gettext update for RHEL5 currently.

So deferring this for now, sorry.
Comment 3 Vic 2009-03-05 03:01:36 EST
I am incredulous.

Resolution of this bug won't change shipping binaries - it would just fix a *fault* in the build system.

It's a known fault that's already been fixed in Fedora.

It would take less time to fix it than to defer it.

Yet we're not getting a fix.

Tell me again why I should bother reporting bugs? If RH don't want to be informed of faults in their software, it's easier just to say so.
Comment 4 Jens Petersen 2009-03-05 21:47:14 EST
(In reply to comment #3)
> Resolution of this bug won't change shipping binaries - it would just fix a
> *fault* in the build system.

True

> It would take less time to fix it than to defer it.

That is not true: the new package would have to go through QA before it could be released.

> Yet we're not getting a fix.

This is a low priority bug which can be fixed if there is ever going to be a gettext errata for RHEL5.
Hence I have closed it "deferred" to take it off my radar for now.

> Tell me again why I should bother reporting bugs? If RH don't want to be
> informed of faults in their software, it's easier just to say so.  

I appreciate the report, but don't feel it is worth making all RHEL5 users update gettext just for this fix.
Comment 5 Jens Petersen 2009-03-06 00:40:06 EST
Or can you give a bit more context why you want to rebuild gettext without change?

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