Bug 463062 - build fails after undocumented incompatible changes to RPM
build fails after undocumented incompatible changes to RPM
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: lvm2 (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Alasdair Kergon
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
: Patch, Reopened
Depends On:
Blocks: F10FTBFS
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2008-09-21 05:38 EDT by Ville Skyttä
Modified: 2008-10-07 16:20 EDT (History)
6 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2008-10-07 16:20:49 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:


Attachments (Terms of Use)
Fix Patch0:/%patch mismatch (962 bytes, patch)
2008-09-21 05:38 EDT, Ville Skyttä
no flags Details | Diff

  None (edit)
Description Ville Skyttä 2008-09-21 05:38:05 EDT
Created attachment 317312 [details]
Fix Patch0:/%patch mismatch

This package was identified as one that was bit by a bug in Rawhide rpm:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-September/msg00375.html

The rpm bug has been fixed, so currently this is "only" a FTBFS bug for this package - no builds with the broken rpm have apparently been done or tagged for F-10.

Fix attached, I was not able to commit it myself due to CVS ACL restrictions.
Comment 1 Alasdair Kergon 2008-09-21 11:26:40 EDT
(I'll commit, with a comment explaining it's due to a change in the spec file definition.)
Comment 2 Alasdair Kergon 2008-09-23 18:52:57 EDT
Applied - although it's trivial, rebuild submitted as there's a reasonable chance we won't be building again before the next freeze.  (2.02.40 needs to see more testing before I'll know if it's good enough for Fedora at this stage of the release cycle.)
Comment 3 Alasdair Kergon 2008-09-23 20:59:24 EDT
Well the rebuild fails - it looks like someone changed something to do with exec_prefix too so various files are getting placed in the wrong directories - we even have something looking in /usr/usr now!

...moans about the lack of any follow-up announcement to fedora-devel-announce about stuff like this...
Comment 4 Alasdair Kergon 2008-10-07 16:20:49 EDT
They seem to have changed the way exec_prefix is expanded: our spec file changes this but the new rpm code must expand other macros that use exec_prefix too soon - so our revised value is not taken into account and the default gets used.

After much experimentation, I have applied a workaround, which involves overriding the values of the other macros too and the build has now succeeded.

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