* Thierry Vignaud ([email protected]) wrote: > > What's the link with "assume I'am installing a noarch rpm" and > "from spec file" ??? > > You asked urpmi to install missing BR from the spec, it tries > to do so, and one of the needed BR is provided by this perl-Forge > package of yours (so we can't check it) and it must do something > very weird (maybe silent error in %pre, I really can't tell w/o > looking at that package).
There is no buidrequires related to perl-Forge in this spec and there is
no error output (perl-Forge is the name of this package).
Urpmi wrongly assumed the spec file as binary package:
Example:
QUOTE:
%define name toto
%define version 1
%define release %mkrel 1
Summary: test
Name: %{name}
Version: %{version}
Release: %{release}
License: GPL
Group: test
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-buildroot
%description
test
%files
%defattr(-,root,root)
END QUOTE
$ urpmi toto.spec
error: toto-1-1.mga3.x86_64: install failed
Now if replace the name by prboom (installed):
A requested package cannot be installed:
prboom-1-1.mga3.x86_64 (in order to keep prboom-2.5.0-10.mga3.x86_64)
So clearly the specfile is treat as a binary rpm and the error reported
incorrectly.
Regards.
--
Olivier Thauvin
CNRS - LATMOS
♖ ♘ ♗ ♕ ♔ ♗ ♘ ♖
pgpsGNVJPeCFz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
