Re: rpm builds failing with "Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found"
Panu Matilainen wrote: >> But since being rebuilt yesterday with the new 4.9.1, some of those >> directories are now listed with the trailing slash: >> >> /etc/httpd/ >> /etc/httpd/conf.d/ >> /etc/httpd/conf.d/README >> /etc/httpd/conf.d/welcome.conf >> /etc/httpd/conf/ >> /etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf >> /etc/httpd/conf/magic >> /etc/httpd/logs >> >> Which has broken at least one package that requires /etc/httpd/conf.d >> >> Is listing the trailing slash intended behaviour and the dependent >> package(s) now needs fixing? > > Hmm, no that's not intended either. Appears to be one of those > releases... sigh. Please just untag rpm-4.9.1-2.fc16 too, I'll try to > have a look at it tomorrow. untagged. -- rex -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: rpm builds failing with "Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found"
On 07/21/2011 06:37 AM, Iain Arnell wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:
>> Panu Matilainen wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> FYI, there appears to be a bug in the just-released rpm-4.9.1 which
>>> causes legitimate specs to fail with "Installed (but unpackaged) file(s)
>>> found" errors. This happens when recursively included directories in
>>> %files are marked with trailing /, eg
>>>
>>> %{_includedir}/mypkg works everywhere, but %{_includedir}/mypkg/ is now
>>> failing in rawhide.
>>>
>>> This is NOT intentional, don't start changing your packages. Somebody
>>> please untag rpm-4.9.1 from rawhide, I'll deal with the issue later on.
>>
>> done,
>
> I see that we now have rpm-4.9.1-2.fc16, but it still doesn't seem
> quite right. Previously, httpd (for example) used to have files:
>
> /etc/httpd
> /etc/httpd/conf
> /etc/httpd/conf.d
> /etc/httpd/conf.d/README
> /etc/httpd/conf.d/welcome.conf
> /etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf
> /etc/httpd/conf/magic
> /etc/httpd/logs
> ...
>
> But since being rebuilt yesterday with the new 4.9.1, some of those
> directories are now listed with the trailing slash:
>
> /etc/httpd/
> /etc/httpd/conf.d/
> /etc/httpd/conf.d/README
> /etc/httpd/conf.d/welcome.conf
> /etc/httpd/conf/
> /etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf
> /etc/httpd/conf/magic
> /etc/httpd/logs
>
> Which has broken at least one package that requires /etc/httpd/conf.d
>
> Is listing the trailing slash intended behaviour and the dependent
> package(s) now needs fixing?
Hmm, no that's not intended either. Appears to be one of those
releases... sigh. Please just untag rpm-4.9.1-2.fc16 too, I'll try to
have a look at it tomorrow.
- Panu -
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: rpm builds failing with "Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found"
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Panu Matilainen wrote:
>
>>
>> FYI, there appears to be a bug in the just-released rpm-4.9.1 which
>> causes legitimate specs to fail with "Installed (but unpackaged) file(s)
>> found" errors. This happens when recursively included directories in
>> %files are marked with trailing /, eg
>>
>> %{_includedir}/mypkg works everywhere, but %{_includedir}/mypkg/ is now
>> failing in rawhide.
>>
>> This is NOT intentional, don't start changing your packages. Somebody
>> please untag rpm-4.9.1 from rawhide, I'll deal with the issue later on.
>
> done,
I see that we now have rpm-4.9.1-2.fc16, but it still doesn't seem
quite right. Previously, httpd (for example) used to have files:
/etc/httpd
/etc/httpd/conf
/etc/httpd/conf.d
/etc/httpd/conf.d/README
/etc/httpd/conf.d/welcome.conf
/etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf
/etc/httpd/conf/magic
/etc/httpd/logs
...
But since being rebuilt yesterday with the new 4.9.1, some of those
directories are now listed with the trailing slash:
/etc/httpd/
/etc/httpd/conf.d/
/etc/httpd/conf.d/README
/etc/httpd/conf.d/welcome.conf
/etc/httpd/conf/
/etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf
/etc/httpd/conf/magic
/etc/httpd/logs
Which has broken at least one package that requires /etc/httpd/conf.d
Is listing the trailing slash intended behaviour and the dependent
package(s) now needs fixing?
--
Iain.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: rpm builds failing with "Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found"
Jon Ciesla wrote:
> Rex Dieter wrote:
>
>> Panu Matilainen wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> FYI, there appears to be a bug in the just-released rpm-4.9.1 which
>>> causes legitimate specs to fail with "Installed (but unpackaged) file(s)
>>> found" errors. This happens when recursively included directories in
>>> %files are marked with trailing /, eg
>>>
>>> %{_includedir}/mypkg works everywhere, but %{_includedir}/mypkg/ is now
>>> failing in rawhide.
>>>
>>> This is NOT intentional, don't start changing your packages. Somebody
>>> please untag rpm-4.9.1 from rawhide, I'll deal with the issue later on.
>>>
>>>
>> done,
>>
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722474
>>
>>
>>
> I just hit this, when can we safely retry?
>
> -J
>
>
Apparently now. :)
-J
--
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love
-d. bowie
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: rpm builds failing with "Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found"
Rex Dieter wrote:
> Panu Matilainen wrote:
>
>
>> FYI, there appears to be a bug in the just-released rpm-4.9.1 which
>> causes legitimate specs to fail with "Installed (but unpackaged) file(s)
>> found" errors. This happens when recursively included directories in
>> %files are marked with trailing /, eg
>>
>> %{_includedir}/mypkg works everywhere, but %{_includedir}/mypkg/ is now
>> failing in rawhide.
>>
>> This is NOT intentional, don't start changing your packages. Somebody
>> please untag rpm-4.9.1 from rawhide, I'll deal with the issue later on.
>>
>
> done,
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722474
>
>
I just hit this, when can we safely retry?
-J
--
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love
-d. bowie
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: rpm builds failing with "Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found"
Panu Matilainen wrote:
>
> FYI, there appears to be a bug in the just-released rpm-4.9.1 which
> causes legitimate specs to fail with "Installed (but unpackaged) file(s)
> found" errors. This happens when recursively included directories in
> %files are marked with trailing /, eg
>
> %{_includedir}/mypkg works everywhere, but %{_includedir}/mypkg/ is now
> failing in rawhide.
>
> This is NOT intentional, don't start changing your packages. Somebody
> please untag rpm-4.9.1 from rawhide, I'll deal with the issue later on.
done,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722474
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
rpm builds failing with "Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found"
FYI, there appears to be a bug in the just-released rpm-4.9.1 which
causes legitimate specs to fail with "Installed (but unpackaged) file(s)
found" errors. This happens when recursively included directories in
%files are marked with trailing /, eg
%{_includedir}/mypkg works everywhere, but %{_includedir}/mypkg/ is now
failing in rawhide.
This is NOT intentional, don't start changing your packages. Somebody
please untag rpm-4.9.1 from rawhide, I'll deal with the issue later on.
Apologies,
- Panu -
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
