Hi,
I believe there's something wrong in Koji Rawhide buildroot, as it
appears nothings provides /sbin/ldconfig.
DEBUG util.py:264: Error: Package: foo
DEBUG util.py:264: Requires: /sbin/ldconfig
http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/2927/5812927/root.log
Is this somethin
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Hi,
> I believe there's something wrong in Koji Rawhide buildroot, as it appears
> nothings provides /sbin/ldconfig.
>
> DEBUG util.py:264: Error: Package: foo
> DEBUG util.py:264: Requires: /sbin/ldconfig
>
> http://kojipkgs.fed
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 04:13:20PM -0400, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Hi,
> I believe there's something wrong in Koji Rawhide buildroot, as it
> appears nothings provides /sbin/ldconfig.
>
> DEBUG util.py:264: Error: Package: foo
> DEBUG util.py:264: Requires: /sbin/ldconfig
>
> http://koj
On 08/13/2013 10:19 PM, Kyle McMartin wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 04:13:20PM -0400, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I believe there's something wrong in Koji Rawhide buildroot, as it
>> appears nothings provides /sbin/ldconfig.
>>
>> DEBUG util.py:264: Error: Package: foo
>> DEBUG util.py:264:
On Ter, 2013-08-13 at 16:13 -0400, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Hi,
> I believe there's something wrong in Koji Rawhide buildroot, as it
> appears nothings provides /sbin/ldconfig.
>
> DEBUG util.py:264: Error: Package: foo
> DEBUG util.py:264: Requires: /sbin/ldconfig
repoquery --releas
Can we modify all affected specs to solve the problem?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Christopher Meng wrote:
> Can we modify all affected specs to solve the problem?
Better to just not modify glibc in a way that's not backward compatible.
-- rex
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: ht
On Ter, 2013-08-13 at 19:54 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Christopher Meng wrote:
>
> > Can we modify all affected specs to solve the problem?
>
> Better to just not modify glibc in a way that's not backward compatible.
I take a look in "my" Virtualbox.spec and it use /sbin/ldconfig but not
in Req
Seems another victim appeared in test list.
This time is for /sbin/alternatives.
Sorry for no contexts, but what about removing /sbin or /bin from every
spec? I think RPM can handle this without fullpath.
Thanks.
Sent from Note I
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admi
On 08/14/2013 12:59 PM, Christopher Meng wrote:
Seems another victim appeared in test list.
This time is for /sbin/alternatives.
Sorry for no contexts, but what about removing /sbin or /bin from every
spec?
Not a clever idea.
Very oversimplified, in RPM-provides/requires, "full paths" symbols
On Qua, 2013-08-14 at 18:59 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:
> Seems another victim appeared in test list.
>
> This time is for /sbin/alternatives.
rpm -qf /sbin/alternatives
chkconfig-1.3.60-3.fc19.x86_64
once again , I think Requires: /sbin/alternatives is wrong
should be Requires: chkconfi
Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Qua, 2013-08-14 at 18:59 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:
>> Seems another victim appeared in test list.
>>
>> This time is for /sbin/alternatives.
>
> rpm -qf /sbin/alternatives
> chkconfig-1.3.60-3.fc19.x86_64
>
> once again , I think Requires: /sbin/alternatives is w
Sérgio Basto wrote:
> I take a look in "my" Virtualbox.spec and it use /sbin/ldconfig but not
> in Requires, is not a error use Requires: /sbin/ldconfig ?
depends, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Shared_libraries
whether an explicit dependency is needed (or not).
-
在 2013-8-15 AM1:23，"Rex Dieter" 写道：
> See
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Alternatives
>
> and use
> Requires(post): %{_sbindir}/update-alternatives
> ...etc...
Good, don't hardcode paths.
What about creating an RFE for all affected packages?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedorapr
14 matches
Mail list logo
