Request 840065 (superseded)

This request is superseded by request 842515 (Show diff)

Overview

Request 840065 superseded

- update to rpm-4.16.0

Created by mlschroe over 3 years ago
In state superseded
Supersedes 840064
Superseded by 842515
Open review for licensedigger

Submit rpm

Comments for request 840065 4

Dominique Leuenberger (dimstar) - over 3 years ago

reviewer

There will be some fun coming our way.

A bunch of packages fail to build due to constructs like:

%if %{_lib} == lib64

which results in bareword not supported (parameters need to be quoted)

Michael Schröder (mlschroe) - over 3 years ago

author source maintainer

You can blame me for that change in rpm ;-) But I checked the suse packages for such constructs before proposing this change, and it weren't that many packages affected.

(Btw, rpm never had the intention to allow bare words, it just worked because of a bug in the code. lib64 was actually supposed to expand to the %lib64 macro...)

Dominique Leuenberger (dimstar) - over 3 years ago

reviewer

No worries about the blame. - you'll get it :)

It was just the first few failures I looked at all failed on this constrict (for two I already created SRs - more to come)

We'll see how many other failures there will be. That's why I moved RPM to a staging of its own. It will likely take a bit longer.

Some errors are obvious (like the %lib == lib64, some are a bit more hidden (like the kernel build failure for example - probably until debugged and than it's in the face)

RPM is currently Staging:A - would be nice if you can have a look for 'classes of failures' and give some hints to the -factory mailing list about how to solve them, if there is something generic.

Cheers,

Dominique Leuenberger (dimstar) - over 3 years ago

reviewer

Collection of some debug information

bogofilter: it runs %make_install during the %build phase - %install then rm's DESTDIR though; %build is not supposed to install stuff (new enforced rule by rpm)