RHEL bug, how to proceed?

Richard W.M. Jones rjones at redhat.com
Wed Apr 24 14:49:47 UTC 2013


On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 04:35:24PM +0200, Simone Caronni wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I have a package that needs procps. While building it in EPEL, i stepped
> onto a packaging problem [1] in the RHEL 6 package.
> 
> I've opened the bug, but nobody is looking at it and (my guess) it will be
> probably fixed for RHEL 6.5. Note that the bug has been tagged as "EasyFix"-
> 
> The workaround for the problem would be as follows:
> 
> %if 0%{?rhel} == 6
> BuildRequires:          procps
> %else
> BuildRequires:          procps-devel
> %endif
> 
> I suppose there's no "provenpackager" group in RHEL, so what should I do in
> this case? Build the package with a workaround in place until the bug is
> fixed or wait on building the package at all?
> 
> Thanks,
> --Simone
> 
> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=950748

It's definitely a bug.  The spec file has:

  %files
  %attr(755,root,root) /%{_lib}/*
  [...]
  %files devel
  /%{_lib}/libproc.so

which means that libproc.so is included in both RPMs.  Although this
doesn't stop installation for me -- RPM notices that both files are
the same and allows it.  I don't know why mock disallows this.

Nevertheless RHEL has a 6 month release cycle, so even if you managed
to get the packager to fix this, it would be aeons before the fix
appeared in RHEL.  I suggest you go with your workaround.

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Fedora Windows cross-compiler. Compile Windows programs, test, and
build Windows installers. Over 100 libraries supported.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW


More information about the devel mailing list