Dne 16. 03. 20 v 18:15 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): > On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 10:38:07AM +0000, Paul Howarth wrote: >> On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 11:22:40 +0100 >> Vít Ondruch <vondr...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> I always thought that one should not call `rpm` during rpmbuild. >>> Nevertheless I am not sure what was the reason? Probably locking of >>> RPM db? Can somebody elaborate? >> It couldn't be guaranteed to work in the case that the buildroot was >> populated using a different version of rpm that used a different >> version of libdb. That's not an issue that crops up much these days as >> libdb hasn't been version-updated for years (due to licensing issues > Except that now we are going to move to sqlite... :) > (See rpm 4.16 change posted today)
Good point. I have proposed this guideline to FPC: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/954 Also, I'll ask removal of `%requires_eq`. This seems to be used just by samba, so it should not cause too much breakage. Anyway, it is strange that the autogenerated requires in samba would not be enough. There are already quite a lot of them in samba-dc: ~~~ $ LC_ALL=C.UTF-8 sudo dnf repoquery --requires samba-dc | grep libldb RCM Tools for Fedora 33 (RPMs) 129 B/s | 286 B 00:02 Last metadata expiration check: 2:59:44 ago on Tue Mar 17 07:36:01 2020. libldb = 2.1.1 libldb.so.2()(64bit) libldb.so.2(LDB_0.9.10)(64bit) libldb.so.2(LDB_0.9.12)(64bit) libldb.so.2(LDB_0.9.15)(64bit) libldb.so.2(LDB_0.9.16)(64bit) libldb.so.2(LDB_0.9.18)(64bit) libldb.so.2(LDB_0.9.19)(64bit) libldb.so.2(LDB_0.9.22)(64bit) libldb.so.2(LDB_0.9.23)(64bit) libldb.so.2(LDB_0.9.24)(64bit) libldb.so.2(LDB_1.1.0)(64bit) libldb.so.2(LDB_1.1.2)(64bit) libldb.so.2(LDB_1.1.30)(64bit) libldb.so.2(LDB_1.1.6)(64bit) libldb.so.2(LDB_1.2.0)(64bit) libldb.so.2(LDB_1.2.2)(64bit) libldb.so.2(LDB_2.0.5)(64bit) libldbsamba-samba4.so()(64bit) libldbsamba-samba4.so(SAMBA_4.12.0)(64bit) ~~~ Isn't there something fishy in libldb ABI? rhbz#1507420 is the original ticket which introduced the `%requires_eq` into samba. Vít > >> IIRC) and mock with bootstrap mode enabled would populate the buildroot >> using the target's version of rpm anyway these days. > and koji does not use bootstrap mode. > > kevin > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
