On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 7:12 AM, Stephen Gallagher <[email protected]> wrote: > On 06/01/2010 10:26 AM, Jeff Schroeder wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:24 AM, Stephen Gallagher<[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> On 05/30/2010 06:34 PM, Jeff Schroeder wrote: >>>> On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Jakub Hrozek<[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 05/28/2010 08:59 PM, Jeff Schroeder wrote: >>>>>> Tested against master and cherry-picked to sssd-1-2. Applies cleanly to >>>>>> both. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Jeff, >>>>> thank you for the patch, but can you describe if you had any problem >>>>> without it? RPM is usually pretty good in determining runtime >>>>> dependencies, so adding explicit Requires: should not be necessary. >>>> >>>> Yes, I tried rpm -Uvh *.rpm on an existing sssd host (1.0.5 + >>>> enumerate=False cpu hog fix cherry picked). The rpm install failed due >>>> to libsemanage.so.6 missing. >>>> >>>> If you are adding _new_ dependencies like this, it is my thought it >>>> should be explicit in the spec file. When I asked on IRC simo said to >>>> go ahead and send the patch out. What do you think? >>>> >>> >>> Ack. >>> >>> This is something we weren't seeing simply because libsemanage is a >>> default package on Fedora 11, 12 and 13. But if you're building a custom >>> OS from the 'core' packageset (as Jeff is doing), this would be missing. >> >> That is correct. My kickstart uses this with a minimal packageset: >> %packages --nobase >> >> Thanks >> > > OK, here's the explanation for why this behavior is happening to Jeff. > He's using an older version of RPM (4.6, I believe). Newer versions of > rpmbuild automatically detect library dependencies from the built > binaries and create the appropriate dependency on the resulting RPM, > without being specified explicitly. > > However, older versions of RPM do not have this autodetection > capability, and so Jeff's build from 'core' is missing this feature.
Actually, I am using: rpm-4.6.1-3.fc10. It properly added a dep on libsemanage.so.6, but I thought a new dependency should be explicit vs implicit sort of like the zen of python. Perhaps I was wrong in thinking this but it is a bit annoying to not see a dep like that when staring at the spec file. No worries either way as this patch is very trivial. > I'm rescinding my ack on this, as the upstream contrib RPM is meant to > be a reference only for supported versions of Fedora, and all > currently-supported Fedora releases support the autodetection correctly. > > This fix will, however, go in as a custom change to the EPEL5 version of > SSSD, as it will be necessary there. > > -- > Stephen Gallagher > RHCE 804006346421761 > > Delivering value year after year. > Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors. > http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/ > _______________________________________________ > sssd-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel > -- Jeff Schroeder Don't drink and derive, alcohol and analysis don't mix. http://www.digitalprognosis.com _______________________________________________ sssd-devel mailing list [email protected] https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
