[Rpm-maint] Version of Tar used with RPM

Panu Matilainen pmatilai at redhat.com
Wed Sep 19 18:53:03 UTC 2007


On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Hugh Caley wrote:

> On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 16:37 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Hugh Caley wrote:
>>
>>> I hope this is the right forum for this.  There were only two forums
>>> listed at rpm.org.
>>>
>>> I need to get RPM on AIX to use GNU tar, and I can't figure out how to
>>> do it. I'm setting the %__tar macro to /opt/freeware/bin/tar in
>>> my .rpmmacros file, but the %setup phase of the RPM build still insists
>>> on using "tar" (which means it uses the first tar it finds in the PATH,
>>> which is /usr/bin/tar).
>>>
>>> As  you can see from the output below, it is respecting my definition of
>>> the location of gzip, but not tar:
>>>
>>>
>>>> + tar -xf -
>>>> + /opt/freeware/bin/gzip -dc /home/hughc/redhat/SOURCES/SecurityServer-1.1A.tgz
>>>
>>> I can't just put /opt/freeware/bin first in my path; we have GCC and the
>>> various GNU build utilities installed, and it breaks XLC.
>>>
>>> Anyone know how to do this?
>>>
>>> RPM version is rpm-3.0.5-30; since this is the only version that IBM
>>> provides, I'm probably not going to be able to upgrade it, but if that
>>> would be the only solution ...
>>
>> tar seems to be hardcoded to "tar" in even rpm 4.4.x, it's probably that
>> way in 3.x too. Try aliasing tar to /opt/freeware/bin/tar to limit the
>> impact?
>>
>>  	- Panu -
>>
>
> Thank you.  It does seem to be hardcoded in RPM v4 as well. On RHEL 4,
> RPM version rpm-4.3.3-18_nonptl, I had the following two lines
> in .rpmmacros:
>
> %__tar               /home/hughc/bin/tar
> %__gzip              /home/hughc/bin/gzip
>
> and as you can see from the output below it respected my gzip path but
> still used the default path for tar:
>
> + /home/hughc/bin/gzip
> -dc /home/hughc/redhat/SOURCES/SecurityServer-1.1A.tgz
> + tar -xf -
>
> I can probably use an alias, or a symlink, to work around this.  I
> really shouldn't have to though, should I?  Wouldn't this qualify as a
> bug?

Sure it does, but don't expect it to get fixed for 3.0.x :)

 	- Panu -



More information about the Rpm-maint mailing list