[Rpm-maint] RPM 4.13.0 rc2 released

Panu Matilainen pmatilai at laiskiainen.org
Fri Oct 21 11:42:23 UTC 2016


On 10/21/2016 02:21 PM, Thierry Vignaud wrote:
> On 21 October 2016 at 11:33, Panu Matilainen <pmatilai at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> Ah, I did run the test-suite but not from the created tarball. One more
>>>> thing to remember when cutting releases. Or rather *cough* to document
>>>> *cough*.
>>>>
>>>> Applied (with a slightly expanded comments).
>>>
>>>
>>> If you could cherry-pick in rpm-4.13.x branch too, that would be nice :-)
>>
>>
>> I will, eventually. Lets see what other things turn up first.
>>
>>>>> After that, 2 unexpected failures remain:
>>>>>
>>>>>  85: rpmbuild debuginfo dwz gnu_debuglink crc        FAILED
>>>>> (rpmbuild.at:468)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ...but this I had just missed. It appears to be cured by commit
>>>> cherry-picking commit 3929ce4d58ab18c810b9a776f5c49d56cb436026.
>>>
>>>
>>> This commit doen't exist in git
>>> The attached patch fixes it anyway
>>
>>
>> Sorry, should've been 41c4dcf507e2208585d6dc0952f59686a3a69d69, which commit
>> 4ec7c396fb9464a3fcff006408871f8175ab169b apparently depends on.
>
> That works fine as well.
>
>>>>> 277: spec parse                                      FAILED
>>>>> (rpmpython.at:70)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ...and this I'm not seeing at all. Please post
>>>> tests/rpmtests.dir/277/rpmtests.log ... or does it happen to go away if you
>>>> cherry-pick commit 3c74e34e8d8c5b3db024dbe04a352e807ed2b627 ?
>>>
>>>
>>> That doesn't help.
>>> I've attached the relevant logs plus a fix.
>>>
>>
>> That's somewhat curious - why am I not seeing that? It suggests something
>> outside the testing root is leaking into the tests and affecting things. The
>> python tests would be more prone to that than the others since it doesn't
>> occur inside the fakechroot of course...
>
> Yeah but you didn't see "85: rpmbuild debuginfo dwz gnu_debuglink crc" too.

That was a case of not noticing, which is different from not getting a 
fail :)

>
> Might also be a different fakechroot version...
> Nope, both are using 2.18.

I'm actually using 2.16 because on my work laptop, because with 
fakechroot 2.18 from Fedora practically everything fails. Haven't had a 
chance to investigate, not really looking forward to it either.

> Though Mageia has this rpm related patch:
> http://svnweb.mageia.org/packages/cauldron/fakechroot/current/SOURCES/fakechroot-rpm-glob64.patch?revision=883248&view=markup
> "Workaround for glob* vs rpm glob*
>
> glob/glob64 is also defined by rpm in librpmio, which breaks fakechroot.
> This patch tries to find which library is defining the symbol
> (using dladdr, which is gnu specific) and if found, check if the symbol
> comes from libc. If it's not from libc, call it directly."

Right, that seems to ring some faint, distant bell. Sounds about right 
for the failing tests too since they're all about "file not found" mumble.

	- Panu -

> _______________________________________________
> Rpm-maint mailing list
> Rpm-maint at lists.rpm.org
> http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
>



More information about the Rpm-maint mailing list