Sudden dependency on rpm
Tim T.
tim.timmerman at gmail.com
Mon Oct 3 15:59:17 UTC 2011
OK, thanks
That matches my expectations. I think the cases in which I don't see the
dependencies could be caused by the fact that I use explicit Requires: and
NoAutoReqProv for these packages; I'll need to check this tomorrow.
Thanks!
TimT
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 16:58, devzero2000 <pinto.elia at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Tim T. <tim.timmerman at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Think I owe everyone a follow-up on this question: (and pose a new
>> question: at what stage are dependencies determined ? )
>>
>> After an email discussion with Jeff Johson, I managed to track down cause
>> of the sudden dependency: A mistake by one of my colleagues had turned on
>> the execute bit on all of our archive. Since the %install stanza just copies
>> the files from the archive to the buildroot, suddenly the files were
>> executable, and the rpm dependency checking got triggered.
>>
>> However, this doesn't quite explain everything:
>>
>> A number of other files (which are installed to application paths) also
>> have their execution bit turned on, but don't show their dependencies when I
>> do a --filerequire
>>
>> In other words, it looks like the dependency is not always picked up, or
>> at least attached to the individual path names.
>>
>> My question : At what stage is the dependency check done ? During the
>> build phase, or after the install phase of the spec file ?
>>
>> The dependency check is done to the end of the %install stanza, AKA in
> RPM_BUILD_ROOT. You can
>
> - rpmbuild -bi <yourspec>.spec
> then
>
> follow this blog
> http://devzero2000.livejournal.com/tag/rpm%20binary%20dependency
> if you want to know which program is responsable of a specific deps
>
> hth
>
>
>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> TimT
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 14:47, Tim T. <tim.timmerman at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 14:19, devzero2000 <pinto.elia at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Tim T. <tim.timmerman at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Suddenly" my rpms show a dependency on /bin/sh where they didn't
>>>>> before !
>>>>>
>>>>> Before, when ?
>>>>
>>>> What is the result of this command on the original rpm and the
>>>> rebuild rpm ? Sure
>>>> are you using the same machine and the software version ?
>>>>
>>>> rpm -qp --queryformat '%{RPMVERSION}\n' TimT-5.0.1.d-0.x86_64.rpm
>>>>
>>>
>>> both cases 4.8.0, and I'm sure I'm using the same buildhost in both
>>> cases.. there is only one available
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> BTW, /bin/sh is because you probably have some scriplet section and use
>>>> sh for it (%pre, %post ecc): the default.
>>>>
>>> The package contains a number of scripts for installation purposes. The
>>> thing that triggered me to look at this was the /usr/bin/ksh which did not
>>> exist. I'd fix that, but I'd like to understand what caused the change
>>> between last friday afternoon and this morning. (found some older versions
>>> of the RPM, also built using 4.8.0, same contents, no dependency on /bin/sh
>>> or /usr/bin/ksh )
>>>
>>> Thanks for your input !
>>>
>>> TimT.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards
>>>>
>>>>> Last friday, I build a package TimT-5.0.1.d-0.x86_64.rpm
>>>>>
>>>>> rpm -qip --requires TimT-5.0.1.d-0.x86_64.rpm
>>>>> Name : TimT Relocations: (not relocatable)
>>>>> Version : 5.0.1.d Vendor: Tim T.
>>>>> Release : 0 Build Date: Fri 23 Sep 2011
>>>>> 10:39:29 AM MEST
>>>>> Install Date: (not installed) Build Host: buildhost
>>>>> Group : System Source RPM :
>>>>> TimT-5.0.1.d-0.src.rpm
>>>>> Size : 35881 License: commercial
>>>>> Signature : (none)
>>>>> Summary : installation software
>>>>> Description :
>>>>> TimT - installation software
>>>>> rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
>>>>> rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This morning I rebuilt the package :
>>>>> rpm -qip --requires TimT-5.0.1.a-0.x86_64.rpm
>>>>> Name : TimT Relocations: (not relocatable)
>>>>> Version : 5.0.1.a Vendor: TimT
>>>>> Release : 0 Build Date: Tue 27 Sep 2011
>>>>> 12:25:26 PM MEST
>>>>> Install Date: (not installed) Build Host: buildhost
>>>>> Group : System Source RPM:
>>>>> TimT-5.0.1.a-0.src.rpm
>>>>> Size : 35881 License:commercial
>>>>> Signature : (none)
>>>>> Summary : installation software
>>>>> Description :
>>>>> TimT - installation software
>>>>> /bin/sh
>>>>> /usr/bin/ksh
>>>>> rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
>>>>> rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
>>>>>
>>>>> (for legal reasons, I changed the name of the package in the above
>>>>> output. )
>>>>>
>>>>> The only deliberate change in the above is the version number from
>>>>> 5.0.1.d to 5.0.1.a
>>>>>
>>>>> My systems people swear that they did not change anything, installation
>>>>> history on the buildhost confirms this
>>>>>
>>>>> Source files haven't changed, they are simple shell-scripts and they do
>>>>> use the /bin/sh, and /usr/bin/ksh
>>>>>
>>>>> rpms are generated using
>>>>>
>>>>> /usr/bin/rpmbuild -bb --quiet --buildroot /tmp/buildroot timt.spec
>>>>>
>>>>> spec file hasn't changed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any suggestions as to where to look ? I'm stumped.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tim T.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Rpm-list mailing list
>>>>> Rpm-list at lists.rpm.org
>>>>> http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Rpm-list mailing list
>>>> Rpm-list at lists.rpm.org
>>>> http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rpm-list mailing list
>> Rpm-list at lists.rpm.org
>> http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rpm-list mailing list
> Rpm-list at lists.rpm.org
> http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-list/attachments/20111003/6f3e6389/attachment.html>
More information about the Rpm-list
mailing list