Attempted to rebuild openssl-0.9.8e-7.el5.src.rpm on x86_64 in response to a report of problems on the forum and replicated the failure:
http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=3589
Phil
Phil Schaffner wrote:
Attempted to rebuild openssl-0.9.8e-7.el5.src.rpm on x86_64 in response to a report of problems on the forum and replicated the failure:
http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=3589
Phil
Ok. Did you read the error messages and try to fix those first?
On Sun, 2009-04-26 at 12:06 +0200, RedShift wrote: ...
Ok. Did you read the error messages and try to fix those first?
Point is that an unmodified SRPM should rebuild on the same CentOS version with all build dependencies satisfied, so no I did not try to fix the errors. Have also not yet gotten around to downloading the upstream SRPM and trying that. That may make it off the to-do list real-soon-now. [TM - Jerry Pournelle].
Phil
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 6:48 AM, Phil Schaffner P.R.Schaffner@ieee.org wrote:
On Sun, 2009-04-26 at 12:06 +0200, RedShift wrote:
Ok. Did you read the error messages and try to fix those first?
Point is that an unmodified SRPM should rebuild on the same CentOS version with all build dependencies satisfied, so no I did not try to fix the errors. Have also not yet gotten around to downloading the upstream SRPM and trying that. That may make it off the to-do list real-soon-now. [TM - Jerry Pournelle].
This seems to be fixed in 5.4 according to:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495298
I got the same messages when trying to build openssl, but they were warnings and the building process itself completed. This was done in mock by the way.
Akemi
Akemi Yagi wrote: ...
This seems to be fixed in 5.4 according to:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495298
I got the same messages when trying to build openssl, but they were warnings and the building process itself completed. This was done in mock by the way.
Thanks Akemi for doing the homework I hadn't found time to do yet. I still maintain that this is a bug, as apparently does Red Hat based on the above. Closing the bug based on the fact that it builds in mock does not seem valid, but closing it because upstream has closed it NEXTRELEASE does, so I guess it's a moot point for this particular case. Seems to me that users ought be able to rebuild SRPMS outside mock.
Phil
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Phil Schaffner Philip.R.Schaffner@nasa.gov wrote:
Akemi Yagi wrote: ...
This seems to be fixed in 5.4 according to:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495298
I got the same messages when trying to build openssl, but they were warnings and the building process itself completed. This was done in mock by the way.
Thanks Akemi for doing the homework I hadn't found time to do yet. I still maintain that this is a bug, as apparently does Red Hat based on the above. Closing the bug based on the fact that it builds in mock does not seem valid,
I agree with you. This is a *bug* known to upstream. The CentOS bug report should not have been closed based on the fact building was successful by some people or under "certain" circumstances. But I am not the one who closed it ( have no such privilege anyway :-D ).
but closing it because upstream has closed it NEXTRELEASE does, so I guess it's a moot point for this particular case.
Yes, now it (closing the bug) is rationalized (after the fact). ;-P
Akemi
On Mon, 2009-04-27 at 12:39 -0700, Akemi Yagi wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Phil Schaffner
...
I agree with you. This is a *bug* known to upstream. The CentOS bug report should not have been closed based on the fact building was successful by some people or under "certain" circumstances. But I am not the one who closed it ( have no such privilege anyway :-D ).
Yup - didn't intend to imply that you did. Hard to tell in a thread which comments are meant for the replied-to person and which are for general consumption (or in this case Karanbir consumption).
but closing it because upstream has closed it NEXTRELEASE does, so I guess it's a moot point for this particular case.
Yes, now it (closing the bug) is rationalized (after the fact). ;-P
We agree on that also! :-D
Cheers, Phil
-
Akemi Yagi -
Phil Schaffner -
Phil Schaffner -
RedShift