Akemi Yagi wrote:
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
Hi Akemi,
On 01/06/2011 03:40 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
Here is a potential candidate (virt-top build bug):
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661783
It's one of the many bugzilla reports filed by Levente Farkas and one of the few RH responded. Apparently they included a bogus dependency in the spec. So, the remedy is either patch the spec or add the required package in the build environment.
Comment #5 from Rich clears it up quite nicely from our ( the CentOS ) side of things, the upstream package was built with that dep, so we would need to as well. I havent looked at the build logs to see if there
I interpret this statement to say, "if the upstream binary package is buggy, CentOS must provide the same bugs." Personally I was hoping this would not be the case. UpStream primarily responds to users that pay for support. As a result if the bug you identified is not also identified by a "pay for support customer" it may not even be considered. I thought CentOS was only dependent on the UpStream Sources, not on a recreation of their buggy build environment. Hubert
is any buildtime or usage side implications. But it looks pretty clear for us, we need to build with that dep
But what if the spec file is missing, say, BuildRequires ? Would you add it to the CentOS spec ? Otherwise it won't build, of course. Apparently there is a known case in RHEL-6.
Akemi _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel