On 8 March 2016 at 19:13, Digimer lists@alteeve.ca wrote:
On 08/03/16 02:08 PM, James Hogarth wrote:
On 8 March 2016 at 19:02, Digimer lists@alteeve.ca wrote:
On 08/03/16 01:51 PM, James Hogarth wrote:
On 8 March 2016 at 17:22, Digimer lists@alteeve.ca wrote:
On 08/03/16 11:36 AM, James Hogarth wrote:
On 8 March 2016 at 16:15, Digimer lists@alteeve.ca wrote:
> On 08/03/16 07:11 AM, James Hogarth wrote: >> On 8 March 2016 at 10:07, Leon Fauster <leonfauster@googlemail.com
> wrote: >> >>> Am 08.03.2016 um 01:50 schrieb Digimer lists@alteeve.ca: >>>> I'm not surprised, given that it is in the repo. That's why I was > asking >>>> if anyone tried building it themselves and, if so, did they have
the
>>>> same issue as I describe below? >>>> >>>> Alternatively, any tips/advice on solving my build issue would be >>> helpful. >>> >>> >>> >>> what says /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.gu9Ds0? >>> >>> all dependencies installed? >>> >>> >>> >> No need to check that .... the error is clear "make: *** No rule to
make
>> target `install'. Stop." ... that mini Makefile he posted doesn't > include >> an install: section >> >> Of course what the OP is missing is *that* makefile does not get
used.
>> >> In the tarball there is a Makefile.in that gets processed into the
actual
>> makefile by ./configure (well %configure in the spec but you get
the
> point) >> >> So we come back round the houses to the key point - Digimer what
are
you
>> *actually* trying to do? >> >> You obviously aren't building from the spec in that src.rpm or
using
mock
>> as those have configure which would generate the valid makefile
with
the
>> make install target... so what are you doing and what do you want
to
>> achieve? >> >> The %install phase you posted is really not of interest to your
'problem'
>> but rather the %build phase would be telling. > > As I've done with several other RPMs, I did the following; > > === > yumdownloader --source mtr-gtk > > rpm -Uvh mtr-0.75-5.el6.src.rpm > > cd rpmbuild/SPECS/ > > # Change "Release" > > rpmbuild -ba mtr.spec > === > > If you're asking a more generic "why are you doing this?" question;
I
am
> including the RPM in a project we're working on and I don't want to
risk
> running fould of the CentOS project by directly redistributing their > (and RHEL's) rpms. > > I'm sure Karanbir and Johnny can weigh in here more but so long as
you
are
not claiming to be CentOS and using their trademarks (see the
modified
ones
with centos in the name) I'm pretty certain that you are safe
building
an
appliance on CentOS and can ship the RPMs on that ...
Regardless of that issue what you've described above should work (or
freak
out if a build dependency was missing ... unless one isn't defined
as a
BuildRequires but is in the default mock root and is causing
%configure
not to generate the Makefile).
Again the right answer here is "use mock" ...
yumdownloader --source mtr-gtk
rpm -Uvh mtr-0.75-5.el6.src.rpm
cd rpmbuild
vi SPECS/mtr.spec (change release etc ... bear in mind that bumping
release
may not help you when a centos update happens ... may not care for an appliance)
rpmbuild -bs SPECS/mtr.spec
mock -r epel-6-x86_64 SRPMS/mtr-*.src.rpm
====================
That will get you a reproducible clean build environment in a way not dependent on the state of your workstation and avoid any accidental depednencies etc popping up
Thanks for the help, but I got the same results;
==== mock /home/digimer/rpmbuild/SRPMS/mtr-0.75-5.el6.anvil.src.rpm
<dependencies installed> <build messages> + make DESTDIR=/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/mtr-0.75-5.el6.anvil.x86_64 install make: *** No rule to make target `install'. Stop.
RPM build errors: error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.8atuER (%install) Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.8atuER (%install) ERROR: Exception(/home/digimer/rpmbuild/SRPMS/mtr-0.75-5.el6.anvil.src.rpm) Config(epel-6-x86_64) 5 minutes 54 seconds INFO: Results and/or logs in: /var/lib/mock/epel-6-x86_64/result ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # bash --login -c /usr/bin/rpmbuild -bb --target x86_64 --nodeps /builddir/build/SPECS/mtr.spec ====
As for redistribution; I spoke to someone here some months back about creating a custom ISO and I was told I couldn't modify 'Packages',
which
is what I needed to do. I am also making a RHEL variant, and emailing their legal didn't get a reply, so I am going this route to not step
on
toes.
okay looks like you've uncovered an bug in mock that should be reported
in
EPEL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Fedora%20EPEL&version=...
I don't see any existing bug that would seem to apply ...
You can see the build completes with a target of epel6 on an F23
install
but a clean C6 install that uses the mock from epel6 fails:
http://pastebin.centos.org/41116/
Can't see anything that differs in the output from that to explain why
the
Makefile isn't regenerated on the epel6 mock unlike the F23 one.
Right now I don't have time to look into this myself - perhaps Jim, Karanbir or Johnny can check build logs for how mtr was built at the
6.7
release.
Given the different behaviour I'm guessing a mock bug ... would need to spend a while digging through those full build logs to compare if any packages differed, perhaps add some debug statements to the spec to
track
the changes to the Makefile and see why it isn't generated correctly on
the
second build.
What's odd is how it works in Fedora using mock but not EPEL6 with mock
...
got to be down to how the build roots are constructed.
Decided to do a quick test of something given how EPEL has adjusted
macros
recently to reduce boilerplate between Fedora and itself ...
I just removed the rm -rf line from %clean and got a clean mock build on
a
CentOS6 base.
It must have cleaned out the generated makefile between %build and
%install
and that left it with the bare one that had no install: section
This will bite Red Hat at the 6.8 milestone (unless they build on Fedora) and presumably CentOS when 6.8 rolls round if RH don't remove the rm -rf from %clean ;)
Should the priority on the bug be changed?
No leave it as is for now ...
I'm really quite confused as after it worked I thought I'd try the original SRPM again and it worked :/
I have no idea what has changed on the system to provide for that - doing some quick looks now.