Hi, I'd like to ask if anyone's experiencing date shift with rpmbuild/mock on C5. I see +1 day date shift within changelog. Checked with mock-0.9.14-3.el5.hrb and mock-0.6.13-1.el5_2.3. Regards, David Hrbáč
Source rpm: [mockbuild@builder2 ~]$ rpm -qp --changelog repoview-0.6.4-1.el4.hrb.src.rpm | less * Wed May 13 2009 David Hrbáč david@hrbac.cz - 0.6.3-1 - new upstream version - added requirements
* Wed May 13 2009 David Hrbáč david@hrbac.cz - 0.6.3-1 - new upstream version
Source rpm after rebuild: [mockbuild@builder2 ~]$ rpm -qp --changelog /var/lib/mock/epel-5-i386/result/repoview-0.6.4-1.el5.src.rpm | less * Thu May 14 2009 David Hrbáč david@hrbac.cz - 0.6.3-1 - new upstream version - added requirements
* Thu May 14 2009 David Hrbáč david@hrbac.cz - 0.6.3-1 - new upstream version
David Hrbáč wrote:
Hi, I'd like to ask if anyone's experiencing date shift with rpmbuild/mock on C5. I see +1 day date shift within changelog. Checked with mock-0.9.14-3.el5.hrb and mock-0.6.13-1.el5_2.3.
Yes, I'm seeing that too:
[angenenr@shutdown rpms]$rpm -qp --changelog drbd82-8.2.7.git_20090512-1.el4.br.src.rpm |head -8 * Thu May 14 2009 Ralph Angenendt ralph@centos.org - move version to current 8.2 git version as 8.2.7 release has an error in online verification. See http://lists.linbit.com/pipermail/drbd-user/2009-May/012019.html for an explanation.
* Tue May 05 2009 Ralph Angenendt ralph@centos.org drbd82-8.2.7-1 - upgraded to upstream version 8.2.7 [angenenr@shutdown rpms]$
Original has May 13th and May 4th in the changelog.
[angenenr@shutdown result]$mock -r centos-4-i386 shell init mock-chroot> date Wed May 13 07:10:06 EDT 2009 mock-chroot>
Even if that is changed to UTC, it still is May 13th (and it doesn't explain why subsequent changelog entries are one day off, too.
Ralph
Ralph Angenendt napsal(a):
Yes, I'm seeing that too:
Even if that is changed to UTC, it still is May 13th (and it doesn't explain why subsequent changelog entries are one day off, too.
Ralph
Thanks Ralph. Yes, it has nothing to do with time zone. I'm not sure if I've seen it before last rpmbuild update. DH
David Hrbáč wrote:
Ralph Angenendt napsal(a):
Yes, I'm seeing that too:
Even if that is changed to UTC, it still is May 13th (and it doesn't explain why subsequent changelog entries are one day off, too.
Ralph
Thanks Ralph. Yes, it has nothing to do with time zone. I'm not sure if I've seen it before last rpmbuild update.
Must be within mock:
[angenenr@shutdown ~]$rpm -qp --changelog redhat/RPMS/x86_64/drbd82-8.2.7.git_20090512-1.x86_64.rpm | head -1 * Wed May 13 2009 Ralph Angenendt ralph@centos.org
That rpm has been built with "rpmbuild -ba drbd.spec".
Ralph
David Hrbáč wrote:
Ralph Angenendt napsal(a):
Yes, I'm seeing that too:
Even if that is changed to UTC, it still is May 13th (and it doesn't explain why subsequent changelog entries are one day off, too.
Thanks Ralph. Yes, it has nothing to do with time zone.
It has. I don't know why, yet.
I'm not sure if I've seen it before last rpmbuild update.
Also happens when you use *5.2* in mock to build the packages. And that has an older version of rpm.
Watch and cry (I Cc: centos-devel, as I know that JBJ reads there, too). Please do answer in centos-devel, thanks.
JBJ:
Here's what happens: I take a src.rpm:
[angenenr@shutdown SRPMS]$rpm -qp --@hangelog canlock-2b-3.el5.src.rpm |head -2 * Tue May 19 2009 Ralph Angenendt ralph@centos.org -2b.2 - This is a test bump
I rebuild it with rpmbuild:
[angenenr@shutdown SRPMS]$rpmbuild --rebuild canlock-2b-3.el5.src.rpm [angenenr@shutdown SRPMS]$rpm -qp --changelog ../RPMS/x86_64/canlock-2b-3.el5.x86_64.rpm |head -2 * Tue May 19 2009 Ralph Angenendt ralph@centos.org -2b.2 - This is a test bump
All is fine. Now let me churn it through mock.
[angenenr@shutdown SRPMS]$mock -r centos-5-x86_64 --autocache canlock-2b-3.el5.src.rpm [...] [angenenr@shutdown SRPMS]$rpm -qp --changelog /var/lib/mock/centos-5-x86_64/result/canlock-2b-3.el5.x86_64.rpm |head -2 * Wed May 20 2009 Ralph Angenendt ralph@centos.org -2b.2 - This is a test bump
Ummm?
[angenenr@shutdown SRPMS]$date Tue May 19 13:19:25 CEST 2009
Yay! I invented a time machine! (or someone did).
Okay, let's move the machine from Germany to the UK
[angenenr@shutdown SRPMS]$sudo cp /usr/share/zoneinfo/Europe/London /etc/localtime [angenenr@shutdown SRPMS]$date Tue May 19 12:20:17 BST 2009 [angenenr@shutdown SRPMS]$rpm -qp --changelog /var/lib/mock/centos-5-x86_64/result/canlock-2b-3.el5.x86_64.rpm |head -2 * Tue May 19 2009 Ralph Angenendt ralph@centos.org -2b.2 - This is a test bump
Hmmm. Who moved the international date line to the Channel?
What about mock? Let's move the machine back to Germany first.
[angenenr@shutdown SRPMS]$sudo cp /usr/share/zoneinfo/Europe/Berlin /etc/localtime [angenenr@shutdown SRPMS]$date Tue May 19 13:22:08 CEST 2009 [angenenr@shutdown SRPMS]$mock -r centos-5-x86_64 shell init mock-chroot> date Tue May 19 07:22:18 EDT 2009
So mock uses EDT which is 6 hours behind. Which does not explain why moving from BST (EDT +0500) still gives me the correct date in the changelog, moving the machine one step further to CEST (EDT +0600) moves me to the next day, though.
What about the rpm built with rpmbuild? Let's move the machine to Sidney:
[root@shutdown etc]# cp /usr/share/zoneinfo/Australia/Sydney localtime [root@shutdown etc]# date Tue May 19 21:27:50 EST 2009 [root@shutdown etc]# rpm -qp --changelog /home/angenenr/redhat/RPMS/x86_64/canlock-2b-3.el5.x86_64.rpm * Tue May 19 2009 Ralph Angenendt ralph@centos.org -2b.2 - This is a test bump
Strange. This is 8 hours in the future (and not 6), but still shows me the correct date.
Something is not right here. Is this something to worry about? How and why does that happen? Why are there even calculations on the date line in a changelog?
Cheers,
Ralph
David Hrbáč wrote:
Hi, I'd like to ask if anyone's experiencing date shift with rpmbuild/mock on C5. I see +1 day date shift within changelog. Checked with mock-0.9.14-3.el5.hrb and mock-0.6.13-1.el5_2.3.
I just randomly picked up a few pkgs that have come through the buildsystem on centos, and they dont seem to have a date issue, although some of them seem to have gone from single digit day mark to double digit. eg: May 4 2009 is now May 04 2009. And I have no idea why that is, its not good.
Will poke the stuff a bit more today and try to work out what is going on and why this is happening. If you guys dig up anything in the mean time, do let me know.
- KB
-
David Hrbáč -
Karanbir Singh -
Ralph Angenendt