Hi all,
I was trying to rebuild mtr (http://vault.centos.org/6.7/os/Source/SPackages/mtr-0.75-5.el6.src.rpm) and I keep getting:
==== Executing(%install): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.gu9Ds0 + umask 022 + cd /root/rpmbuild/BUILD + '[' /root/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/mtr-0.75-5.el6.x86_64 '!=' / ']' + rm -rf /root/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/mtr-0.75-5.el6.x86_64 ++ dirname /root/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/mtr-0.75-5.el6.x86_64 + mkdir -p /root/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT + mkdir /root/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/mtr-0.75-5.el6.x86_64 + cd mtr-0.75 + LANG=C + export LANG + unset DISPLAY + rm -rf /root/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/mtr-0.75-5.el6.x86_64 + mkdir -p /root/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/mtr-0.75-5.el6.x86_64//usr/bin + mkdir -p /root/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/mtr-0.75-5.el6.x86_64//usr/sbin + mkdir -p /root/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/mtr-0.75-5.el6.x86_64//usr/share/pixmaps + mkdir -p /root/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/mtr-0.75-5.el6.x86_64//usr/share/man/man8 + install -m 0755 mtr /root/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/mtr-0.75-5.el6.x86_64//usr/sbin/mtr + make DESTDIR=/root/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/mtr-0.75-5.el6.x86_64 install make: *** No rule to make target `install'. Stop. error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.gu9Ds0 (%install) ====
I fully admit to not knowing much about Makefiles, so maybe I am missing something obvious. The Makefile is pretty sparce:
==== # # This is an attempt on simplifying the compilation of mtr to a simple "make". #
firstrule: ./configure $(MAKE)
clean: rm -f *.o *~ core
distclean: clean rm -f mtr config.cache config.status config.log \ stamp-h stamp-h[0-9]* TAGS ID ====
Obviously the mtr package built for CentOS itself, so I have to assume I am doing something dumb.
Thanks for any insight/tips!
It built just fine in mock, results here http://li.nux.ro/download/nux/tmp/mtr6/
-- Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
Nux! www.nux.ro
----- Original Message -----
From: "Digimer" lists@alteeve.ca To: "CentOS mailing list" centos@centos.org Sent: Tuesday, 8 March, 2016 00:05:59 Subject: [CentOS] Can anyone compile mtr source RPM on CentOS 6.7?
Hi all,
I was trying to rebuild mtr (http://vault.centos.org/6.7/os/Source/SPackages/mtr-0.75-5.el6.src.rpm) and I keep getting:
==== Executing(%install): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.gu9Ds0
- umask 022
- cd /root/rpmbuild/BUILD
- '[' /root/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/mtr-0.75-5.el6.x86_64 '!=' / ']'
- rm -rf /root/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/mtr-0.75-5.el6.x86_64
++ dirname /root/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/mtr-0.75-5.el6.x86_64
- mkdir -p /root/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT
- mkdir /root/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/mtr-0.75-5.el6.x86_64
- cd mtr-0.75
- LANG=C
- export LANG
- unset DISPLAY
- rm -rf /root/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/mtr-0.75-5.el6.x86_64
- mkdir -p /root/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/mtr-0.75-5.el6.x86_64//usr/bin
- mkdir -p /root/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/mtr-0.75-5.el6.x86_64//usr/sbin
- mkdir -p /root/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/mtr-0.75-5.el6.x86_64//usr/share/pixmaps
- mkdir -p
/root/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/mtr-0.75-5.el6.x86_64//usr/share/man/man8
- install -m 0755 mtr
/root/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/mtr-0.75-5.el6.x86_64//usr/sbin/mtr
- make DESTDIR=/root/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/mtr-0.75-5.el6.x86_64 install
make: *** No rule to make target `install'. Stop. error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.gu9Ds0 (%install) ====
I fully admit to not knowing much about Makefiles, so maybe I am missing something obvious. The Makefile is pretty sparce:
==== # # This is an attempt on simplifying the compilation of mtr to a simple "make". #
firstrule: ./configure $(MAKE)
clean: rm -f *.o *~ core
distclean: clean rm -f mtr config.cache config.status config.log \ stamp-h stamp-h[0-9]* TAGS ID ====
Obviously the mtr package built for CentOS itself, so I have to assume I am doing something dumb.
Thanks for any insight/tips!
-- Digimer Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/ What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without access to education? _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
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.
digimer
On 07/03/16 07:29 PM, Nux! wrote:
It built just fine in mock, results here http://li.nux.ro/download/nux/tmp/mtr6/
-- Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
Nux! www.nux.ro
----- Original Message -----
From: "Digimer" lists@alteeve.ca To: "CentOS mailing list" centos@centos.org Sent: Tuesday, 8 March, 2016 00:05:59 Subject: [CentOS] Can anyone compile mtr source RPM on CentOS 6.7?
Hi all,
I was trying to rebuild mtr (http://vault.centos.org/6.7/os/Source/SPackages/mtr-0.75-5.el6.src.rpm) and I keep getting:
==== Executing(%install): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.gu9Ds0
- umask 022
- cd /root/rpmbuild/BUILD
- '[' /root/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/mtr-0.75-5.el6.x86_64 '!=' / ']'
- rm -rf /root/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/mtr-0.75-5.el6.x86_64
++ dirname /root/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/mtr-0.75-5.el6.x86_64
- mkdir -p /root/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT
- mkdir /root/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/mtr-0.75-5.el6.x86_64
- cd mtr-0.75
- LANG=C
- export LANG
- unset DISPLAY
- rm -rf /root/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/mtr-0.75-5.el6.x86_64
- mkdir -p /root/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/mtr-0.75-5.el6.x86_64//usr/bin
- mkdir -p /root/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/mtr-0.75-5.el6.x86_64//usr/sbin
- mkdir -p /root/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/mtr-0.75-5.el6.x86_64//usr/share/pixmaps
- mkdir -p
/root/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/mtr-0.75-5.el6.x86_64//usr/share/man/man8
- install -m 0755 mtr
/root/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/mtr-0.75-5.el6.x86_64//usr/sbin/mtr
- make DESTDIR=/root/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/mtr-0.75-5.el6.x86_64 install
make: *** No rule to make target `install'. Stop. error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.gu9Ds0 (%install) ====
I fully admit to not knowing much about Makefiles, so maybe I am missing something obvious. The Makefile is pretty sparce:
==== # # This is an attempt on simplifying the compilation of mtr to a simple "make". #
firstrule: ./configure $(MAKE)
clean: rm -f *.o *~ core
distclean: clean rm -f mtr config.cache config.status config.log \ stamp-h stamp-h[0-9]* TAGS ID ====
Obviously the mtr package built for CentOS itself, so I have to assume I am doing something dumb.
Thanks for any insight/tips!
-- Digimer Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/ What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without access to education? _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 8 Mar 2016 00:51, "Digimer" lists@alteeve.ca wrote:
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.
1) please don't top post
2) given it builds fine in mock and that's the best way of providing the clean reproducible environment to build anything perhaps you'd get better feedback and tips (beyond the sensible "use mock") if you provided details on what you are actually trying to accomplish? Your actual end goal?
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?
-- LF
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315856
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 ;)
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?
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.
On 08/03/16 02:32 PM, James Hogarth wrote:
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.
OK, let me know if I can assist/test.
On 8 March 2016 at 19:36, Digimer lists@alteeve.ca wrote:
On 08/03/16 02:32 PM, James Hogarth wrote:
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.
OK, let me know if I can assist/test.
Okay I have what I believe to be the answer ... a rather horrible race condition.
The generated makefile has a '(sleep 3; cp Makefile.dist Makefile) &' in it for the distclean target.
The Makefile.dist is the bare empty one.
Note how this backgrounds ? There is no wait after this ...
So three seconds after the make distclean target is hit *bam* the full Makefile with the install target gets overwritten by the bare one.
So now whether the build works or not is a function of how fast you make it to make install .... Take longer than 3 seconds after the ./configure and there won't be a valid Makefile for the install (unless ./configure has rerun already - see how messy this is?)
This is definitely not a mock bug - that can be closed. It's a bug in the EL6 mtr spec file.
See lines 1812 and 4005 for the relevant happenings in the pastebin I put up before showing the behavioural difference between F23 and EPEL6
Note that my EPEL6 system is a VM so inherently slower... but once the data from disk is in the kernel cache it's faster on the subsequent builds and makes the race....
The VM is on a spinning disk (on btrfs) whereas the F23 build happened on an SSD (btrfs but less of an issue then) which would naturally cause the big speed difference.
I'd open a bug on bugzilla instead against RHEL6 and mtr explaining the race condition.
I can't think of a good reason in a spec file to background a 3 second wait and then overwrite a file that will be used in compilation/install ...
On 08/03/16 02:45 PM, James Hogarth wrote:
On 8 March 2016 at 19:36, Digimer lists@alteeve.ca wrote:
On 08/03/16 02:32 PM, James Hogarth wrote:
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.
OK, let me know if I can assist/test.
Okay I have what I believe to be the answer ... a rather horrible race condition.
The generated makefile has a '(sleep 3; cp Makefile.dist Makefile) &' in it for the distclean target.
The Makefile.dist is the bare empty one.
Note how this backgrounds ? There is no wait after this ...
So three seconds after the make distclean target is hit *bam* the full Makefile with the install target gets overwritten by the bare one.
So now whether the build works or not is a function of how fast you make it to make install .... Take longer than 3 seconds after the ./configure and there won't be a valid Makefile for the install (unless ./configure has rerun already - see how messy this is?)
This is definitely not a mock bug - that can be closed. It's a bug in the EL6 mtr spec file.
See lines 1812 and 4005 for the relevant happenings in the pastebin I put up before showing the behavioural difference between F23 and EPEL6
Note that my EPEL6 system is a VM so inherently slower... but once the data from disk is in the kernel cache it's faster on the subsequent builds and makes the race....
The VM is on a spinning disk (on btrfs) whereas the F23 build happened on an SSD (btrfs but less of an issue then) which would naturally cause the big speed difference.
I'd open a bug on bugzilla instead against RHEL6 and mtr explaining the race condition.
I can't think of a good reason in a spec file to background a 3 second wait and then overwrite a file that will be used in compilation/install ...
Um, wow. That's pretty dumb.
I've reassigned the ticket to EL6 -> mtr.
Thank you very much for your help! I will poke at the .spec and report back here/the ticket if I make any progress (again, I'm fairly new to all this. :) ).
-
Digimer -
James Hogarth -
Leon Fauster -
Nux!