On 8 March 2016 at 17:22, Digimer <lists at alteeve.ca> wrote: > On 08/03/16 11:36 AM, James Hogarth wrote: > > On 8 March 2016 at 16:15, Digimer <lists at alteeve.ca> wrote: > > > >> On 08/03/16 07:11 AM, James Hogarth wrote: > >>> On 8 March 2016 at 10:07, Leon Fauster <leonfauster at googlemail.com> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Am 08.03.2016 um 01:50 schrieb Digimer <lists at 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=el6&component=mock 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.