Re: Re: Make Redhat (again..)

From: Germano Percossi <>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 02:05:23 +0200 (CEST)

Christian Holm Christensen wrote:
> Hi Germano,
> On Tue, 2005-05-24 at 18:51 +0200, Germano Percossi wrote:
>>I wonder if I see errors everywhere or if I'm the only one using
>>RPM.. :'(
> This particular error is centric to your (kind) of system. Which
> distribution are you using? What version?

I apologize if this mail can look like a criticism to your work, I meant only that with that extension could not work on all RPM platform, and in my case it's so.

Anyway I use Mandrake 10.1

> Note, on the system I tested the scripts on (SLC3 mainly), this was not
> a problem.
> When I look in `/usr/lib/rpm/i386-linux/macros', I see that the macro
> `%__os_install_post' expands to (amount other things),
> `/usr/lib/rpm/brp_compress', which is a shell script. Looking in that
> shell script, I see that it uses GZip. On your system it may be
> different.
> I looked at the same shell script on lxplus (SLC3), and they also use
> GZip.

Maybe this lines from my brp_compress help

# Compress man pages
COMPRESS="bzip2 -9 -n"

> I'm not sure what the solution is. Could you try to take out the line
> that transforms the names, and see what happens? Thanks.

A fast solution was suddenly achieved replacing in the 'sed' script gz with bz2

> One solution would could be to look at what is actually in the
> directory: BZip2ped or GZipped files. However, it's a hack, and I'm
> not that fond of it.

The errors is produced because rpm sees some files in the build directory (the bzipped ones) that are not the one expected looking at the .install lists: so, the answer to your question is bzipped are created and gzipped are passed to the %file macro.

I do not understand if the hack you refer to is that Mandrake uses bzip ;) .

Before I go bed I'd like to refer you another misfeature and tell me if could be my fault.
Rpm is a very precise tool, and it does not allow you to package if it knows that some files you wait for are not in the build dir; but also the contrary is
true. The error I told before is of the first kind but now I have a second kind.

11 files that are in the build root but there are no packages that claims for them :'(

the first 8 are


They are present in the build, are listed in root-plugin-foam.install but there are
no packages that includes them in the file list. Is a root-plugin-foam sub-package the one that has to request them? It's not a problem, I can write a few lines in the spec file to include it, maybe with
A package that I don't what it is for..
I would be very excited to say that I have added this subpackage but I think that it deserves a better writer: I'll do to save time but I think that ROOT collaboration must avoid that people like me can do this "horror" on their good work ;)

others 2 are


You may wonder: "what's up now?!!!"
Maybe nothing but I avoided to build the xrootd package and only on this case is possible to see that (maybe..) something goes wrong with 'make install'
or something similar.
This to files are builded regardless xrootd is requested but they are inserted in a list of
files that is requested by xrootd subpackage: rpm in this case is sensible while the normal
building would not.

the last is


what's that? Every suggestion is welcome

> Yours,

Sorry for your patience (and all people reading this..)

and tnx again (now I go bed, really!)

Best regards

    \ | /
    (@ @)
Germano Percossi
University of Rome "Tor Vergata" and INFN Roma2
Via della Ricerca Scientifica 1
I-00133 Rome Italy
Phone     : 06 7259 4824
Room      : c0 28b
Received on Wed May 25 2005 - 02:06:15 MEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Jan 02 2007 - 14:45:08 MET