View Issue Details
|ID||Project||Category||View Status||Date Submitted||Last Update|
|0004701||CentOS-6||virt-top||public||2011-01-08 20:31||2011-07-05 20:25|
|Product Version||Pre Release|
|Target Version||Fixed in Version|
|Summary||0004701: Will not build from rhel-6 repository|
|Description||ocaml-camomile-data is required by Spec file from src rpm. This is not included in rhel-6. This was reported by Levente Farkas upstream https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661783|
|Additional Information||It can be built by including ocaml-camomile-data-0.7.2-2.fc13 in the repository or patching the spec to remove the requirement as recommended by the UpStream packager|
|Tags||No tags attached.|
virt-top.spec.patch (356 bytes)
--- virt-top.spec.orig 2011-01-08 13:14:08.670048365 -0600 +++ virt-top.spec 2011-01-08 13:15:04.011142389 -0600 @@ -30,9 +30,6 @@ # Tortuous list of BRs for gettext. BuildRequires: ocaml-gettext-devel >= 0.3.3 BuildRequires: ocaml-fileutils-devel -%ifnarch ppc64 -BuildRequires: ocaml-camomile-data -%endif # For msgfmt: BuildRequires: gettext
virt-top.spec.patch (356 bytes)
Patching the spec file is not an option here because CentOS is supposed to be binary compatible, bug for bug, as stated by Karanbir in this -devel mailing list:
|agreed, The patch is not an option for the distribution binary, but will provide a working binary for those who build their own without changing their binary repository.|
|After further review of the RH bugzilla id-661783 the RedHat Packager stated that this is a bogus dependency. It is not needed for virt-top, so why pollute the repository when the patch simply removes the bogus dependency. This is not a case of replicating a bug in the binary but simply a clean up of a source spec file.|
Thanks for your help on this issue.
The main issue from my end is : how certain are we that the dep does not cause a change in the binary output of the resulting rpmbuild. In other words, its possible that the package will build with and without that dependancy; however will the resulting packages be identical.
Also, keep in mind one thing - once a spec file is touched, it becomes a .el6.centos marked package. That specific status for the package will then not change for the life of the package ( so either till .el6 is EOL or the package is removed from the distro ).
I note from the bugzilla reference that it lists "Fixed in version: virt-top-1.0.4-3.3.el6" where the current version is virt-top-1.0.4-3.1.el6.
This version's src RPM does not exist yet, but it does seem to indicate that all subsequent releases of this package from upstream will not be built with this package as a dependency.
This implies as well that RH does not consider removal of the dependency to break binary compatibility.
|Also, if the src RPM does appear, would it be considered to just ship the newer RPM build from upstream even though it wasn't part of the initial distribution of EL6?|
|2011-01-08 20:31||hab||New Issue|
|2011-01-08 20:31||hab||File Added: virt-top.spec.patch|
|2011-01-08 20:45||toracat||Note Added: 0012305|
|2011-01-08 20:45||toracat||Status||new => acknowledged|
|2011-01-09 05:02||hab||Note Added: 0012308|
|2011-01-13 05:28||hab||Note Added: 0012337|
|2011-01-13 23:firstname.lastname@example.org||Note Added: 0012348|
|2011-01-28 00:18||kstange||Note Added: 0012384|
|2011-01-28 00:24||kstange||Note Added: 0012385|
|2011-06-30 07:50||tru||Relationship added||has duplicate 0004932|
|2011-06-30 07:50||tru||Relationship deleted||has duplicate 0004932|
|2011-07-05 20:25||toracat||Note Added: 0012890|