pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [pcp] question on rpm builds

To: "'Nathan Scott'" <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [pcp] question on rpm builds
From: "Ken McDonell" <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 19:49:34 +1100
Cc: "'PCP'" <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1436029232.21802619.1455770764295.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <56C548F7.5020900@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1436029232.21802619.1455770764295.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: AQHgON/4dwqgIEjqs/i0ynCqOizFCgHh6DLqnwZjgmA=
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nathan Scott [mailto:nathans@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, 18 February 2016 3:46 PM
> To: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: PCP <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [pcp] question on rpm builds
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > In the process of debugging something else, I noticed this coming
> out
> > of the rpm builds ...
> >
> >     Explicit %attr() mode not applicaple to symlink:
> >
> > /home/kenj/src/pcp/pcp-3.11.1/BUILDROOT/pcp-3.11.1-
> 8.x86_64/usr/lib64/
> > libpcp.so
> >
> > and similar lines that appear to be for every symlink in the PCP
> packages.
> >
> > Is this expected?
> 
> Yeah, its been generating that warning for years.  Its most likely
> from:
> $1 == "l" { print "%attr(0777,root,root)", $3 >> f }'
> ... in pcp.spec.in?  It may have once been accepted by an old version
> of rpm/rpmbuild.

Is there any reason why we should not simply kill this bit of the script?

If you can't set %attr() on a symlink, then this but of awk should be in the 
bin, n'est ce pas?

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>