pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] question on rpm builds

To: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] question on rpm builds
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 23:46:04 -0500 (EST)
Cc: PCP <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <56C548F7.5020900@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <56C548F7.5020900@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: REPV8iwNLEvZj9/1qFVmprbtLNxqOA==
Thread-topic: 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 it something to worry about / fix?

Nope, but we could fix if its bothering.  Theres also the make -j1 warning,
and a handful of rpm "warning: File listed twice" warnings we could also go
fix - they just never seem to percolate up the to-do list here.

cheers.

--
Nathan

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