similar to: [Bug 1992] New: RPM build fails using Red Hat spec file

building rpm for mandrake 8.1 gives me this error what should i try? checking for two-argument statfs with struct fs_data (Ultrix)... no checking if large file support can be enabled... yes checking whether to support ACLs... no checking whether to build winbind... yes checking for poptGetContext in -lpopt... no checking whether to use included popt... ./popt checking configure summary configure:

Dear CentOS list we are a small software company making mostly web driven GIS software. We started to simplify out sysadmin life making RPM packages of most of the GIS software stack. For a dependency issue we had to abandon the upstream 8.1 PostgreSQL and install at least a 8.2 version. Taking the package from Fedora 8 and rebuilding it for x86_64 went smoothly. Unfortunatly the same is

Attached (and pasted in it entirety, although quite a few of the long lines are munched) is my rpm spec file for building the mingw cross-compiler as an rpm. It is more or less a wrapper which massages the cross-tool script and setting some of the directories in the "RPM" way and eventually everything is under /opt/mingw ; the only tricky part is telling rpm not to strip binaries. The

Hi People, I have just started building my own RPMS on both Fedora and CentOS and generally things have gone well. Currently I am trying to create RPMS for some commercial software that we have purchased. Step 1 was install the software using its JAVA Based installer ensuring that all files were installed into a particular directory in /usr/local. Step 2 was create a tar file of the

This patch series fixes the way supermin sorts the list of installed packages when resolving a name, picking the right package for the host architecture. Pino Toscano (5): rpm: do not unpack parameters rpm: fix version comparison rpm: query the RPM architecture rpm: fix package sorting (RHBZ#1696822) utils: remove unused 'compare_architecture' function src/librpm-c.c | 10

On 02.07.2015 23:12, Thomas Schmitt wrote: > Hi, > > hpa wrote: >> On PowerPC (I think) "unsigned char" is the default. > > In any case it seems a good idea to interpret the character > more explicitely. To my experience, one signdness change causes > a little tree of consequential signedness changes or questionable > cast operations. > How about the

On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 06:09:21PM -0500, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: > Sure. I think I'm closer, but I'm also at the point where I'm just trying > things. My current issue, that I keep falling back to, is the install > *INSISTS* that it has to add a - after version. > > %prep > > %install > mkdir $RPM_BUILD_DIR/opt/smipmicfg-%{version} > install -m 744 -d

On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 06:57:43PM +0200, Pino Toscano wrote: > Fedora 33 switched the DB of RPM to SQLite, so no more Packages/Name/etc > files. Because any missing file exception is ignored when checking for > --if-newer, the lack of the Package files was not properly noticed, so > the appliance was always considered out out date. > > Check for the SQLite-based DB first,

Hi, I have been making an RPM of FLAC to bundle with GStreamer. In order to get it working I had to make some rather hackish solutions in the SPEC file. The flac Makefile does to build into the correct directories while creating an RPM for some reason. I have attached the SPEC file I ended up with if it is of interest. Of course it didn't help me much cause it turned up we had a bug in the

On Wednesday, 26 August 2020 21:15:36 CEST Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 06:57:43PM +0200, Pino Toscano wrote: > > Fedora 33 switched the DB of RPM to SQLite, so no more Packages/Name/etc > > files. Because any missing file exception is ignored when checking for > > --if-newer, the lack of the Package files was not properly noticed, so > > the

In the referenced bug, a customer had installed a web browser called 'palemoon'. The RPM of this web browser provides and requires various core libraries, such as: Provides: libnss3.so()(64bit) # normally provided by 'nss' Requires: libxul.so()(64bit) # normally provided by 'firefox' Our previous algorithm -- inherited from the days when we used to run 'rpm'

Fedora 33 switched the DB of RPM to SQLite, so no more Packages/Name/etc files. Because any missing file exception is ignored when checking for --if-newer, the lack of the Package files was not properly noticed, so the appliance was always considered out out date. Check for the SQLite-based DB first, falling back to the old format. Signed-off-by: Pino Toscano <ptoscano@redhat.com> ---

Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 3:41 PM <m.roth at 5-cent.us> wrote: > >> I'm trying to build a package to create a directory and install some >> files. My rpmbuild keeps failing, unable to cd into the directory, "no >> such". Now, in the tmpfile, I *see* it cd'ing into BUILD/opt, and the >> source was unzipped and untared

Hello, Tech question, I hope this has not been addressed before. I searched help archives and looked for online help but came up empty-handed. My question is: (short version) Is there a RPM-supported version of update.packages() for use with updating package libraries on managed multi-user Linux networks? Details: I put in a request for updating the version of R on one of the hosts on my

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992 Damien Miller <djm at mindrot.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |CLOSED --- Comment #3 from Damien Miller <djm at mindrot.org> --- Set all RESOLVED bugs to CLOSED with release

CentOS Errata and Bugfix Advisory 2015:1992 Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2015-1992.html The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: ( sha256sum Filename ) i386: eee95115b1e07dfd02b52d828bdacc1906ba6af563387ffd2d1c981c778460c5 kernel-2.6.32-573.8.1.el6.i686.rpm

CentOS Errata and Bugfix Advisory 2018:1992 Upstream details at : https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2018:1992 The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: ( sha256sum Filename ) x86_64: c8f00f6dc79b2c954435c18279c750369b934f4543222413258db952e0086482 sudo-1.8.19p2-14.el7_5.x86_64.rpm

Hello, I've started seeing the following warning in 3.11-rc2. [In the interest of full disclosure, I do have a patch applied that tries to implement drm_planes, which I might have done completely incorrectly, but looking around it doesn't seem related. I'm definitely not invoking any of the planes functionality right now. See http://paste.debian.net/hidden/cf8b3a2, plus a call to the

Hi, I am trying to replicate Lambert (1992)'s simulation with zero-inflated Poisson models. The citation is here: @article{lambert1992zero, Author = {Lambert, D.}, Journal = {Technometrics}, Pages = {1--14}, Publisher = {JSTOR}, Title = {Zero-inflated {P}oisson regression, with an application to defects in manufacturing}, Year = {1992}} Specifically I am trying to recreate Table 2. But my

> is.na(strptime("5/2/1992", format="%m/%d/%Y")) [1] FALSE > is.na(strptime("5/3/1992", format="%m/%d/%Y")) [1] TRUE Any idea what's going on with this? Running strptime against all dates from around 1946, only 5/3/1992 was converted as "NA". Even stranger, it still seems to have a value associated with it (even though is.na thinks