Description of problem:
Occasional failure packaging python files.
I suspect brp-python-bytecompile. This also may be related to bug 468179
The symptom is not 100% reproducible.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
-bash-3.2$ rpmbuild --version
RPM version 4.4.2.3
How reproducible:
Create an architecture specific rpm delivering at least one python file.
rpmbuild. In this case it is the file /usr/lib/yum-plugins/ft-reboot-tracking.py.
Since the offending files were created during %__os_install_post processing
The expected behavior is that any files created by rpmbuild's macros are either:
a) added to the %files set for management by rpm
b) ignored during packaging
Any notice of the additional files should be informational only. It should not raise an error.
Additional info:
The lack of 100% repeatability is pernicious because if one adds the .pyc and .pyo files a subsequent rpmbuild may fail to create them and then fail complaining that that specified files are missing.
One avoidance is to recast the __os_install_post macro; skipping brp_python_bytecompile
We would like to confirm that there is commitment to test
for the resolution of this request during the RHEL 5.5 test
phase, if it is accepted into the release.
Please post a confirmation before Oct 16th, 2009,
including the contact information for testing engineers.
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for
inclusion, but this component is not scheduled to be updated in
the current Red Hat Enterprise Linux release. If you would like
this request to be reviewed for the next minor release, ask your
support representative to set the next rhel-x.y flag to "?".
Description of problem: bytecompile. This also may be related to bug 468179
Occasional failure packaging python files.
I suspect brp-python-
The symptom is not 100% reproducible.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
-bash-3.2$ rpmbuild --version
RPM version 4.4.2.3
How reproducible: yum-plugins/ ft-reboot- tracking. py.
Create an architecture specific rpm delivering at least one python file.
rpmbuild. In this case it is the file /usr/lib/
Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.
Actual results:
buildrpm reports:
Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/ rpm/check- files /auto/svn/ rjohnson/ linux/trunk/ ftl_linux/ build/BUILDROOT /lsb-ft- cstools- 7.0.3-104 lib/yum- plugins/ ft-reboot- tracking. pyc lib/yum- plugins/ ft-reboot- tracking. pyo
error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
/usr/
/usr/
RPM build errors: lib/yum- plugins/ ft-reboot- tracking. pyc lib/yum- plugins/ ft-reboot- tracking. pyo
Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
/usr/
/usr/
Expected results:
Since the offending files were created during %__os_install_post processing
The expected behavior is that any files created by rpmbuild's macros are either:
a) added to the %files set for management by rpm
b) ignored during packaging
Any notice of the additional files should be informational only. It should not raise an error.
Additional info:
The lack of 100% repeatability is pernicious because if one adds the .pyc and .pyo files a subsequent rpmbuild may fail to create them and then fail complaining that that specified files are missing.
One avoidance is to recast the __os_install_post macro; skipping brp_python_ bytecompile
%define __os_install_post /usr/lib/ rpm/redhat/ brp-compress ?__debug_ package: /usr/lib/ rpm/redhat/ brp-strip %{__strip}} lib/rpm/ redhat/ brp-strip- static- archive %{__strip} lib/rpm/ redhat/ brp-strip- comment- note %{__strip} %{__objdump} lib/rpm/ redhat/ brp-java- repack- jars
%{!
/usr/
/usr/
/usr/
%{nil}