Re: Odd mock build problem

[Oliver Andrich <oliver andrich gmail com>]

On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 10:19:50PM -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
> > Unfortunately it's not empty:
> > 
> > Requires:       %{ruby_sitelib}
> > 
> > or, more precisely, it's only showing up as empty because ruby isn't
> > there.
> 
> It *is* empty during the first run to create the srpm.
> 
> Here's a trick I've been thinking about using to work around the same
> problem when building maxima to make a dependancy against the version of
> sbcl used to build it:
> 
> # maxima requires the *same* version it was built against
> # this hack should work, even in mock (-: -- Rex
> %global sbcl_ver %(sbcl --version 2>/dev/null | cut -d' ' -f2)
> %if "%{?sbcl_ver}" >= "0.9"
> %define sbcl_ver2 = %{sbcl_ver}
> %endif
> Requires: sbcl %{?sbcl_ver2}
> 
> You'll need to do something similar.

Hi,

let me comment on this as I am the author of this SRPM, which builds
without any problem on my FC4 and my FC5Test3 system. I think, this is
an obvious bug in the mock stuff, cause without mock everything works as
expected. I think, we should file a bug report about this, cause casting
some mighty rpm spec file shell magic like above can't be a solution to
satisfy mock. :)

Best regards,
Oliver

-- 
Oliver Andrich --- oliver andrich gmail com --- http://roughbook.de/