Bug 147089 - Incompatibilities between checkinstall 1.6 and rpm-4.4
Summary: Incompatibilities between checkinstall 1.6 and rpm-4.4
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
: 147512 148677 (view as bug list)
Alias: None
Product: SUSE Linux 10.1
Classification: openSUSE
Component: Other (show other bugs)
Version: Beta 1
Hardware: All Other
: P5 - None : Normal (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Philipp Thomas
QA Contact: E-mail List
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2006-01-31 20:32 UTC by Björn Voigt
Modified: 2006-02-07 13:23 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Found By: Other
Services Priority:
Business Priority:
Blocker: ---
Marketing QA Status: ---
IT Deployment: ---


Attachments
test case: example installation script (409 bytes, text/plain)
2006-01-31 20:36 UTC, Björn Voigt
Details
example spec file produced by checkinstall (452 bytes, text/plain)
2006-01-31 20:37 UTC, Björn Voigt
Details
test case: example installation script (2.) (411 bytes, text/plain)
2006-01-31 20:44 UTC, Björn Voigt
Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Björn Voigt 2006-01-31 20:32:37 UTC
As I tried to make some rpm packages with checkinstall-1.6.0beta4-10 and rpm-4.4.2-9 (both included in SuSE Linux 10.1 Beta1) I found some incompatibilities and other problems.

1) Copyright tag not valid in RPM-4.4

At first, checkinstall creates a SPEC file with the tag "Copyright:". This tag is not valid any more in RPM-4.4 and is reported as an error:

  error: Legacy syntax is unsupported: copyright
  error: line 5: Unknown tag: Copyright: GPL

"License" is the new "Copyright" tag.
  
2) RPM complains about unpacked file(s)

RPM complains about unpacked file(s) when used together with checkinstall:

  Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files /var/soft/missing-libraries/buildroot
  error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:

But the unpackaged file list is empty.

3) Checkinstall produces a badly formatted %files list in RPM-spec:

The %files list produced by checkinstall is badly formatted, e.g.

%files
%dir "//usr/"
%dir "//usr/lib/"
%dir "//usr/lib/libexpat.so.0"
"//usr/lib/libexpat.so.0.5.0"

4) Syntax problem in "Requires:" tag

The "Requires:" tag produced by checkinstall has a syntax problem (extra ","), e.g.:

Requires:  ,/bin/sh

Testing:

I attached an example installation script. The script could be tested together with a library:

  $ ls -l
  -rwxr-xr-x  1 root root      188 Jan 31 20:56 install-rpm
  lrwxrwxrwx  1 root root       17 Jan 31 20:47 libexpat.so.0 -> libexpat.so.0.5.0
  -rwxr-xr-x  1 root root   127428 Sep  9 17:58 libexpat.so.0.5.0

Now checkinstall could be tested with:

  $ checkinstall ./install-rpm

You will see the errors after filling the required the fields, e.g.

  This package will be built according to these values:

  1 -  Summary: [ Package created with checkinstall 1.6.0beta4 ]
  2 -  Name:    [ missing-libs ]
  3 -  Version: [ 20050131 ]
  4 -  Release: [ 1 ]
  5 -  License: [ GPL ]
  6 -  Group:   [ Applications/System ]
  7 -  Architecture: [ i386 ]
  8 -  Source location: [ missing-libraries ]
  9 -  Alternate source location: [  ]
 10 - Provides: [ missing ]
 11 - Requires: [ ,/bin/sh ]
Comment 1 Björn Voigt 2006-01-31 20:36:49 UTC
Created attachment 65944 [details]
test case: example installation script
Comment 2 Björn Voigt 2006-01-31 20:37:57 UTC
Created attachment 65945 [details]
example spec file produced by checkinstall
Comment 3 Björn Voigt 2006-01-31 20:44:35 UTC
Created attachment 65947 [details]
test case: example installation script (2.)
Comment 4 Christian Boltz 2006-02-02 00:31:53 UTC
*** Bug 147512 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 5 Philipp Thomas 2006-02-02 11:36:50 UTC
OK, I've fixed most of these bugs. The only part I couldn't verify is the complaint about an empty list of unpackaged files. The other fixes will be in BETA 4.
Comment 6 Philipp Thomas 2006-02-07 13:23:53 UTC
*** Bug 148677 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***