https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771516 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771516#c2 --- Comment #2 from Lars Müller 2012-07-16 15:43:01 CEST --- The same steps as described by http://lists.openSUSE.org/opensuse-factory/2012-07/msg00349.html also work for the SLE 11 SP 2 3.6.3 sources as available from http://download.openSUSE.org/repositories/network:/samba:/MAINTAINED:/SLE_11... a) Download the src rpm file b) rpm2cpio samba-3.6.3-43.1.src.rpm | cpio -i c) mkdir -p ~/rpmbuild/{SOURCES,SPECS} d) mv ldapsmb-1.34b.tar.bz2 patches.tar.bz2 samba-3.6.3.tar.bz2 \ vendor-files.tar.bz2 ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/ e) mv samba.spec ~/rpmbuild/SPECS/ f) cd ~/rpmbuild/ g) rpmbuild -bb SPECS/samba.spec h) Have a lot of fun... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771516 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771516#c4 --- Comment #4 from Lars Müller 2012-07-16 19:12:52 CEST --- Any 3.6.3 based and later builds with a build source time stamp of 2824 and greater will have the enhancement from comment #3. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771516 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771516#c6 --- Comment #6 from L. A. Walsh 2012-08-25 17:30:30 PDT --- Created an attachment (id=503507) --> (http://bugzilla.novell.com/attachment.cgi?id=503507) build log following lars instructions and its resulting failure (In reply to comment #2)

a) Download the src rpm file b) rpm2cpio samba-3.6.3-43.1.src.rpm | cpio -i c) mkdir -p ~/rpmbuild/{SOURCES,SPECS} d) mv ldapsmb-1.34b.tar.bz2 patches.tar.bz2 samba-3.6.3.tar.bz2 \ vendor-files.tar.bz2 ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/ e) mv samba.spec ~/rpmbuild/SPECS/ f) cd ~/rpmbuild/ g) rpmbuild -bb SPECS/samba.spec h) Have a lot of fun...

Already have. Just to document that the resolution of this bug was Invalid (not the bug, but the resolution), I am attaching following the instructions you have above .. full log and it's failure to build. I know how to work around the problem, you guys don't care to work around the problem, so I would say this is a case of you not wanting to fix a problem in the build. If you don't have the tools necessary to run samba related utilities like fusesmb and -- I think it is smb4k (sure about the 1st, there's one other samba-related (but not part of the samba base) package that has reqs, that, if installed, will cause the build to fail. Though I tried to explain this on the list, leaving the build broken in the presence of related samba components said to be 'my problem', as it wasn't a clean build system. Unfortunately, real users will install related components. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771516 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771516#c7 L. A. Walsh changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |suse@tlinx.org --- Comment #7 from L. A. Walsh 2012-08-25 17:37:40 PDT --- (In reply to comment #2)

a) Download the src rpm file b) rpm2cpio samba-3.6.3-43.1.src.rpm | cpio -i c) mkdir -p ~/rpmbuild/{SOURCES,SPECS} d) mv ldapsmb-1.34b.tar.bz2 patches.tar.bz2 samba-3.6.3.tar.bz2 \ vendor-files.tar.bz2 ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/ e) mv samba.spec ~/rpmbuild/SPECS/ f) cd ~/rpmbuild/ g) rpmbuild -bb SPECS/samba.spec h) Have a lot of fun...

Already have. Just to document that the resolution of this bug was Invalid (not the bug, but the resolution), I am attaching following the instructions you have above .. full log and it's failure to build. I know how to work around the problem, you guys don't care to work around the problem, so I would say this is a case of you not wanting to fix a problem in the build. If you don't have the tools necessary to run samba related utilities like fusesmb and -- I think it is smb4k (sure about the 1st, there's one other samba-related (but not part of the samba base) package that has reqs, that, if installed, will cause the build to fail. Though I tried to explain this on the list, leaving the build broken in the presence of related samba components said to be 'my problem', as it wasn't a clean build system. I don't think that's a reasonable requirement for real users. Real users will install related tools. I think this bug si better classified as 'WONTFIX' rather than INVALID, as clearly, looking at the attached log, one can see that it doesn't build. The fact that it does build on some 'ideal' configuration doesn't mean that it builds reliably -- and that it is not a defect in the build procedure. However, what priority and choices you make regarding fixing the problem are not mine to make, but that doesn't make it invalid. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771516 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771516#c8 --- Comment #8 from Lars Müller 2012-08-26 10:25:34 CEST --- Created an attachment (id=503509) --> (http://bugzilla.novell.com/attachment.cgi?id=503509) screen log of the session This works as described. See the full log for all the details. This is a minimal openSUSE 12.1 x86_64 system with close to no devel packages installed. Therefore the huge package install was required. This demonstrates very well that our set of BuildRequires lines works as intended. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771516 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771516#c10 L. A. Walsh changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|INVALID |WONTFIX --- Comment #10 from L. A. Walsh 2012-08-26 01:59:15 PDT --- So far, you've not addressed the bug I am reporting. You keep going off and playing with your little build and proving that your build works in your little playground. That doesn't mean this bug is invalid, as it says it won't build with the required deps due to problems in the spec file. -- This is true. The spec file has no requirements in it for a clean build environment. The spec file as is, doesn't detect that it will not build in the presence of normal SUSE packages. The spec file is faulty -- and doesn't have sufficient checks in it to give a clue as to why it doesn't build (if it does, I've posted 2 logs, and nobody is saying there is anything in my config that is wrong -- only that "there config works". You don't understand logic. Claiming the spec works when it's prerequisites is the claim you make. If I come up with an example where they are installed and it doesn't, then this disproves your claim. Finding your own contrived case where the spec works doesn't mean the spec "works" in the general case encountered by people wanting to rebuild the product on a Suse12.1 - only system. What part of the logs are you not able to read? How can you call this invalid when you have 2 different logs posted -- including one following your script that show it doesn't build? They have your prereqs installed and follow your instructions - yet it doesn't work -- THAT it doesn't work as documented in the two logs is the bug reported. I am not saying it doesn't work ever, or under ideal conditions. Obviously it does. I'm saying it is insufficiently robust and is too easily broken the way it is. I've posted multiple build logs proving this to be the case. You seem to misunderstand the idea of invalid. Invalid means I didn't post something with a problem at all. The fact that you WONTFIX it, doesn't mean make it invalid, it makes it WONTFIX. You aren't making any sense. Prove that my logs are "correct" -- and that they don't have an error. That would be sufficient to prove that this report was invalid. If you can't do that, the error report is valid, though you certainly, seem unlikely to fix it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771516 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771516#c12 --- Comment #12 from L. A. Walsh 2012-08-26 10:23:34 PDT --- (In reply to comment #11)

If it is faulty please provide a patch to enhance the working version. ==== The purpose of a bug-tracking mechanism is not to force nor beat users into submission for having submitted a bug. It's not to prove the superiority of your build process over theirs. It's not to prove to them that your idealized value of how to run the program works and whatever they are doing is wrong.

The point is to get feed back about something that broke for the user -- specifically something that *USED* to work (building samba from RPM) for them. This is a regression. It used to be those were treated as P1/S1 bugs. Now the user is abused for not having an approved setup and the user has to try to explain why they bug report isn't invalid.

It's your build which fails and I don't have the time nor do I see the value to the project to debug your failing build.

At one point in time people cared about the projects and products they shipped on to build in as many configurations (to the point that they build on DIFFERENT OS's). You only care that your build works on some idealized config -- which is very different from the attitude of how open source development used to be done.

It is faulty for your requirements but not for the requirements we have as an Open Source Software project.

The Samba project builds on multiple architectures with no were near the restrictions of the open suse project. Opensuse's version of rpm build is faulty because it doesn't build -- NOT just in all the places that samba builds, but because it doesn't even build on "generic" (not specially tuned) machines as does the original script. Why? because you remove various pieces from samba necessary for it to build all of itself.

I don't care if the bug state stays at wontfix. It demonstrates very well your unwilling habit to learn and cooperate.

See also comment #1 to get a picture what our community thinks.

-- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771516 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771516#c Swamp Workflow Management changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status Whiteboard| |maint:running:50102:low -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771516 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771516#c Swamp Workflow Management changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status Whiteboard|maint:running:50102:low |maint:released:sle11-sp2:50 |maint:released:sle11-sp2:50 |237 |237 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.