Stefan Seyfried wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2011 20:41:44 -0300 Cristian Rodríguez
wrote: El 05/05/11 05:19, Stefan Seyfried escribió:
But Cristians hint made the difference: redefining _suse_os_install_post fixes all those nasty annoyances and even speeds up the build significantly. I guess I have to do this in all my spec files :-)
LOL, I should keep my mouth shout it seems.. or maybe write a list of the most fugly misuses of the build system 0:-)
I at least suppressed the instant desire to file a droprequest for the bluez-package, so I guess you certainly helped the project.
If openSUSE wants to make packagers run away screaming, such fascist build checks are a very good way to achieve that.
Note that nobody responded on the question how to do it right, so this ugly hack seems to be the best we have now.
Also nobody responded on why udev is allowed to do that (link against libusb in /usr) but bluez is not. That's clearly some new form of apartheid :-)
Want to invoke godwins law? Looking at the (not exactly new) brp-rootfs it runs a 'file' on all files in /lib and greps for "shared object". So binaries would slip through. So I would guess that the binary you have is compiled using -fpie so it gets caught by the check. So the answer to the question "why is udev allowed to do that" is "it isn't", the check just didn't catch it and noone noticed. If we'd fix the check to also search for binaries in /lib udev would fail too. The right fix would be to move libusb to /lib I guess. Independent of that the check should be ported to rpmlint for easier whitelist handling. cu Ludwig -- (o_ Ludwig Nussel //\ V_/_ http://www.suse.de/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org