Hi, attempting to install softhsm on riscv64 currently results in the following error:
# dnf install -y softhsm ... >>> Running pre-install scriptlet: softhsm-0:2.6.1-11.rvre0.fc42.riscv64 >>> Error in pre-install scriptlet: softhsm-0:2.6.1-11.rvre0.fc42.riscv64 >>> Scriptlet output: >>> /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.gPQi2A: line 2: fg: no job control >>> >>> [RPM] %prein(softhsm-2.6.1-11.rvre0.fc42.riscv64) scriptlet failed, exit status 1 Transaction failed: Rpm transaction failed I've spent some time investigating this and ultimately tracked it down to the fact that apparently the %sysusers_create_package macro was not expanded when the riscv64 package was built: # rpm -q --scripts softhsm-2.6.1-11.rvre0.fc42.riscv64.rpm preinstall scriptlet (using /bin/sh): %sysusers_create_package softhsm /builddir/build/SOURCES/softhsm-sysusers.conf postinstall program: /bin/sh Compare this to the x86_64 package: # rpm -q --scripts softhsm-2.6.1-11.fc42.x86_64.rpm preinstall scriptlet (using /bin/sh): systemd-sysusers --replace=/usr/lib/sysusers.d/softhsm.conf - <<SYSTEMD_INLINE_EOF || : u ods - "opendnssec daemon account" SYSTEMD_INLINE_EOF postinstall program: /bin/sh The macro is defined in /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.systemd, part of the systemd-rpm-macros package, and comparing the build logs for the two packages sheds some light on the difference: http://fedora.riscv.rocks/kojifiles/packages/softhsm/2.6.1/11.rvre0.fc42/data/logs/riscv64/mock_output.log https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/packages/softhsm/2.6.1/11.fc42/data/logs/i686/mock_output.log For the x86_64 build, systemd-rpm-macros is installed, but for the riscv64 it isn't. That would explain why the macro could not be expanded in the latter case. Now the question is, what has caused the package to be installed in the x86_64 build environment? AFAICT there is no explicit BuildRequires for it. Is it intended that the dependency would be an indirect one? I always thought it was good practice to explicitly depend on packages that ship the macros your spec file uses, but maybe this case is different? Maybe we just need to rebuild some packages in some specific order on riscv64 to sort things out? Thank you in advance for any help you might be able to provide :) -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
