Coda File System

Re: FC5 compile error

From: Jerry Amundson <>
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2006 23:52:11 -0500
Jerry Amundson writes:
> Jan Harkes writes: 
>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 11:20:56PM -0600, Jerry Amundson wrote:
>>> Alright, I can handle those easily enough, but not this one...   
>>> g++ -fno-exceptions -fcheck-new -Wall -MD -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. 
>>> -I/home/jerry/rpm/BUILD/coda-6.0.14/coda-src/venus 
>>> -I/home/jerry/rpm/BUILD/obj-6.0.14/include 
>>> -I/home/jerry/rpm/BUILD/obj-6.0.14 -g -O2 -DVENUS -DTIMING -DVENUSDEBUG 
>>> -DRVM_USELWP   -c -o vsg.o 
>>> /home/jerry/rpm/BUILD/coda-6.0.14/coda-src/venus/
>>> /home/jerry/rpm/BUILD/coda-6.0.14/coda-src/venus/ In member 
>>> function ‘int vsgent::GetMgrp(mgrpent**, uid_t, int)’:
>>> /home/jerry/rpm/BUILD/coda-6.0.14/coda-src/venus/ error: 
>>> ‘Mgrp_Wait’ was not declared in this scope
>>> make: *** [vsg.o] Error 1
>> I haven't had a chance to look at these yet, but someone just sent a
>> while batch of patches that fix these FC5 compilation problems.  
>> Jan
> Just posted this in RT, but the Result window showed "Message recorded
> Ticket 1529: Permission Denied" (even though it displayed immediately on 
> the page), so copying here also...  
> jerry  
> ---- RT posting ----
> The spec files should not assume packaging as root, a security no-no. The 
> lines
> BuildRoot: /usr/src/redhat/BUILD/@PACKAGE_at_-@VERSION@/Root
> are also non-portable : Suse packages, for example will fail. Better to 
> use something
> like
> BuildRoot: %{_builddir}/@PACKAGE_at_-@VERSION@/Root
> or, ideally if it's possible
> BuildRoot: %{_builddir}/%{name}-%{version}/Root
> The latter preferred, as it avoids the chicken-egg problem that the spec 
> needs configure
> be run first, but rpm builds are designed to run configure for you. 
> Finally, the
> should use that format to be consistent with the others. 
> I am also working on spec file improvement. Next after the above are 
> BuildRequires, and
> Requires, to accurately reflect dependencies between the four modules. 
> I'll upload those
> patches when ready - possibly a day or so.

Ugh. Please ignore that. I see now that the "spec" files that reference 
redhat are some sort of old Microsoft targets. I'll check this out. 

Received on 2006-04-09 00:57:02