Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

systemd-tmpfiles munge.conf installed but unpackaged on SLES11, breaks rpmbuild #27

Closed
GoogleCodeExporter opened this issue May 15, 2015 · 4 comments
Closed

systemd-tmpfiles munge.conf installed but unpackaged on SLES11, breaks rpmbuild #27

GoogleCodeExporter opened this issue May 15, 2015 · 4 comments
Labels
packaging

Comments

@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link

What steps will reproduce the problem?

The systemd-tmpfiles munge.conf needs to be excluded from older (hello SLES11) rpm builds in the spec file as it causes rpmbuild to fail.

aelwell@iTDS:~/compile> rpmbuild -ta ./munge-0.5.11.tar.bz2

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?

Requires(postun): /bin/sh
Requires: libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) 
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit)
Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files /var/tmp/munge-0.5.11
error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
   /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d/munge.conf

RPM build errors:
    Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
   /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d/munge.conf

What version of the software are you using? On what operating system?

munge-0.5.11 on SLES11

Please provide any additional information below.

Reported by andrew.elwell in #11.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by chris.m.dunlap on 19 Dec 2013 at 12:18
@GoogleCodeExporter GoogleCodeExporter mentioned this issue Jun 5, 2015
Closed
@dun dun added bug and removed auto-migrated labels Jun 6, 2015
@dun dun added this to the 0.5.12 milestone Jun 6, 2015
This was referenced Jun 6, 2015
Closed
Closed
dun added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 22, 2015
@dun
Remove RPM specfile support for non-RedHat systems
b0f993f 
RPM specfile support for non-RedHat systems is being dropped since
it has become a maintenance burden to maintain multiple distros
in the same specfile, especially with the transition to systemd.
Packaging details like this are best handled downstream.

The specfile will target the latest CentOS release.  RPM specfiles for
other distros & releases will be placed in a contrib subdir if needed.

Signed-off-by: Chris Dunlap <[email protected]>
Issue #27
Issue #36
Issue #39
dun added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 22, 2015
@dun
Convert RPM specfile from sysvinit to systemd
d034b3a 
This commit coverts the RPM specfile from sysvinit to systemd.
The requisite Requires & BuildRequires tags for systemd are added.
References to chkconfig and the sysvinit script are replaced with
corresponding helper macros to handle systemd scriptlet operations.
The sysvinit script and sysconfig file are replaced with the systemd
unit file and tmpfiles.d configuration file.

Furthermore, the %ghost tag is removed from the /var/run/munge
directory.  This tag was added back in commit 0f89429, at which
point the sysvinit script created this directory when the service
was started.  By removing the %ghost tag, this directory will be
created when the rpm is installed.  Since /var/run is (likely)
mounted as tmpfs, this directory will disappear on the next reboot,
at which point it will be re-created by tmpfiles.d.

The RuntimeDirectory and RuntimeDirectoryMode options in the service
file were added in systemd 211.  This is a clean and straightforward
manner in which to create private runtime directories below /run.
However, tmpfiles.d is being used instead since CentOS 7 ships with
systemd 208.

References:
- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd
- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets
- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Tmpfiles.d

Tested on:
- CentOS 7
- Fedora 20-23

Signed-off-by: Chris Dunlap <[email protected]>
Closes #33
Closes #43
Issue #27
Issue #36
Issue #39
@dun dun added packaging and removed bug labels Feb 25, 2016
@dun dun removed this from the 0.5.12 milestone Feb 25, 2016
@dun
Copy link
Owner

dun commented Feb 25, 2016

The top-level munge.spec will target the latest CentOS / RHEL release. RPM specfiles for other distros & releases will be placed in the top-level extra directory -- please submit a pull request.

This issue now lists SLES11, Amazon Linux, and CentOS. I don't have access to SLES or Amazon Linux, but the specfile now works on the latest CentOS so I'm closing this.

@dun dun closed this as completed Feb 25, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
packaging
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@dun @GoogleCodeExporter