-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 05/28/2010 08:59 PM, Jeff Schroeder wrote: > Tested against master and cherry-picked to sssd-1-2. Applies cleanly to both. > Jeff, thank you for the patch, but can you describe if you had any problem without it? RPM is usually pretty good in determining runtime dependencies, so adding explicit Requires: should not be necessary.

On 05/30/2010 06:34 PM, Jeff Schroeder wrote: > On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Jakub Hrozek<jhrozek(a)redhat.com>  wrote: >> >> On 05/28/2010 08:59 PM, Jeff Schroeder wrote: >>> Tested against master and cherry-picked to sssd-1-2. Applies cleanly to both. >>> >> >> Jeff, >> thank you for the patch, but can you describe if you had any problem >> without it? RPM is usually pretty good in determining runtime >> dependencies, so adding explicit Requires: should not be necessary. > > Yes, I tried rpm -Uvh *.rpm on an existing sssd host (1.0.5 + > enumerate=False cpu hog fix cherry picked). The rpm install failed due > to libsemanage.so.6 missing. > > If you are adding _new_ dependencies like this, it is my thought it > should be explicit in the spec file. When I asked on IRC simo said to > go ahead and send the patch out. What do you think? > Ack. This is something we weren't seeing simply because libsemanage is a default package on Fedora 11, 12 and 13. But if you're building a custom OS from the 'core' packageset (as Jeff is doing), this would be missing.

On 06/01/2010 10:26 AM, Jeff Schroeder wrote: > On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:24 AM, Stephen Gallagher<sgallagh(a)redhat.com>  wrote: >> On 05/30/2010 06:34 PM, Jeff Schroeder wrote: >>> On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Jakub Hrozek<jhrozek(a)redhat.com>    wrote: >>>> >>>> On 05/28/2010 08:59 PM, Jeff Schroeder wrote: >>>>> Tested against master and cherry-picked to sssd-1-2. Applies cleanly to both. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Jeff, >>>> thank you for the patch, but can you describe if you had any problem >>>> without it? RPM is usually pretty good in determining runtime >>>> dependencies, so adding explicit Requires: should not be necessary. >>> >>> Yes, I tried rpm -Uvh *.rpm on an existing sssd host (1.0.5 + >>> enumerate=False cpu hog fix cherry picked). The rpm install failed due >>> to libsemanage.so.6 missing. >>> >>> If you are adding _new_ dependencies like this, it is my thought it >>> should be explicit in the spec file. When I asked on IRC simo said to >>> go ahead and send the patch out. What do you think? >>> >> >> Ack. >> >> This is something we weren't seeing simply because libsemanage is a >> default package on Fedora 11, 12 and 13. But if you're building a custom >> OS from the 'core' packageset (as Jeff is doing), this would be missing. > > That is correct. My kickstart uses this with a minimal packageset: > %packages --nobase > > Thanks > OK, here's the explanation for why this behavior is happening to Jeff. He's using an older version of RPM (4.6, I believe). Newer versions of rpmbuild automatically detect library dependencies from the built binaries and create the appropriate dependency on the resulting RPM, without being specified explicitly. However, older versions of RPM do not have this autodetection capability, and so Jeff's build from 'core' is missing this feature.

I'm rescinding my ack on this, as the upstream contrib RPM is meant to be a reference only for supported versions of Fedora, and all currently-supported Fedora releases support the autodetection correctly. This fix will, however, go in as a custom change to the EPEL5 version of SSSD, as it will be necessary there. -- Stephen Gallagher RHCE 804006346421761 Delivering value year after year. Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors. http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/ _______________________________________________ sssd-devel mailing list sssd-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel

On 06/02/2010 10:37 AM, Jeff Schroeder wrote: > > Actually, I am using: rpm-4.6.1-3.fc10. It properly added a dep on > libsemanage.so.6, but I thought a new dependency should be explicit vs > implicit sort of like the zen of python. Perhaps I was wrong in > thinking this but it is a bit annoying to not see a dep like that when > staring at the spec file. No worries either way as this patch is very > trivial. > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Explicit_Requires