From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Ehmanns Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 08:30:27 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] Add missing config to RPM target package In-Reply-To: <55E89D2B.4090804@gmx.de> References: <55D70AF3.3050604@gmx.de> <20150823200604.0c1e00cb@free-electrons.com> <55DCC1F6.4060008@gmx.de> <20150831163223.67982cd3@free-electrons.com> <55E89D2B.4090804@gmx.de> Message-ID: <56614113.50102@gmx.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Thomas, unfortunately it took some time, but finally I cross-checked this topic. With the change from rpm5 to rpm the problem does not exist anymore and there is no need for a patch. Thanks for your support. Regards, Andreas Am 03.09.2015 um 21:19 schrieb Andreas Ehmanns: > Thomas, > I will first check if and how the change from rpm5 to rpm affects this > topic. > If the patch is then still necessary I will send it again. Since I'm > going on holiday right now it will take some time until you hear from > me again. > > Regards, > Andreas > > > Am 31.08.2015 um 16:32 schrieb Thomas Petazzoni: >> Dear Andreas Ehmanns, >> >> On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:28:54 +0200, Andreas Ehmanns wrote: >> >>> in my first try I had no pcre support, so rpm package was built with >>> --with-pcre=none >>> Trying to install a binary rpm just containing one file on my target >>> system failed at the very beginning when rpm was checking package >>> dependencies. Setting --with-pcre=internal solved this problem. So it >>> seems to me that pcre is necessary to to dependency checks which is in >>> my opinion one of the main features or rpm. Isn't it? >> If that's indeed the case, then pcre support is really mandatory for >> RPM to be useful. Therefore, can you send a patch to make the pcre >> dependency a mandatory one? Don't forget to add a comment explaining >> why we're making it mandatory even if RPM makes it an optional >> dependency. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Thomas >