Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 1898093
| Summary: | libreoffice: SRPM built on Fedora 33 cannot be rebuilt on Fedora > 33 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Miro Hrončok <mhroncok> |
| Component: | libreoffice | Assignee: | Caolan McNamara <caolanm> |
| Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | caolanm, dtardon, erack, sbergman |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2020-11-23 20:31:06 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 1890881 | ||
My take to solve this problem: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libreoffice/pull-request/8 |
libreoffice has a conditionally defined patch: %if 0%{?fedora} > 33 || 0%{?rhel} > 8 Patch5: 0001-Upgrade-liborcus-to-0.16.0.patch %endif As a result, when the SRPM is created on Fedora 33, the patch is not in it. When the SRPM is built on Fedora 34, it fails, because the fiel is missing: error: Bad file: /builddir/build/SOURCES/0001-Upgrade-liborcus-to-0.16.0.patch: No such file or directory As a consequence, we cannot easily rebuild libreoffice from dist git in Copr: https://pagure.io/copr/copr/issue/1315 A general sentiment seem to be that packages should avoid doing this, because it breaks stuff. I'll take a look to see if this can be designed in a more robust way.