Conversation
|
Before this gets reviewed, would it possible to kick off a build to verify that the proposed fix is effective please ? |
|
It's definitely the case that aznfs reports that it provides files that come from dependencies, although I don't know enough about rpm to tell if that's an issue or not: Checking a few other packages though, it's definitely not something that is commonly done. |
|
I can add a bit more info here: It's not just that tdnf reports this, your RPM actually includes these files: aznfs $ rpm2cpio aznfs-0.3.21-1.x86_64.rpm | cpio -idmv
./lib/systemd/system/aznfswatchdog.service
./lib/systemd/system/aznfswatchdogv4.service
./opt/microsoft/aznfs/aznfs_install.sh
./opt/microsoft/aznfs/common.sh
./opt/microsoft/aznfs/libs/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2
./opt/microsoft/aznfs/libs/libc.so.6
./opt/microsoft/aznfs/libs/libffi.so.8
./opt/microsoft/aznfs/libs/libm.so.6
./opt/microsoft/aznfs/libs/libp11-kit.so.0
./opt/microsoft/aznfs/libs/libunistring.so.5
./opt/microsoft/aznfs/mountscript.sh
./opt/microsoft/aznfs/nfsv3mountscript.sh
./opt/microsoft/aznfs/nfsv4mountscript.sh
./opt/microsoft/aznfs/sample-turbo-config.yaml
./sbin/aznfsclient
./sbin/mount.aznfs
./usr/lib/.build-id
./usr/lib/.build-id/08
./usr/lib/.build-id/08/a0ec8046fc05a8c295d3d72d62e6ca0e537a33
./usr/lib/.build-id/1c
./usr/lib/.build-id/1c/8db5f83bba514f8fd5f1fb6d7be975be1bb855
./usr/lib/.build-id/2c
./usr/lib/.build-id/2c/a6ac3fe88306a1260e7d79196ed507d65ff26c
./usr/lib/.build-id/42
./usr/lib/.build-id/42/c84c92e6f98126b3e2230ebfdead22c235b667
./usr/sbin/aznfswatchdog
./usr/sbin/aznfswatchdogv4
47508 blocksNote the |
|
Which was introduced in https://github.com/Azure/AZNFS-mount/pull/176/files#diff-73a4cfa94443a21d36be6aac03ba271d0edd870a7d386b8522a3b68d2544bf14R73 It's not immediately clear from the comment nor from the PR description why this copy is being performed. |
|
Copying them around is one thing, but in addition declaring to the packaging system that those libs are provided by the aznfs package is extremely problematic. @shubham808 @linuxsmiths would you be able to take a look and comment please ? |
|
Thank you for reaching out and sharing this information. |
|
@yvf , Could you please share more details about the scenario in which you encountered this problem? It would be helpful if you could provide your exact steps to reproduce the issue, along with information such as the Linux distribution and version you were using? |
The RPMs provided at
packages.microsoft.com/rhel/8/prodhave aProvidessection that include glibc and other system libraries that are inappropriate and confuse package dependency evaluators. Remove those superfluousProvidesentries.Note: I have not been able to build the package directly, so hoping the CI pipeline will do so - looks like there is a build target.