On Wednesday 22 October 2003 08:56, Matt Hyclak wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 07:04:29AM -0400, Gene Heskett enlightened
us:
>> We did at one time have someone subscribed here that was doing the
>> redhat rpm's, and he would speak up anytime we started to get down
>> on the rpm vs the tarballs, but he has not made any posts here in
>> many months now that I'm aware of. I would be nice if he spoke
>> up, possibly answering your question specificly.
>
>I'm not him, obviously, but he is lurking. Jay is usually idle on
> the #amanda irc channel, and I have had some discussion with him
> about the state of the RPMs for redhat. Unfortunately he also has a
> hojillion other packages to maintain, so he can't dedicate a lot of
> time to amanda.
Yes, Jay is the one I was trying to remember. Thanks, my aged grey
matter fails again. Its 69 FWTW.
>FWIW, I have made packages of 2.4.4-p1 that are pretty much the RH
> packages with a couple tweaks to the .spec file. Namely, there are
> 2 variables at the top of the .spec to define your tapeserver and
> your config name. The problem with packaging binary files for
> amanda is that you have to resort to using localhost where a
> hostname is required so the thing will at least mostly work.
> Because of this, I put the variable at the top of the spec file and
> recommend people rebuild the source rpm after making the
> appropriate changes to the .spec.
>
>If anyone is interested in this, you can get it from (sorry it
> wraps):
> http://www.math.ohiou.edu/mirror/casit/contrib/9/SRPMS/amanda-2.4.4
>p1-2mrh3.src.rpm
>
>To install it "correctly" goes something like this:
>
>$ rpm -i amanda-2.4.4p1-2mrh3.src.rpm
>edit the .spec file (in /usr/src/redhat/SPECS if you build as root)
Q: Does this automaticly set the ownerships and perms in the built
rpm? Amanda should be built by a non-priviledged user, then
installed by root. Otherwise the perms get fubared. I ask because
I've never done it this way to test.
>$ rpmbuild -ba amanda.spec
># rpm -Uvh amanda-2.4.4p1-2mrh3.i386.rpm ...
> (in /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386 if you build as root)
>
>You don't have to build amanda as root from the rpm (and I recommend
> that you don't just on principle). I've fed these changes up to Jay
> and he's created bugzilla entries (or at least was going to. If he
> hasn't, maybe this can be his poke in the ribs...) to make it a
> little easier to build amanda for your location and still have the
> package be managed instead of resorting to *cringe* tarballs. ;-)
>
>Matt
Just out of curiosity, why the cring at the thought of tarballs?
There are good and valid reasons to use the rpms and have a managed
install. In amanda's case, where the correct perms and such are
required for proper overall functionality, and which may vary
according to the users whims, something the rpms don't seem to handle
right, I've found the tarballs to be much the easier way to maintain
amanda. And I've learned the hard way to never, ever, let the
up2date utility anywhere near your amanda install. One early
version, if not the first one released, must have been a bit buggy
though. I did not check anything amanda related, but it did it
anyway. Took me 2 days to clean up the mess that made.
We also spend about 25% of our support efforts here on this list
trying to convince gnubies that they cannot run it reliably using
localhost. Most probably have acquired the localhost habit from an
rpm install. The README etc in the tarballs carry warnings, but
theres no good place in the rpms for such advisories. After a while
some of us can get downright bored, even growly about it. My
apologies in that case :)
--
Cheers, Gene
AMD K6-III@500mhz 320M
Athlon1600XP@1400mhz 512M
99.27% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
Yahoo.com attornies please note, additions to this message
by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2003 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
|
