Yesterday I have installed 2.6.1 from the rpm file 
amanda-backup_server-2.6.1-1.suse11.i586.rpm which I had created
previously.  Backup today went smoothly, amstatus and amcheck are ok as
well as a test recovery with amrecover.

Again, thanks for all assistance and help.

Regards,

Charles




On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 12:47:58 -0600
Dan Locks <dwlocks AT zmanda DOT com> wrote:

> Charles Stroom wrote:
> > Firstly, I removed the 2 redundant lines in my patch -> compile and
> > build seems still to be ok.
> >
> > Then, I changed the distver line to 11.1 -> now the error re-occurs:
> > "
> > contrib@fiume:~/done/RPMs/amanda> sudo rpmbuild
> > -ba /usr/src/packages/SPECS/amanda.spec root's password:
> > error: parse error in expression
> > error: /usr/src/packages/SPECS/amanda.spec:363:
> > parseExpressionBoolean returns -1 Executing(%prep): /bin/sh
> > -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.13551 etc.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Charles
> >   
> >>
> >> On this line, it seems that rpm can't handle the "." in distver.
> >> Just to verify, can you alter your patch to re-add the ".1" in
> >> distver and verify that the failure recurs?  If this is the case,
> >> we'll need to adjust our numbering scheme (probably adopting the
> >> four-digit format of suse_version).
> >>     
> Clearly rpmbuild doesn't think that 11.1 is a number, but we rely on 
> distver to do a number of > or < comparisons, so we can't use change
> it all to string comparison easily.  The method I've seen to handle
> this would be to add something like:
> define distver_major 11
> define distver_minor 1
> define distver %{distver_major}%{?distver_minor:
> echo .%{distver_minor}}
> 
> Then use distver_major wherever you need numerical comparison, and 
> distver wherever you want the full string.   Is there a pressing
> reason to use 11.1 vs 11?  Was there ever an 11.0 available, and is
> it still in use?  It's not good to use wrong terminology just because
> I'm lazy. Although in this case being lazy is keeping the already
> complicated .spec syntax a little simpler.
> 
> It occurs to me that the minor version for Suse/sles might be the the 
> service pack.  Do you have service pack 1 for OpenSuSE 11 installed?
> is there such a thing?  We did have problems running an RPM built on 
> Sles10sp2 on Sles10.  I didn't trace down the rpm macros in that case 
> because our solution was to install Sles10 instead.I doubt binary 
> compatibility is broken going forward from 11 to 11.1, so having a 
> separate rpm for each seems a bit excessive.
> 
> I don't know how much value we gain for the increase in complexity.  
> Since we don't test on every minor version of every distro, this 
> detection machinery is going to be error prone and likely to cause
> more problems like yours than it will fix. 
> 
> I guess I'd say let's go with 11 vs 11.1 unless there is a problem I 
> don't know about.
> 
> Dan


-- 
Charles Stroom
email: charles at no-spam.stremen.xs4all.nl (remove the "no-spam.")