On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:57:45 -0500
"Dustin J. Mitchell" <dustin AT zmanda DOT com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 7:07 AM, Charles Stroom
> <charles AT stremen.xs4all DOT nl> wrote:

> 
> If you don't mind continuing to work on this, I can point you toward
> the problem line.  The part that begins with
>   34 # Define which Distribution we are building:
>   35 # Try to detect the distribution we are building:
> tries to determine which of the recognized redhat variants we're
> building for.  Since we don't do OpenSUSE, we don't recognize it
> specifically.  As Ingo pointed out, the macros to use would be in your
> suse_macros file and friends.  The line that's giving the error is:
>  112 # Detect Suse variants.  Suse gives us some nice macros in their
> rpms 113 %if %{_vendor} == "suse"
>  114     %if %{suse_version} == 910
> so I'm guessing that _vendor isn't defined.

No, I certainly do not mind to work on this, because I would like to
have my backup working.  But I am only an "RPM" user and try to avoid
too much fudging with tar installations.  I am just running my own PC +
a small mail server, that's all.  And although I have been using Linux
for some time now (and Unix before), it was as user, not as system
maintainer (but my own system now).  If that is sufficient, then fine
with me and I will do as been told, just tell me what to do.

As I said already (I believe), in /usr/lib/rpm/suse_macros:

%suse_version 1110
%sles_version 0
%ul_version 0

and there is no definition of _vendor,
but I am appending the whole /usr/lib/rpm/suse_macros file as well (but
are appendices coming thru the mailing list?).


> 
> Basically, all I need is for someone or a group (hi, Charles and
> Ingo!) reasonably familiar with the macros available on OpenSUSE to
> add an extra stanza to this long set of conditionals that can
> recognize OpenSUSE releases.  We'll happily merge that extra stanza
> into the distribution, and voila! you can rpmbuild --rebuild RPMs as
> often as you like :)

Very good!

> 
> Regarding "amanda" vs "amandabackup" and other variants between
> "zmanda" RPMs and distro RPMs -- as the authors of the software, we
> try to standardize things *across* Linux distros, since in many cases
> Amanda users back up a wide range of machine flavors, and it's a lot
> easier to do so when they all have similar Amanda installs[1].  So I'd
> love to see the packages shipped with distributions and from sites
> like rpmforge start to adopt the standards represented in our SPECs,
> but I realize that this often creates upgrade headaches for
> distrubution maintainers.  Such is life..

Concerning this issue, "amanda" is a bad choice, because too often we
had real users "amanda".  Amandabackup seems a good choice as it is
unlikely to exist already on any system.  My reason for not using
"amanda" is in part because I inherited this convention from my previous
RPMs for opensuse and I expect in future that any distribution of
amanda by opensuse communtiy will again use amandabackup and I want to
remain compatible with that convention.

> 
> Dustin
> 
> [1] Oh, and it makes it a lot easier to support too!

I know, user are a pain:-)

Charles

suse_macros
Description: Binary data