Amanda-Users

Re: release of amanda-2.6.1

2009-02-02 15:01:01
Subject: Re: release of amanda-2.6.1
From: Dan Locks <dwlocks AT zmanda DOT com>
To: Charles Stroom <charles AT stremen.xs4all DOT nl>
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 12:47:58 -0600
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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>