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 <[email protected]> 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: > > " > > cont...@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.")
