On 10/16/07, Atro Tossavainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Derrick,
>
> (I decided to join the list after all.)
>
> > Good to know no 2 distributions can ship something without at least
> > one "improving" it.
Apparently rpm isn't rpm isn't rpm everywhere, if the spec file that works
on RedHat and Fedora breaks on YellowDog, eh?
> It does, but I didn't do it when doing this by hand, I only applied
> the patches. Now that I've also done that, building the kernel
> module was successful.
>
> > choosing the largest version number available is seldom what you
> > actually want.
>
> I know. I'm operating under the delusion that choosing the largest
> version number might stand the best chance of supporting the most
> recent versions of the underlying OS out of the box (FSVO supporting;
> at least compiling cleanly on).
Not even, because 1.4.x and 1.5.x are released disjointly.
> i expect there will be an srpm for 1.4.5pre2, if someone can give a hint
> > as to what we might need to fix in src/packaging/RedHat/openafs.spec.in
> in
> > 1.4.5pre1 I will see if we can accomodate Yellow Dog
>
> I'm seeing a 1.4.5pre2 srpm already.
Well, for 1.4.5pre3, then, but, yes you are since I needed to get one with a
fix out :)
Whatever is causing the
> "Package has no %description" is still there. It's on line 233
> now, which seems to be
>
> %if %{build_userspace}
>
> So I need to rpmbuild --define macro\ something for every macro?
>
> # rpmbuild --rebuild --define build_userspace\ 0 --define build_authlibs\
> 0 openafs-1.4.5pre2-1.1.src.rpm
> Installing openafs-1.4.5pre2-1.1.src.rpm
> error: Architecture is not included: ppc
Ok, well, we can fix that.
Oh well...
>
> BTW. On a completely different note, I've been meaning to ask for a
> long time whether there's a reason the Makefiles in OpenAFS aren't
> fit for parallel compilation (aka gmake -j).
No one's gone through and fixed them to always have the right dependancies.
