When a comment is added after the %prep section but before the %build section, rpm does not run the %build section, but runs the "configure" script in the...
paul company
pjc@...
Feb 1, 2002 9:50 am
16520
... Um, no. This happens because you used %configure in the comment, and rpm expands macros everywhere, even in comments. Since the definition of %configure...
Bernhard Rosenkraenzer
bero@...
Feb 1, 2002 10:09 am
16521
... There are several things going on here: 1) A kernel upgrade doesn't take effect until you reboot. 2) It's perfectly normal and ok to have multiple versions...
Ned Ulbricht
nedu@...
Feb 1, 2002 10:17 am
16522
... The only way to tell rpm not to touch perms is to produce a new package. You can use a directive to disable the mechanism, but you might as well just put...
Jeff Johnson
jbj@...
Feb 1, 2002 1:57 pm
16523
... s/--test/--nobuild/ 73 de Jeff -- Jeff Johnson ARS N3NPQ jbj@... (jbj@...) Chapel Hill, NC _______________________________________________ ...
Jeff Johnson
jbj@...
Feb 1, 2002 2:05 pm
16524
... When you commented out %build, the contents of the build scriptlet were appended to the %prep scriptlet. ... Actually %build is a section marker, not a...
Jeff Johnson
jbj@...
Feb 1, 2002 2:08 pm
16525
... You can't just "null out the data", there's an immutable header region there, with sizes, digests and soon signatures, that all have to be recalculated. ...
Jeff Johnson
jbj@...
Feb 1, 2002 2:15 pm
16526
... 73 de Jeff -- Jeff Johnson ARS N3NPQ jbj@... (jbj@...) Chapel Hill, NC _______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list ...
Jeff Johnson
jbj@...
Feb 1, 2002 3:07 pm
16527
OK here's a more explicit list of changes in rpm-4.0.4. -- libraries in rpm-4.0.4 (and 4.0.3) have an explicit version in the name. rpm still doesn't have a...
Jeff Johnson
jbj@...
Feb 1, 2002 4:22 pm
16528
Hello, I found that quite a few Red Hat packages ( actually every single one that has *.info files ) use /sbin/install-info in %post, %preun. /sbin is not the...
Serguei Ostrovskii
sostrovsky@...
Feb 1, 2002 4:31 pm
16529
... It's been talked about in the past, I have several versions. What's still missing (for me anyways) is the crucially important consensus about The Right...
Jeff Johnson
jbj@...
Feb 1, 2002 4:48 pm
16530
Hi, I am trying to find a way to know in advance what packages will be built when issuing rpm -ba <specfile>. As of now, I have used the rpm -q ...
Daniel Shane
daniel.shane@...
Feb 1, 2002 4:49 pm
16531
... Nope, there is no solution beyond: bash$ rpm -q --qf '%{name}-%{version}-%{release}.%{arch}.rpm\n' --specfile rpm.spec rpm-4.1-0.01.i386.rpm ...
Jeff Johnson
jbj@...
Feb 1, 2002 6:09 pm
16532
Hi Jeff, ... Ok then (define doesnt work), but as a side note I really use the --specfile option a lot. Thanks for adding it in the first place, even if it's a...
Daniel Shane
daniel.shane@...
Feb 1, 2002 6:36 pm
16533
... Must be decaf. How about the (correct) syntax: --define '_target_cpu arch_you_want' 73 de Jeff -- Jeff Johnson ARS N3NPQ jbj@... (jbj@...) ...
Jeff Johnson
jbj@...
Feb 1, 2002 6:51 pm
16534
... Nope (the syntax is valid this time). But the arch is not the real problem (I can get away with that one). The real issue are the --with and --without that...
Daniel Shane
daniel.shane@...
Feb 1, 2002 7:10 pm
16535
... I tried %patch -p0 but it expands to "patch -p0 -s" and I need "patch -p0 -t" Is there a way to pass patch an arbitrary flag? ...
paul company
pjc@...
Feb 1, 2002 7:19 pm
16536
... Here's the popt magic glue for --with and --without, they're only macros: rpm alias --with --define "_with_!#:+ --with-!#:+" \ ...
Jeff Johnson
jbj@...
Feb 1, 2002 7:41 pm
16537
... THere's absolutely nothing stopping you from doing Patch22: yadda.patch ... %prep ... patch -p0 -t < %{PATCH22} ... Yes, no leading '%'. 73 de Jeff -- Jeff...
Jeff Johnson
jbj@...
Feb 1, 2002 7:44 pm
16538
... I am guessing here... Perhaps you are saying rpm -e pkg-1.0.0-0.i386.rpm instead of rpm -e pkg ?? Regards, KBK ...
Kurt B. Kaiser
kbk@...
Feb 1, 2002 10:39 pm
16539
Hi I have had the following problem for a long time. I managed to find a workaround, but it is not convinient, and the problem bites me from time to time. The...
Tzafrir Cohen
tzafrir@...
Feb 2, 2002 12:27 am
16540
Thanks to the help I've received from this group, I've been successful in building a number of binary RPMs from the associated source RPMs. Although this is a...
Kurt B. Kaiser
kbk@...
Feb 2, 2002 6:33 am
16541
Susan smith <sg_smith@rocke 收件人： rpm-list@... tmail.com> 抄送： 发件人： 主题： unsubscibe rpm-list-admin@ ...
yinjun@...
Feb 2, 2002 9:20 am
16542
rpm-4.0.4 has two new featlets/bugtures that are gonna cause some heartburn for packagers. ...
Jeff Johnson
jbj@...
Feb 2, 2002 11:33 am
16543
Thanks for helping me . I have upgrade glibc to 2.2.4-19.3. But I have got this out put too : basename: too many arguments Try `basename --help' for more...
Sara Sodagar
sodagar@...
Feb 2, 2002 11:54 am
16544
... Somebody please explain to me the relative advantage of %HOME %{expand:%%(cd; pwd)} vs. simply %HOME %(cd; pwd) As an experiment, place %now...
Ned Ulbricht
nedu@...
Feb 2, 2002 12:28 pm
16545
Thanks for helping me . I have upgrade glibc to 2.2.4-19.3. But I have got this out put too : basename: too many arguments Try `basename --help' for more...
Sara Sodagar
sodagar@...
Feb 2, 2002 12:42 pm
16546
... The %{expand: ... } does the comand only once, the other variant is performed each and every time the macro is expanded. ... There's always a way, but you...
Jeff Johnson
jbj@...
Feb 2, 2002 3:10 pm
16547
... ^ ^ ... Because I short-cutted my testing by use --eval rather than doing a real test using a spec file. When I use a spec...
Ned Ulbricht
nedu@...
Feb 2, 2002 11:00 pm
16548
Thanks for helping me . I have upgrade glibc to 2.2.4-19.3. But I have got this out put too : basename: too many arguments Try `basename --help' for more...
Having problems with message search?
Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.
