Looking at this, am I missing my version 11.1, as my suse_macros include a line %suse_version 1110 which is not in the snippet?
Regards, Charles On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:07:42 -0500 "Dustin J. Mitchell" <dus...@zmanda.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Ingo Schaefer > <i...@ingo-schaefer.de> wrote: > > No, that is not the point. > > > > _vendor is defined, but none of the three cases is the right one, so > > dist will not be defined. > > Shows the limited extent of my rpm-fu :) > > > I've attached a new version of the spec file with this little bit > > merged in. > > Awesome - thanks! It turns out that same snippet is in trunk, but to > support sles11, which is currently in beta and apparently using the > opensuse11 rpm install. Confusing! > > I propose adapting the RPM with the following snippet. Can you let me > know what you think? I'll test it out on our systems, and get dan's > review, before committing. > > Dustin > > # Detect Suse variants. Suse gives us some nice macros in their rpms > %if %{_vendor} == "suse" > %define dist SuSE > %if %{sles_version} == 0 > %define disttag suse > %if %{suse_version} == 910 > %define distver 9 > %endif > %if %{suse_version} == 1000 > %define distver 10 > %endif > %if %{suse_version} == 1010 > %define distver 10 > %endif > # Written against SLES11-beta2, which is using SUSE11's rpm > system. # This will change when they release, I assume. > %if %{suse_version} == 1100 > # assume it's sles11 in disguise, for now > %define disttag sles > %define distver 11 > %endif > %else > %define disttag sles > # sles versions are simple integers, just like we want > %define distver %{sles_version} > %endif > > # If dist is undefined, we didn't detect. > %{!?dist:%define dist unknown} > %endif > > > -- > Storage Software Engineer > http://www.zmanda.com