but this still should be reflected in local macros,
we should not have to man-change this macro for each rpm 
package rebuild
it's not how it used to be as far as I can remember
if packages from the repos come 6_5 system-wide relevant 
macro should match it
any specific reason why it should not?

On 21/11/12 19:21, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> On 11/21/2012 12:16 PM, Pat Riehecky wrote:
>> On 11/21/2012 01:02 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>>> On 11/21/2012 11:49 AM, Pat Riehecky wrote:
>>>> On 11/21/2012 12:44 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>>>>> It appears that SL packages are being built with a 
>>>>> different "dist" rpm
>>>>> macro than is in the sl-release package.  e.g.:
>>>>>
>>>>> postgresql.x86_64    8.4.13-1.el6_3       sl-security
>>>>>
>>>>> But the dist macro in sl-release-6.3-1 is still "el6", 
>>>>> not "el6_3". So when
>>>>> I build an updated package locally it has a NEVRA of
>>>>> "postgresql-8.4.13-1.el6.cora.1" which is not newer 
>>>>> than the SL version.
>>>>>
>>>>> What version of sl-release are the released packages 
>>>>> built against? Or is
>>>>> there some other modification done?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The package was built to match the upstream name.
>>>>
>>>> http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2012-1263.html#Red%20Hat%20Enterprise%20Linux%20Server%20%28v.%206%29 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Pat
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which is good :).  Hmm, looks likes
>>> redhat-release-server-6Server-6.3.0.3.el6 still has dist 
>>> set to el6, so that
>>> not how they do it :(.  Unfortunately I'm building 
>>> locally with mock and I
>>> don't know of a way to override the dist macro in that way.
>>>
>>
>> Untested theory:
>>
>> Perhaps adding this to your mock config file?
>> config_opts['macros']['%dist'] = 'asdf'
>
> Yup, that or:
>
> mock -r epel-6-x86_64 -D 'dist .el6_3'  ....
>
> Thanks!
>