On Fri, 8 Feb 2008, Troy Dawson wrote: > Troy Dawson wrote: >> Jon Peatfield wrote: >> > http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/linux/sl/damtp/5x/SRPMS/R-2.6.2-1.SL51.src.rpm >> > >> > The re-build finished quicker than I expected or the typing of that last >> > message took longer (or both). >> >> Hi Jon, >> I got one change for your spec file. >> Right now when you get the release version you do >> >> %define VER %(rpmquery --qf '%{VERSION}' sl-release | sed 's/\\.//g') >> >> I have changed it to >> >> %define VER %(rpmquery --qf '%{VERSION}' sl-release | cut -d'.' -f1) >> >> This gives us the major release number (SL4, SL5) instead of the minor >> release >> number (41, 51). >> I like this better for two reasons. >> First - The rpm should be able to run on any SL4 or SL5 machine, so the >> minor >> number isn't really needed. >> Second (and the real reason I changed it) - Later on you have >> %if %{VER} >= 5 >> And 41 is greater than 5, so it doesn't build on SL 4, because it's >> wanting >> everything that is in SL5. >> >> OK, one other change, but this is very minor. For the distro is has SL in >> capitol letters, while RedHat and Centos are in lower case letters (rh, >> centos). >> This is a personal thing, but I like it better in lower case letters. >> Like I said, this change is minor and purely a personal preference, but if >> you >> want it in capitol letters, leave it. >> >> Thank you for your work on this. >> Troy > > OK, one other thing, maybe you know what's wrong with this one. > This is on a SL 4 machine > > It's failling at the very very last because > > cp: cannot stat `doc/manual/R-exts.pdf': No such file or directory > > I can change the spec file and comment out > > %doc doc/manual/R-exts.pdf > > But since it actually builds on SL 5, I'm wondering if you would know of a > better way, or where that file comes from. I had exactly that problem earlier when using our local texinfo (which is 'too old'). It seems that the calls to texi2dvi on some of the doc fail unless a fairly recentish tex is installed. [We still mainly use tetex-2 for 'compatability' but installing SL5's tetex-3 on the build setup worked fine] Actually the Makefile that gets put in doc/manuals/ contains the following: ... TEXI2DVI = /usr/bin/texi2dvi --texinfo="@set UseExternalXrefs " TEXI2PDF = $(TEXI2DVI) --pdf ... then it gets used like: .texi.dvi: @if test "$(TEX)" = false; then \ echo "ERROR: 'tex' needed but missing on your system."; \ exit 1; \ fi @if test "$(TEXI2DVI)" = false; then \ echo "ERROR: 'texi2dvi' needed but missing on your system."; \ exit 1; \ fi TEXINPUTS="$(srcdir):$$TEXINPUTS" $(TEXI2DVI) $< ... .texi.pdf: @if test "$(PDFTEX)" = false; then \ echo "ERROR: 'pdftex' needed but missing on your system."; \ exit 1; \ fi @if test "$(TEXI2DVI)" = false; then \ echo "ERROR: 'texi2dvi' needed but missing on your system."; \ exit 1; \ fi TEXINPUTS="$(srcdir):$$TEXINPUTS" $(TEXI2PDF) $< ... causing 'test' to complain/fail. Anyway with my older tetex on the path each attempt to make a .pdf file generates a bunch of errors but most of them do still produce .pdf files, and some completely fail. Oddly enough cd'ing to docs/manual/ and running the 'make pdf' again gives *different* errors so something horrid is going on... > Troy