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! >