Hi Malahal,
> Il giorno 15/giu/2015, alle ore 23:30, Malahal Naineni <malahal@xxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto:
>
> Alessandro De Salvo [Alessandro.DeSalvo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] wrote:
>> OK, I think we are now closer to the end of the story.
>> Recompiling with your instructions, and slightly changing the release name to match the convention in epel, the new RPMS produce something working!
>> So it means essentially that:
>>
>> 1) the RPMS in epel are broken, they should really be fixed;
>> 2) the RPMS, produced by exporting the tarball from git, even by selecting the correct branch, and the spec file from epel are broken as well;
>
> What does this mean? Just the spec file in epel is broken.
No, not really, I think the epel version 2.0.0-2 has problems by itself, so the epel packages are broken. Probably creating the zip file from git produces some odd effect, so it’s broken as well. I do not think it’s the spec file itself.
>
>> 3) following your procedure produce working packages, but with revision “0.3” instead of the required “3” (not a real problem, easy to fix).
>
> Yeah, it produces 2.2.0-0.3 instead of 2.2.0-3 that we wanted. A patch
> is welcome to fix this!
This is what I do, if it could be on any help:
--- nfs-ganesha.orig/src/nfs-ganesha.spec-in.cmake 2015-06-16 00:11:31.477442950 +0200
+++ nfs-ganesha/src/nfs-ganesha.spec-in.cmake 2015-06-15 22:11:57.068726917 +0200
@@ -72,13 +72,13 @@
@BCOND_GUI_UTILS@ gui_utils
%global use_gui_utils %{on_off_switch gui_utils}
-%global dev_version %{lua: extraver = string.gsub('@GANESHA_EXTRA_VERSION@', '%-', '.'); print(extraver) }
+%global dev_version %{lua: extraver = string.gsub('@GANESHA_EXTRA_VERSION@', '%-', ''); print(extraver) }
%define sourcename @CPACK_SOURCE_PACKAGE_FILE_NAME@
Name: nfs-ganesha
Version: @GANESHA_BASE_VERSION@
-Release: 0%{dev_version}%{?dist}
+Release: %{dev_version}%{?dist}
Summary: NFS-Ganesha is a NFS Server running in user space
Group: Applications/System
License: LGPLv3+
With this patch the version is produced with the correct numbering.
>
> What you have just tested is the latest V2.2-stable which is 2.2.0-3.
> The epel code is probably from V2.2.0 code.
Should be 2.2.0-2, from the RPMs, but I’m not totally sure what’s inside.
> So either EPEL has a broken spec file or V2.2.0 is broken.
I tend to say it’s 2.2.0-2 which is broken, but it’s just my opinion. At any rate, 2.2.0-3 is working, and this is indeed good news.
> Can someone from redhat figure this out
> and fix epel repo please.
Yes please!
Thanks,
Alessandro
>
> Regards, Malahal.
>
>
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
