Andy Howell wrote:
> Burn wrote:
> Burn,
>
> My system has termcap.h from libtermcap-devel:
>
> rpm -qf /usr/include/termcap.h
> libtermcap-devel-2.0.8-46.1
>
I removed the symlink, installed libtermcap-devel and rebuilt package, that
also worked ok. Looking into spec, turned out that I hadn
Burn wrote:
> Thanks for your comment. After some research I discovered that configure
> script does not detect termcap.h:
>
> checking for msgfmt... (cached) /usr/bin/msgfmt
> checking termcap.h usability... no
> checking termcap.h presence... no
> checking for termcap.h... no
> checking curses.
Carlo Filippetto wrote:
> I don't know you response,
> but why you don't try to build it from the source code?
>
because it is not scalable nor mantainable.
Andy Howell wrote:
>
> My guess is the build is not completing earlier, maybe some required package
> is missing? I
> can rebuild and
Burn wrote:
> Hello. I'm having trouble with building 5.0.0-1 srpms on centos 5.4.
> rpmbuild --rebuild bacula-5.0.0-1.src.rpm --define 'build_centos5 1' --define
> 'build_postgresql 1'
> results in
> Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files
> /var/tmp/bacula-root
>
>
> RPM bui
I don't know you response,
but why you don't try to build it from the source code?
CIAO
---
Carlo Filippetto
2010/2/9 Burn :
>
> Hello. I'm having trouble with building 5.0.0-1 srpms on centos 5.4.
> rpmbuild --rebuild bacula-5.0.0-1.src.rpm --define 'build_centos5 1' --define
> 'build_postgre
Hello. I'm having trouble with building 5.0.0-1 srpms on centos 5.4.
rpmbuild --rebuild bacula-5.0.0-1.src.rpm --define 'build_centos5 1' --define
'build_postgresql 1'
results in
Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files
/var/tmp/bacula-root
RPM build errors:
InstallSourceP
On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 11:13 -0600, Moray Henderson wrote:
> That's not the way you're supposed to do things with rpm. There are a
> few things that you're not supposed to do in rpm which would be quite
> convenient - and several more that rpm does which would be better done
> in other ways.
I was
Scott Courtney wrote:
>I'd like to suggest that the spec file created during this process
>should be renamed from bacula.spec to bacula-5.0.0.spec, because in my
>case I was trying to keep an existing Bacula 3.0.3 build intact.
That's not the way you're supposed to do things with rpm. There are a
Good morning!
I have just finished successfully building binary RPMs of Bacula 5.0.0
on CentOS 5.4, x86_64 architecture, and wanted to share some notes and a
couple of possible bugs (and workarounds).
I'm relatively new to Bacula and to building custom RPMs (I'm from a
Debian background mostly),
