Re: Antw: Re: Fwd: [Bacula-users] RPM rebuild for RHEL3 x86_64

2005-06-10 Thread D. Scott Barninger
Hmm, well the extent of the rpm spec file's involvement with building the docs is: cd doc/latex make cd ../../ It looks to me like a problem with building the docs from the latex source. I do not know enough about that to comment. On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 17:56 +0200, Marcel Gsteiger wrote: > Thank

Re: Antw: Re: Fwd: [Bacula-users] RPM rebuild for RHEL3 x86_64

2005-06-09 Thread Marcel Gsteiger
Meanwhile I found out that after installing the packackes dvips tetex-dvips everything works fine on this system. I think these are missing from a RPM dependancy list somewhere. On another system, I still have problems to make the documentation build work. This box has been newly installed wi

Antw: Re: Fwd: [Bacula-users] RPM rebuild for RHEL3 x86_64

2005-06-09 Thread Marcel Gsteiger
Thanks a lot, the build now starts. However I still have problems getting it to run to the end. It builds lot of things (the last positive message is " Make of tools is goot =", but then, it fails to create the docs. See the error messages below. So I am still unable to generate suitabl

Re: Fwd: [Bacula-users] RPM rebuild for RHEL3 x86_64

2005-06-09 Thread D. Scott Barninger
Hello, The problem seems to me that you modified your release file to masquerade as RHEL, so the attempt to extract a Whitebox distribution release fails. Try: --define "build_rhel3 1" You also need to tell it you are x86_64 with: --define "build_x86_64 1" On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 14:37 +0200, Ke