On 02/12/2015 11:20 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
> has somebody an idea for the chicken egg problem that "postfix-install"
> in the %installof a RPM-spec can't load the shared libraries which are
> built but not installed at that moment?
I changed it to make non-interactive-package and it works jus
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 05:47:40PM +0100, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
> well, you are not able to admit a mistake, so be it
Let him who is without sin...
> "Without a clear statement what you want (build installable package)" is
> ridiculous ...
Not everyone is going to read between the lines. I t
Am 12.02.2015 um 17:33 schrieb Wietse Venema:
li...@rhsoft.net:
Am 12.02.2015 um 17:18 schrieb Wietse Venema:
li...@rhsoft.net:
Am 12.02.2015 um 17:08 schrieb Wietse Venema:
li...@rhsoft.net:
according to the subject a "You MUST use make non-interactive-package"
would have saved a lot of no
li...@rhsoft.net:
> Am 12.02.2015 um 17:18 schrieb Wietse Venema:
> > li...@rhsoft.net:
> >> Am 12.02.2015 um 17:08 schrieb Wietse Venema:
> >>> li...@rhsoft.net:
> according to the subject a "You MUST use make non-interactive-package"
> would have saved a lot of noise including the compl
Am 12.02.2015 um 17:18 schrieb Wietse Venema:
li...@rhsoft.net:
Am 12.02.2015 um 17:08 schrieb Wietse Venema:
li...@rhsoft.net:
according to the subject a "You MUST use make non-interactive-package"
would have saved a lot of noise including the completly unnecessary
flames about "rpm crap" wi
Am 12.02.2015 um 17:13 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 04:58:39PM +0100, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
that below works like a charm:
make non-interactive-package install_root=%{buildroot}
config_directory=%{postfix_config_dir} meta_directory=%{postfix_daemon_dir}
daemon_directory=
li...@rhsoft.net:
> Am 12.02.2015 um 17:08 schrieb Wietse Venema:
> > li...@rhsoft.net:
> >> according to the subject a "You MUST use make non-interactive-package"
> >> would have saved a lot of noise including the completly unnecessary
> >> flames about "rpm crap" without *by all respect* no clue
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 04:58:39PM +0100, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
> that below works like a charm:
>
> make non-interactive-package install_root=%{buildroot}
> config_directory=%{postfix_config_dir} meta_directory=%{postfix_daemon_dir}
> daemon_directory=%{postfix_daemon_dir} shlib_directory=%{po
Am 12.02.2015 um 17:08 schrieb Wietse Venema:
li...@rhsoft.net:
according to the subject a "You MUST use make non-interactive-package"
would have saved a lot of noise including the completly unnecessary
flames about "rpm crap" without *by all respect* no clue about how it
works and that the ma
li...@rhsoft.net:
> according to the subject a "You MUST use make non-interactive-package"
> would have saved a lot of noise including the completly unnecessary
> flames about "rpm crap" without *by all respect* no clue about how it
> works and that the macros are replaced before any bit of post
y around and ping pong
frankly *i had the build running* and so answered my own question with
the intention others with the same problems can find that information
later and got corrected with non working instructions
that is not helpful
Weitergeleitete Nachricht ----
Betreff: Re:
Viktor Dukhovni:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:40:47AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Where did I tell you to "make install -non-interactive"?
> >
> > As I explained above, use "make upgrade" you want a non-interactive
> > install.
>
> I be
Am 12.02.2015 um 16:43 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:40:47AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
Where did I tell you to "make install -non-interactive"?
As I explained above, use "make upgrade" you want a non-interactive
in
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:40:47AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Where did I tell you to "make install -non-interactive"?
>
> As I explained above, use "make upgrade" you want a non-interactive
> install.
I believe he does not want an install
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 04:29:37PM +0100, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
> >The only difference between "install" and "upgrade" is that one is
> >interactive and the other is not. That is, "install" is an upgrade
> >from zero with all the answers pre-determined
>
> "make install -non-interactive" simply
li...@rhsoft.net:
[ Charset windows-1252 converted... ]
> Am 12.02.2015 um 16:21 schrieb Wietse Venema:
> > li...@rhsoft.net:
> >> the most likely reason is "make install" versus "make upgrade" which
> >> *both* don't apply for a rpmbuild because there is no business for
> >> "interactive" and no b
Am 12.02.2015 um 16:21 schrieb Wietse Venema:
li...@rhsoft.net:
the most likely reason is "make install" versus "make upgrade" which
*both* don't apply for a rpmbuild because there is no business for
"interactive" and no business for "non-interactive version, for upgrades"
would "make install"
Am 12.02.2015 um 16:10 schrieb Wietse Venema:
li...@rhsoft.net:
No, I said:
make install name=value
without rpmbuild crap. I support make install only. I do not support
rcpmbuild crap.
interesting attitude in context of subject "rpmbuild and shared=yes"
Please stick to the
li...@rhsoft.net:
> the most likely reason is "make install" versus "make upgrade" which
> *both* don't apply for a rpmbuild because there is no business for
> "interactive" and no business for "non-interactive version, for upgrades"
>
> would "make install" just work non-interactive problem gon
t 1
No, I said:
make install name=value
without rpmbuild crap. I support make install only. I do not support
rcpmbuild crap.
interesting attitude in context of subject "rpmbuild and shared=yes"
I want you to execute the command without rpmbuild crap, and if
that command without
li...@rhsoft.net:
> > No, I said:
> >
> > make install name=value
> >
> > without rpmbuild crap. I support make install only. I do not support
> > rcpmbuild crap.
>
> interesting attitude in context of subject "rpmbuild and shared=yes"
Pleas
rap. I support make install only. I do not support
rcpmbuild crap.
interesting attitude in context of subject "rpmbuild and shared=yes"
I want you to execute the command without rpmbuild crap, and if
that command without rpmbuild crap does not work, then I will try
to find out why
Andrew Ho:
> sh postfix-install -non-interactive \
THIS IS NOT SUPPORTED. USE "MAKE INSTALL".
Wietse
li...@rhsoft.net:
> > Instead of "sh postfix-install name=value" use "make install name=value"
>
> i did that as you can see on bottom if the message you responded to
>
> make install -non-interactive install_root=%{buildroot}
> config_directory=%{postfix_config_dir}
> meta_directory=%{postfix_
This is the tricks for rpmbuild. postconf relies on
%{postfix_lib_dir}libpostfix-global.so for postfix-install.
- - postfix.spec --
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{postfix_lib_dir}
if [ ! -f %{postfix_lib_dir}/libpostfix-global.so ] ; then
mkdir -p %{postfix_lib_dir}
install lib/libpostfix-global.so
Am 12.02.2015 um 15:32 schrieb Wietse Venema:
Wietse Venema:
li...@rhsoft.net:
[ Charset windows-1252 converted... ]
Am 12.02.2015 um 14:12 schrieb Wietse Venema:
li...@rhsoft.net:
well, set LD_LIBRARY_PATH does the trick
shoudn't postfix-install do that on it's own?
You MUST NOT invoke p
Wietse Venema:
> li...@rhsoft.net:
> [ Charset windows-1252 converted... ]
> >
> > Am 12.02.2015 um 14:12 schrieb Wietse Venema:
> > > li...@rhsoft.net:
> > >> well, set LD_LIBRARY_PATH does the trick
> > >> shoudn't postfix-install do that on it's own?
> > >
> > > You MUST NOT invoke postfix-inst
li...@rhsoft.net:
[ Charset windows-1252 converted... ]
>
> Am 12.02.2015 um 14:12 schrieb Wietse Venema:
> > li...@rhsoft.net:
> >> well, set LD_LIBRARY_PATH does the trick
> >> shoudn't postfix-install do that on it's own?
> >
> > You MUST NOT invoke postfix-install directly.
> > You MUST use "m
Am 12.02.2015 um 14:12 schrieb Wietse Venema:
li...@rhsoft.net:
well, set LD_LIBRARY_PATH does the trick
shoudn't postfix-install do that on it's own?
You MUST NOT invoke postfix-install directly.
You MUST use "make install" as described in the INSTALL instructions
besides that SPEC is deri
li...@rhsoft.net:
> well, set LD_LIBRARY_PATH does the trick
> shoudn't postfix-install do that on it's own?
You MUST NOT invoke postfix-install directly.
You MUST use "make install" as described in the INSTALL instructions.
Wietse
well, set LD_LIBRARY_PATH does the trick
shoudn't postfix-install do that on it's own?
%install
LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$(pwd)/lib sh postfix-install -package -non-interactive
install_root=%{buildroot} config_directory=%{postfix_config_dir}
meta_directory=%{postfix_daemon_dir}
daemon_directory=%{postf
has somebody an idea for the chicken egg problem that "postfix-install"
in the %installof a RPM-spec can't load the shared libraries which are
built but not installed at that moment?
+ sh postfix-install -non-interactive
install_root=/home/builduser/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/postfix-3.0.0-1.fc21.2015
32 matches
Mail list logo
