From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christopher J. Morrone Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:36:11 -0700 Subject: [Lustre-devel] Lustre version number and rpm "Release" In-Reply-To: <1254491700.26203.251.camel@pc.interlinx.bc.ca> References: <4AC56205.5060403@llnl.gov> <1254491700.26203.251.camel@pc.interlinx.bc.ca> Message-ID: <4AC69C7B.2020201@llnl.gov> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org Brian J. Murrell wrote: >> $ rpm -qpi lustre-1.8.1.50-2.6.18_70chaos_200910011803.x86_64.rpm >> Name : lustre Relocations: (not relocatable) >> Version : 1.8.1.50 Vendor: (none) >> Release : 2.6.18_70chaos_200910011803 Build Date: Thu Oct 1 > > Then presumably the kernel you built against is 2.6.18_70chaos. Is that > correct? That is correct. > %{!?release: %define release @RELEASE@} > > That means you can define Release for your rpm build on the command line > with: > > $ rpmbuild --define 'release whatever_you_want' ... lustre.spec Well, that is true, except that we just want to prefix the release, not replace it. If we replace it with our own definition, we have to repeat the kernel detection, and timestamp part. So really, we'll want an additional "release_prefix" rpm variable. There is an additional wrinkle that I didn't mention. Our automated build system is designed to take source rpms and build the binary rpms from that. If we just set "release" at source rpm build time, I don't think that it will be remember later when the binary rpms are built. Part of the reason that our build farm works that way is that we would like other users of our linux distribution to be able to easily rebuild lustre (and any other kernel modules) from the source rpm. In the end though, it looks like the most reasonable way to handle this is to have our own spec file for the chaos linux distribution. Chris