On Nov 10, 2004, at 4:08 AM, Dominik Epple wrote:
>> Hello all:
>>
>> I am using WhiteBox Linux 3.0
>>
>> I have installed as follow:
>> rpmbuild -bb lam-7.1.1.spec --target=i686
>>
>> and get:
>> lam-debuginfo-7.1.1-1.i686.rpm
>> lam-extras-7.1.1-1.i686.rpm
>> lam-devel-7.1.1-1.i686.rpm
>> lam-runtime-7.1.1-1.i686.rpm
>> lam-docs-7.1.1-1.i686.rpm
>>
>> making rpm -Uvh *.rpm
>> I get the error:error: Failed dependencies:
>> lam = 7.1.1 is needed by lam-devel-7.1.1-1
>> lam = 7.1.1 is needed by lam-extras-7.1.1-1
>>
>> Where is lam 7.1.1, or is 7.1.1-1?
>
> I had the same problem.
>
> The point seems to be that the LAM people have released a src rpm
> which is somehow more intented for developers.
That's probably fairly accurate. We didn't do extensive testing with
our src RPM -- we know that it builds for us, but our experience has
been that not many people actively rebuild the src RPM since building
the tarball is [literally] just as easy (if not easier).
> If you examine the
> spec file of the original 7.1.1 rpm, you find
>
> # $Id: lam-caos.spec,v 1.7 2003/07/30 17:24:45 jsquyres Exp $
>
> while the one from 7.0.6 contains
>
> # $Id: lam-generic.spec,v 1.3.2.5 2003/11/12 04:24:12 jsquyres Exp $
Don't put too much stock in this. The $Id$ lines are a remnant from
when we still used CVS -- these ones somehow escaped removal when we
switched to Subversion almost a year ago. :-)
BTW, "caos" refers to the cAos Linux project (we make slightly
different RPMs for them): http://www.caosity.org/projects/caos
> I think that 'generic' sounds much better than 'caos' ;)
>
> So what I did is to take the 7.0.6 specfile and adjust it for 7.1.1.
> Works like a charm. (Actually, not really; statically linked MPI
> programs do not run. But I guess this has nothing to do with the topic
> of this mail. If anyone disagrees please tell me.)
What changes did you have to make?
--
{+} Jeff Squyres
{+} jsquyres_at_[hidden]
{+} http://www.lam-mpi.org/
|
