Open MPI logo

Open MPI User's Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |  

This web mail archive is frozen.

This page is part of a frozen web archive of this mailing list.

You can still navigate around this archive, but know that no new mails have been added to it since July of 2016.

Click here to be taken to the new web archives of this list; it includes all the mails that are in this frozen archive plus all new mails that have been sent to the list since it was migrated to the new archives.

Subject: Re: [OMPI users] RPM build errors when creating multiple rpms
From: Jeff Squyres (jsquyres_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-03-25 20:27:02


Sorry for the delay in replying; I got caught up in other things...

On Mar 18, 2008, at 3:15 PM, Christopher Irving wrote:
> Okay, I'm no longer sure to which spec file you're referring.

I was referring to the one on the SVN trunk:

https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/browser/trunk/contrib/dist/linux/openmpi.spec

> For
> clarity, I'm now using the spec file you pointed me to in your
> original
> reply, from revision 17372. With this file I no longer get any errors
> when I run:
>
> rpmbuild -bb --define 'build_all_in_one_rpm 0' --define
> 'configure_options \
> --with-mip-f90-size=medium --with-tm=/usr/local/lib64' openmpi.spec
>
> This is great for me since this is how I want to build my rpms.

Good.

> However
> if I use the following command line with the new spec file I get the
> above installed (but unpackaged) errors which is fine for me but bad
> for
> anyone who wants to install in /opt.
>
> rpmbuild -bb --define 'install_in_opt 1' \
> --define 'build_all_in_one_rpm 0' --define 'configure_options \
> --with-mip-f90-size=medium --with-tm=/usr/local/lib64' openmpi.spec
>
> Now, if you removed line 651 and 653 from the new spec file it works
> for
> both cases. You wont get the files listed twice error because
> although
> you have the statement %dir %{_prefix} on line 649 you never have a
> line with just %{_prefix}. So the _prefix directory itself gets
> included but not all files underneath it. You've handled that by
> explicitly including all files and sub directories on lines 672-681
> and
> in the runtime.file.

Ah, I see now. Thanks!

I'll make this change, but pending the other replies on this thread...

-- 
Jeff Squyres
Cisco Systems