[users] rpm-macros-rpmforge-0-5 errors

[Nicolas Thierry-Mieg]

Hi,

I just updated some packages on a centos 5 system, including
rpm-macros-rpmforge-0-5.el5.rf.
There seems to be a problem with /etc/rpm/macros.rpmforge from that
package, because after the update and rpm query prints some error messages.
Example:

[nthierry at tryo rpm]$ rpm -q rpm-macros-rpmforge
error: Macro % has illegal name (%define)
error: Macro % has illegal name (%define)
error: Macro % has illegal name (%define)
rpm-macros-rpmforge-0-5.el5.rf.noarch
[nthierry at tryo rpm]$

If I move /etc/rpm/macros.rpmforge somewhere else the error messages go
away.

Maybe I actually don't need this package at all? I don't remember why
it's installed, I guess I thought it could be useful for rebuilding some
rpmforge srpms. In any case the previous version didn't have this problem.

Regards,
Nicolas

[Nicolas Thierry-Mieg]

sorry for breaking the threading, I've already deleted my own post
(pasted below from the list archive) but find I want to add a comment...

Post by Nicolas Thierry-Mieg
I just updated some packages on a centos 5 system, including
rpm-macros-rpmforge-0-5.el5.rf.
There seems to be a problem with /etc/rpm/macros.rpmforge from that
package, because after the update and rpm query prints some error messages.
[nthierry at tryo rpm]$ rpm -q rpm-macros-rpmforge
error: Macro % has illegal name (%define)
error: Macro % has illegal name (%define)
error: Macro % has illegal name (%define)
rpm-macros-rpmforge-0-5.el5.rf.noarch
[nthierry at tryo rpm]$
If I move /etc/rpm/macros.rpmforge somewhere else the error messages go
away.

I investigated a bit more, the differences in /etc/rpm/macros.rpmforge are:
%dtag el5
becomes in the newer version:
%{!?dtag:%dtag el5}
and similarly for "%el5 1" and "%dist .el5"

Is this a new syntax that is understood by the EL6 rpm version but not
the EL5 version? If yes, shouldn't the el5 version of
rpm-macros-rpmforge keep the old (working) syntax? Or maybe have the new
package depend on the EL6 version of rpm, so it doesn't install on el5
systems.

[Steve Huff]

Is this a new syntax that is understood by the EL6 rpm version but not the EL5 version?

i don't think so; i see the same errors on el6.

-shuff

--
If this were played upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction. - Fabian, Twelfth Night, III,v
PGP 8477B706 (A92A 1F7E 6D76 16A0 BFF9 E61D AD54 0251 8477 B706)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20101116/671d5cdc/attachment.bin

[Dag Wieers]

Post by Steve Huff

Is this a new syntax that is understood by the EL6 rpm version but not the EL5 version?

i don't think so; i see the same errors on el6.

Christoph already reported this and I have fixed it, but no update has
been pushed. (I am still busy with the huge multimedia overhaul :-/)

[Dag Wieers]

Post by Steve Huff

Is this a new syntax that is understood by the EL6 rpm version but not the EL5 version?

i don't think so; i see the same errors on el6.

Christoph already reported this and I have fixed it, but no update has
been pushed. (I am still busy with the huge multimedia overhaul :-/)

[Dag Wieers]

Post by Steve Huff

Is this a new syntax that is understood by the EL6 rpm version but not the EL5 version?

i don't think so; i see the same errors on el6.

Christoph already reported this and I have fixed it, but no update has
been pushed. (I am still busy with the huge multimedia overhaul :-/)

[Dag Wieers]

Post by Steve Huff

Is this a new syntax that is understood by the EL6 rpm version but not the EL5 version?

i don't think so; i see the same errors on el6.

Christoph already reported this and I have fixed it, but no update has
been pushed. (I am still busy with the huge multimedia overhaul :-/)

[Dag Wieers]

Post by Steve Huff

Is this a new syntax that is understood by the EL6 rpm version but not the EL5 version?

i don't think so; i see the same errors on el6.

Christoph already reported this and I have fixed it, but no update has
been pushed. (I am still busy with the huge multimedia overhaul :-/)

[Steve Huff]

Is this a new syntax that is understood by the EL6 rpm version but not the EL5 version?

i don't think so; i see the same errors on el6.

-shuff

--
If this were played upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction. - Fabian, Twelfth Night, III,v
PGP 8477B706 (A92A 1F7E 6D76 16A0 BFF9 E61D AD54 0251 8477 B706)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20101116/671d5cdc/attachment-0001.bin

[Steve Huff]

Is this a new syntax that is understood by the EL6 rpm version but not the EL5 version?

i don't think so; i see the same errors on el6.

-shuff

--
If this were played upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction. - Fabian, Twelfth Night, III,v
PGP 8477B706 (A92A 1F7E 6D76 16A0 BFF9 E61D AD54 0251 8477 B706)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20101116/671d5cdc/attachment-0002.bin

[Steve Huff]

Is this a new syntax that is understood by the EL6 rpm version but not the EL5 version?

i don't think so; i see the same errors on el6.

-shuff

--
If this were played upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction. - Fabian, Twelfth Night, III,v
PGP 8477B706 (A92A 1F7E 6D76 16A0 BFF9 E61D AD54 0251 8477 B706)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20101116/671d5cdc/attachment-0003.bin

[Steve Huff]

Is this a new syntax that is understood by the EL6 rpm version but not the EL5 version?

i don't think so; i see the same errors on el6.

-shuff

--
If this were played upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction. - Fabian, Twelfth Night, III,v
PGP 8477B706 (A92A 1F7E 6D76 16A0 BFF9 E61D AD54 0251 8477 B706)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20101116/671d5cdc/attachment.sig>

[Nicolas Thierry-Mieg]

Hi,

I just updated some packages on a centos 5 system, including
rpm-macros-rpmforge-0-5.el5.rf.
There seems to be a problem with /etc/rpm/macros.rpmforge from that
package, because after the update and rpm query prints some error messages.
Example:

[nthierry at tryo rpm]$ rpm -q rpm-macros-rpmforge
error: Macro % has illegal name (%define)
error: Macro % has illegal name (%define)
error: Macro % has illegal name (%define)
rpm-macros-rpmforge-0-5.el5.rf.noarch
[nthierry at tryo rpm]$

If I move /etc/rpm/macros.rpmforge somewhere else the error messages go
away.

Maybe I actually don't need this package at all? I don't remember why
it's installed, I guess I thought it could be useful for rebuilding some
rpmforge srpms. In any case the previous version didn't have this problem.

Regards,
Nicolas

[Nicolas Thierry-Mieg]

sorry for breaking the threading, I've already deleted my own post
(pasted below from the list archive) but find I want to add a comment...

Post by Nicolas Thierry-Mieg
I just updated some packages on a centos 5 system, including
rpm-macros-rpmforge-0-5.el5.rf.
There seems to be a problem with /etc/rpm/macros.rpmforge from that
package, because after the update and rpm query prints some error messages.
[nthierry at tryo rpm]$ rpm -q rpm-macros-rpmforge
error: Macro % has illegal name (%define)
error: Macro % has illegal name (%define)
error: Macro % has illegal name (%define)
rpm-macros-rpmforge-0-5.el5.rf.noarch
[nthierry at tryo rpm]$
If I move /etc/rpm/macros.rpmforge somewhere else the error messages go
away.

I investigated a bit more, the differences in /etc/rpm/macros.rpmforge are:
%dtag el5
becomes in the newer version:
%{!?dtag:%dtag el5}
and similarly for "%el5 1" and "%dist .el5"

Is this a new syntax that is understood by the EL6 rpm version but not
the EL5 version? If yes, shouldn't the el5 version of
rpm-macros-rpmforge keep the old (working) syntax? Or maybe have the new
package depend on the EL6 version of rpm, so it doesn't install on el5
systems.

[Nicolas Thierry-Mieg]

Hi,

I just updated some packages on a centos 5 system, including
rpm-macros-rpmforge-0-5.el5.rf.
There seems to be a problem with /etc/rpm/macros.rpmforge from that
package, because after the update and rpm query prints some error messages.
Example:

[nthierry at tryo rpm]$ rpm -q rpm-macros-rpmforge
error: Macro % has illegal name (%define)
error: Macro % has illegal name (%define)
error: Macro % has illegal name (%define)
rpm-macros-rpmforge-0-5.el5.rf.noarch
[nthierry at tryo rpm]$

If I move /etc/rpm/macros.rpmforge somewhere else the error messages go
away.

Maybe I actually don't need this package at all? I don't remember why
it's installed, I guess I thought it could be useful for rebuilding some
rpmforge srpms. In any case the previous version didn't have this problem.

Regards,
Nicolas

[Nicolas Thierry-Mieg]

sorry for breaking the threading, I've already deleted my own post
(pasted below from the list archive) but find I want to add a comment...

Post by Nicolas Thierry-Mieg
I just updated some packages on a centos 5 system, including
rpm-macros-rpmforge-0-5.el5.rf.
There seems to be a problem with /etc/rpm/macros.rpmforge from that
package, because after the update and rpm query prints some error messages.
[nthierry at tryo rpm]$ rpm -q rpm-macros-rpmforge
error: Macro % has illegal name (%define)
error: Macro % has illegal name (%define)
error: Macro % has illegal name (%define)
rpm-macros-rpmforge-0-5.el5.rf.noarch
[nthierry at tryo rpm]$
If I move /etc/rpm/macros.rpmforge somewhere else the error messages go
away.

I investigated a bit more, the differences in /etc/rpm/macros.rpmforge are:
%dtag el5
becomes in the newer version:
%{!?dtag:%dtag el5}
and similarly for "%el5 1" and "%dist .el5"

Is this a new syntax that is understood by the EL6 rpm version but not
the EL5 version? If yes, shouldn't the el5 version of
rpm-macros-rpmforge keep the old (working) syntax? Or maybe have the new
package depend on the EL6 version of rpm, so it doesn't install on el5
systems.

[Nicolas Thierry-Mieg]

Hi,

I just updated some packages on a centos 5 system, including
rpm-macros-rpmforge-0-5.el5.rf.
There seems to be a problem with /etc/rpm/macros.rpmforge from that
package, because after the update and rpm query prints some error messages.
Example:

[nthierry at tryo rpm]$ rpm -q rpm-macros-rpmforge
error: Macro % has illegal name (%define)
error: Macro % has illegal name (%define)
error: Macro % has illegal name (%define)
rpm-macros-rpmforge-0-5.el5.rf.noarch
[nthierry at tryo rpm]$

If I move /etc/rpm/macros.rpmforge somewhere else the error messages go
away.

Maybe I actually don't need this package at all? I don't remember why
it's installed, I guess I thought it could be useful for rebuilding some
rpmforge srpms. In any case the previous version didn't have this problem.

Regards,
Nicolas

[Nicolas Thierry-Mieg]

sorry for breaking the threading, I've already deleted my own post
(pasted below from the list archive) but find I want to add a comment...

Post by Nicolas Thierry-Mieg
I just updated some packages on a centos 5 system, including
rpm-macros-rpmforge-0-5.el5.rf.
There seems to be a problem with /etc/rpm/macros.rpmforge from that
package, because after the update and rpm query prints some error messages.
[nthierry at tryo rpm]$ rpm -q rpm-macros-rpmforge
error: Macro % has illegal name (%define)
error: Macro % has illegal name (%define)
error: Macro % has illegal name (%define)
rpm-macros-rpmforge-0-5.el5.rf.noarch
[nthierry at tryo rpm]$
If I move /etc/rpm/macros.rpmforge somewhere else the error messages go
away.

I investigated a bit more, the differences in /etc/rpm/macros.rpmforge are:
%dtag el5
becomes in the newer version:
%{!?dtag:%dtag el5}
and similarly for "%el5 1" and "%dist .el5"

Is this a new syntax that is understood by the EL6 rpm version but not
the EL5 version? If yes, shouldn't the el5 version of
rpm-macros-rpmforge keep the old (working) syntax? Or maybe have the new
package depend on the EL6 version of rpm, so it doesn't install on el5
systems.

[Nicolas Thierry-Mieg]

Hi,

I just updated some packages on a centos 5 system, including
rpm-macros-rpmforge-0-5.el5.rf.
There seems to be a problem with /etc/rpm/macros.rpmforge from that
package, because after the update and rpm query prints some error messages.
Example:

[nthierry at tryo rpm]$ rpm -q rpm-macros-rpmforge
error: Macro % has illegal name (%define)
error: Macro % has illegal name (%define)
error: Macro % has illegal name (%define)
rpm-macros-rpmforge-0-5.el5.rf.noarch
[nthierry at tryo rpm]$

If I move /etc/rpm/macros.rpmforge somewhere else the error messages go
away.

Maybe I actually don't need this package at all? I don't remember why
it's installed, I guess I thought it could be useful for rebuilding some
rpmforge srpms. In any case the previous version didn't have this problem.

Regards,
Nicolas

[Nicolas Thierry-Mieg]

sorry for breaking the threading, I've already deleted my own post
(pasted below from the list archive) but find I want to add a comment...

Post by Nicolas Thierry-Mieg
I just updated some packages on a centos 5 system, including
rpm-macros-rpmforge-0-5.el5.rf.
There seems to be a problem with /etc/rpm/macros.rpmforge from that
package, because after the update and rpm query prints some error messages.
[nthierry at tryo rpm]$ rpm -q rpm-macros-rpmforge
error: Macro % has illegal name (%define)
error: Macro % has illegal name (%define)
error: Macro % has illegal name (%define)
rpm-macros-rpmforge-0-5.el5.rf.noarch
[nthierry at tryo rpm]$
If I move /etc/rpm/macros.rpmforge somewhere else the error messages go
away.

I investigated a bit more, the differences in /etc/rpm/macros.rpmforge are:
%dtag el5
becomes in the newer version:
%{!?dtag:%dtag el5}
and similarly for "%el5 1" and "%dist .el5"

Is this a new syntax that is understood by the EL6 rpm version but not
the EL5 version? If yes, shouldn't the el5 version of
rpm-macros-rpmforge keep the old (working) syntax? Or maybe have the new
package depend on the EL6 version of rpm, so it doesn't install on el5
systems.