[WBEL-users] LVM update breakage

[Kirby C. Bohling]

On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 03:55:35PM -0500, Kirby C. Bohling wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 03:04:54PM +0100, Matt Dainty wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Has anyone noticed that the updated lvm package has broken? It's now
> > installing all of the binaries with an '.lvm1' suffix which I'm fairly
> > sure is the reason a remote box that I updated has not come up, (It has
> > /usr, /var, etc. on LVM).
> > 
> > I can see this is either:
> > 
> > 1) Package breakage, they shouldn't have the '.lvm1' suffix
> > 2) The SysV script should be updated to try binaries with the suffix as
> > well
> > 3) There's perhaps an LVM2 package that should be installed, (certainly
> > didn't get pulled in by deps).
> > 
> > Any comment? I'm going to now try faxing a shell script :-) to put
> > compat symlinks back in which to my eyes will get the box working again.
> > 
> 

> WBEL, I'll have to look at the package to be sure.  I'll bet the
> .lvm1 suffix is a "%define", that RHEL overrode on the command line
> when they built the package.  At least I sure hope they did,
> otherwise, I'm having a harder and harder time seeing why they put
> the "Enterprise" part in the name.

I got it wrong, it's not a "%define", it's some script.

Opps!  Didn't John say that sometimes he builds the SRPM's in a
chrooted environment on a 2.6 kernel on a FC release.  I'd bet that
he built the lvm packages on a non-2.4 kernel.

Here's a cut and paste out of the lvm.spec file:

# Conditionally suffix all binaries with .lvm1 and change manual
# page names
OS_VERSION=`uname -r`
if [ "${OS_VERSION:0:3}" != 2.4 ]

I think he'll need to re-roll the package while running a 2.4
kernel.  I'm building it here local, but I have to run to a dentist
appointment before I can report the results.

	Thanks,
		Kirby