Re: trouble with rpmbuild on WBEL3.0/x86_64 - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Devrim GUNDUZ
Subject Re: trouble with rpmbuild on WBEL3.0/x86_64
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.61.0411081115130.32726@emo.org.tr
Whole thread Raw
In response to trouble with rpmbuild on WBEL3.0/x86_64  ("Marcel Gsteiger" <Marcel.Gsteiger@milprog.ch>)
List pgsql-general
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Hi,

On Mon, 1 Nov 2004, Marcel Gsteiger wrote:

> I wanted to install postgreSQL 7.4 on my ia32e box (x86_64 dual xeon PL370G4) running WBEL3.0.  I looked for binary
RPMsbut did not find any. So I tried to 
>
> rpmbuild --rebuild --define 'build9 1' postgresql-7.4.6-2PGDG.src.rpm
>
> but during configure I get the error
>
> ....
> checking for python... /usr/bin/python
> checking Python installation directories... /usr/lib/python2.2
> checking how to link an embedded Python application... no
> configure: error: Python Makefile not found
> Fehler: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.75919 (%build)
>
> python-devel-2.2.3-5 is installed. On a similar i386 system (same
> versions of rpms), this error does not happen; here I could build all
> RPMs successfully (but, of course, not for x86_64).

python-2.2.3-5 should have distuils module installed. Do you have
/usr/lib/python2.2/distutils ?

Anyway,

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-09/msg00447.php

has a patch that fixes your problems. Could you please apply it to your
postgresql source and retry building rpm?

> On my x86_64 system, rh-postgresql 7.3.6-7 is still installed - I
> thought I could rebuild newer RPMS before removing the old ones. Should
> I remove rhdb first?

No. You can still rebuild the RPMS even if you dont't have PostgreSQL
installed on your server. But you'll need to remove the old binaries
befora installing the new ones.

Regards,
- --
Devrim GUNDUZ
devrim~gunduz.org                devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr
             http://www.tdmsoft.com
             http://www.gunduz.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBj/1Ktl86P3SPfQ4RAlOZAJ9xGK5i+NZ/71dVHmFw1P4nn19KfwCg4I73
q4RUJOwn5HROuPVbgP3ryOU=
=2doM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: index not always used when selecting on a date field
Next
From: "J. Michael Crawford"
Date:
Subject: Re: [JDBC] Using Postgres with Latin1 (ISO8859-1)