On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 16:06 +0100, Thomas Vander Stichele wrote:
Hi,
> Then mock has to grow how to parse a comps file. And which format
> should be preferred? If we were to go that route, we're better off just
> putting a list of packages in the mock config file, but that's just
> painful from a maintenance perspective, IMHO
That's what mach does, and I never saw it as a problem. There's no
maintenance to be done - you give it a list of packages it needs to have
installed for the "build" target and if the rpm dependencies are mapped
ok it just works. This is one of the first changes Seth made when
forking to mock IIRC.
B/c we didn't want the mock config to hold the list of packages in an
internal config file on every machine. If we did we wouldn't be able to
reasonably know that all the users of it were building on the same
chroots for their own test builds.
-sv