On Tue, 2006-04-11 at 10:09 -0500, Clark Williams wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
seth vidal wrote:
- okay - as panu was so kind to point out - we don't need 3 packages,
really. - just one 2. I made the changes in mock cvs to have it install via a package of the above style - the config option is chroot_dep_package 3. what other patches need to go into mock before we release 0.5?
- the one's I know about but wouldn't mind a reference to are: a. /dev/std* patch
1. the patch submitted to fix this is definitely in mock cvs 2. it is not entirely clear if this patch fixes the problem.
Well, it fixed it for me, but I wasn't the one that reported the problem.
- Clark: could you modify your buildsys rpm so that it produces a
single package named buildsys-build and could you check that spec file into mock cvs, since it will be handy there?
Sure.
In my original specfile I was playing kinda fast-n-loose, so I'd like to insure that the values we use for Version and Release make some sense. Should the Version field match our proposed mock version (i.e. 0.5)? Do we want to include the FC release in the release field (e.g. fc5-1) or something like that? Or should Release just be a number relative to the version string?
since the packages it depends on will change based on the distro and release the chroot is for we should probably just make a version of it and have the per-distro changes be marked with a dist tag like packages in extras frequently are.
Then for other distros we can do the same:
fc3 fc4 fc5 fc6 el3 el4 el5 suse25 mdv64
etc etc
does that make sense to you?> -sv