-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Hi!
Now that mock on the Extras builders was updated to 0.6 (thx dgilmore
for your work) we noticed that there are big problems building Extras
packages for FC3 and FC4. For details see this thread:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-August/msg00091.html
The problem is well know and described in #196930 -- opened by Paul
Howarth on 2006-06-27
We really should fix this as soon as possible. That means:
- add elfutils to the default buildroot in all Fedora Dists < FC5
- add python to the default buildroot in FC3 and FC4
Everyone (especially fedora-packaging) fine with that? I'd like to see
this fixed soon and would like to avoid waiting for the next meetings.
If yes: can somebody (skvidal) please apply this patch:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=133705
and update
http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/buildgroups/ please?
I've applied the patch and committed it to the mock-0.6 branch, but
there's a bit more to do before we can push an update. We need N
buildsys-build binary packages for this to work and we don't do that
(yet) in the build mechanism. I believe we need to build fedora[12345]
and devel as well as rhl[89], which gives us 8 buildsys-build packages
to generate.
I've made a start on it by modifying the Makefile to look like this:
RPMARGS := --define "_sourcedir $(PWD)" \
--define "_builddir $(PWD)/buildsys" \
--define "_srcrpmdir $(PWD)/buildsys" \
--define "_rpmdir $(PWD)/buildsys"
buildsys-rpm:
rm -rf buildsys
mkdir buildsys
for i in 1 2 3 4 5 devel; do \
rpmbuild $(RPMARGS) --define "fedora $$i" --define "dist
fc$$i" -ba buildsys-build.spec; \
done
for i in 8 9; do \
rpmbuild $(RPMARGS) --define "rhl $$i" --define "dist rhl$$i"
- -ba buildsys-build.spec; \
done
But, I'm not sure if I'm abusing the %dist macro and I'm not at all
sure how we should name the devel package. Would someone more
knowledgeable than me (and that's most folks on these lists), please
look at the above make rule and comment/correct?
Clark
(once we get this straightened out I'll add it to the mock CVS HEAD).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFE11y8Hyuj/+TTEp0RAhQ3AKC5+q7UCRbOBLgNNBKwAmDO1xoRYwCfewYy
NOyPGcOvQEBOaDlOSplC4lA=
=2zaw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----