-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Remy,
Excelent work! I, for one, appreciate your effort. Now that you
have re-inspired me, I have a basic comps.xml question that I
_think_ has already been answered here (pardon my dense-ness): In
theory if you want to create a very stripped down subset of FC you
could:
1. Generate a list of package %name that yield no external
dependncies
2. Create "comps.xml" that only lists %name from (1) in a group
called "base"
3. Do the pungi pungi ;P
Is this correct?
Earl
On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 11:36:12 -0500 Remy Bohmer
<mythtv.bohmer(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hello All,
I got it! but, it is very strange... ;-))
I debugged the pkgorder script and found the following:
* At the routine 'processTransaction()' the complete lists of
dependencies is available, then it calls the routine
printMatchingPkgs() to print the packages to standard, after it
has
checked that they are available.
* The filemask that is passed to printMatchingPkgs() through
'fpattern', is build up as follows: <os-dir>/Product/package*.
Where
Product starts with a capital, but my product_name in the pungi
configuration does NOT star with a capital. So, the product-dir in
the
os-dir does not start with a capital. So, no dependency files can
be
found, leaving a os-disc1 with just a few files in it...
I searched through the entire tree several times, but nowhere I
have
listed the productname with a capital, so this capital must be
introduced by the tooling itself ! (Fedora also starts with a
capital... Redhat also, and probably other distros using anaconda
also?)
So, to be able to build a customised CD, you must use a
product_name
in Pungi that starts with a capital. I have changed this in my
build
environment and now it works!
I believe the problem is introduced by collecting the dependencies
in
the routine addGroups() -> ds.ResolveDeps() in the pkgorder
script.
For me it is going to deep in the external tooling, which I do not
fully understand yet how they work. Maybe someone else recognises
this
phenomenon and can pick it up from here?
Or if someone can give me some tips on this, I can look further
into it...
Kind Regards,
Remy Bohmer
2007/2/2, Remy Bohmer <mythtv.bohmer(a)gmail.com>:
> Hello All,
>
> I renamed all my groups to 'core', 'base', 'base-x' and
> 'development-tools', and it does not make any difference... So,
I
> believe it is not only related to the group naming in the comps
> file... I am going to debug this some more today.
>
> If anyone has a good idea about this, please let me know.
>
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Remy
>
> 2007/2/1, Jesse Keating <jkeating(a)redhat.com>:
> > On Thursday 01 February 2007 05:40, Remy Bohmer wrote:
> > > Attached are the results of this command:
> > > /usr/lib/anaconda-runtime/pkgorder
> > > /home/me/cdbuildtree/results/myrelease/i386/os i386
myproduct
> > >
> > > I replaced 'myproduct' with 'Fedora'. No differences.
> > > The produced list is exactly like the list of RPM's in my os-
disc1-
> > > directory. Thus, much too short...
> > >
> > > Does this give you some new ideas?
> >
> > It would appear that pkgorder doesn't know about the other
groups you have in
> > your comps file perhaps. pkgorder is just a python script,
I'd poke at it
> > and see how it figures out the order, and see if perhaps you
need to change
> > your group names in comps.
> >
> > --
> > Jesse Keating
> > Release Engineer: Fedora
> >
> >
>
--
Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list
Fedora-buildsys-list(a)redhat.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Note: This signature can be verified at
https://www.hushtools.com/verify
Version: Hush 2.5
wkYEARECAAYFAkXDlhAACgkQk7+e+4lPSm2O8QCeJENc6P4EPIp7FOovcYe9j6CbbZkA
oLuWDtzc5RdQdabfbniUajwiXZ+h
=40Tu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----