On Friday, June 5, 2020 4:43:20 PM CEST Quentin Barnes wrote:
On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 06:29:37PM +0200, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 3, 2020 5:05:32 PM CEST Quentin Barnes wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 11:19:11PM +0200, Miroslav Such?? wrote:
> > > Dne 02. 06. 20 v 23:02 Quentin Barnes napsal(a):
> > > > 2) the "kernel-rpm-macros"
> > > > package needs to be added to the @buildsys-build group for Fedora
> > >
> > > That should be a final solution.
> > > Variant is that `fedora-rpm-macros` will requires
> > >
> > > > (or added to the
"config_opts['chroot_setup_cmd']=..." cfg line for
> > > > CentOS/RHEL).
> > >
> > > This is quick'n'dirty hack to unblock you for local builds and for
> > I meant that CentOS/RHEL doesn't have a @buildsys-build. Instead, it
> > uses a hardcoded list. For CentOS/RHEL, the equivalent fix would be
> > to update their hardcoded list.
> At least in Fedora, I checked few Koji builds for EPEL 8 and I don't see
> kernel-rpm-macros in the buildroot installation transactions. So it is not in
> the build group.
> As long as the package isn't in default minimal buildroot, it is not correct
> thing to just put the package into 'chroot_setup_cmd'.
Okay, let's break that down. What do you consider the "rules" for what
packages should be part of 'chroot_setup_cmd'?
As I looked at the problem -- mock's default behavior should be the same
as Koji's behavior, and vice versa. As much as reasonably possible...
Otherwise people will come and solve troubles that something works here,
but doesn't work there..
As a mock user, my reverse engineering angle has told me that the
packages listed in the 'chroot_setup_cmd' macro are there for one of
two reasons. Either:
1) They are system packages provided by the OS that are used by most
package builds, and for good or ill, that way packages don't have
to list them as an explicit BuildRequires: dependency, but they
could have. These are ones like tar, gcc, and make.
2) They are system packages provided by the OS that are needed for
parsing or processing spec files. These are ones like bash,
redhat-rpm-config, and rpm-build.
Agreed, except that mock is not the place to decide what will be in
minimal buildroot. That is per-distro decision. Mock's defaults are just
trying to mimic what is set per-distro.
If these aren't the reasons for why there are packages in
'chroot_setup_cmd', can someone better state what they are?
(A possible alternate meta-rule for the 'chroot_setup_cmd' macro for
RHEL/CentOS mock configs could say be feature eqivalent to Fedora's
@buildsys-build yum group?)
Exactly, that is my understanding. The list of packages is given by the
"build" group which only exists "internally" and isn't shipped in
mirrored (public) set of repositories.
Btw., for internal build group, you probably could try:
$ mock -r epel-8-x86_64 --enablerepo local --install @build
In my list of reasons, the kernel-rpm-macros package obviously falls
into category #2.
Did you try to ask Fedora to put that package to the "default" epel
minimal buildroot set of packages?
For RHEL, 8 adding back the %kernel_module_package (and kmodtool and
others) by adding kernel-rpm-macros rpm to chroot_setup_cmd is to
recover lost functionality.
As mentioned, before RHEL 8 (and current Fedoras), %kernel_module_package
macro was provided by /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/macros in the already
included redhat-rpm-config package. Parts of redhat-rpm-config got
spun off into kernel-rpm-macros. (As Neal pointed out in another
post, whether that should have been done or not by Red Hat or
Fedora devs is another issue, but it was done.) My request to add
kernel-rpm-macros to chroot_setup_cmd is to simply restore previous
functionality now missing by that OS change.
Yes, I don't claim it shouldn't be there ... I just claim that it should
be first in the Koji Fedora buildroots.
If feature-parity among supported OSes is not a goal of mock, then
better understand the reason for leaving in this breaking change.
It is not. When using mock, you basically "train" your builds for Fedora
locally. It doesn't make much sense to succeed locally, and then submit
the build to Koji and fail...
Perhaps we can think about `fedora-kmod-rawhide-x86_64.cfg` config file if
there's no other option.
> Plain mock would behave differently from koji from this POV.
I'm not following what you mean. I can read several possible
interpretations in your phrasing. Could you explain further to clarify?
Just the above ^^^.
> I'm not sure how the package is supposed to work, but
perhaps you can take a
> look at `chroot_additional_packages` mock config option, to work-around things.
How which package is supposed to work?
I mean, I don't know how those macros are to be used... Whether it is
absolutely necessary to have it in minimal buildroot or not (but now it
seems like it needs to be there).
In such case, you can absolutely set the `chroot_additional_packages`
option in the meantime.
buildsys mailing list -- buildsys(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to buildsys-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines