-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
(removed extras-list since I'm tired of the nastygrams)
Clark Williams wrote:
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).
After a bit of tweaking, the Makefile logic now looks 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" -bb buildsys-build.spec; \
done
for i in 73 8 9; do \
rpmbuild $(RPMARGS) --define "rhl $$i" --define "dist
.rhl$$i"
- -bb buildsys-build.spec; \
done
for i in 3 4; do \
rpmbuild $(RPMARGS) --define "rhel $$i" --define "dist
.rhel$$i" -bb buildsys-build.spec; \
done
An rpm -qp <pkg> --requires shows what I would expect for these guys,
so I'll be committing this stuff this afternoon (unless I get a passle
of emails indicating that I'm completely inept). After I commit it and
get some other suckers^Wtesters to see if it works right on targets
other than FC5 and devel, we can figure out how to push the resulting
binaries to the buildgroups repo (since I've never done that).
Clark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFE12rwHyuj/+TTEp0RAlbfAJ4/2tLGQW2pXo2nO35aVU11tIeRxACgoHs1
bv2l64Oxl/H/x+W4WjvMgdM=
=lsKR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----