mock buildroot definitions

[seth vidal]

On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 11:12 +0200, Thomas Vander Stichele wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 10:05 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
> > Hey,
> >  So it was brought up a while ago that due to the changing nature of the
> > comps.xml format that we should not rely on it for the buildroot
> > installations in mock. The idea a while back was to just have a
> > 'buildroot' rpm that required all the stuff that would normally be in
> > the comps.xml group. Then we could just install that rpm and it pulls in
> > the rest of the buildroot components.
> 
> I think it's wrong to pollute the rpm collection with an rpm that only
> ever is useful for one specific program.  In the past people have
> already objected to more generally useful umbrella packages, and those
> at least served an end user purpose.
> 
> This probably won't come as a surprise, but I think that a build tool's
> idea of what it needs to pull in should be maintained in the build tool,
> and not outside of it.  It's not like it's hard work :)

it is if you want to be able to cleanly propagate changes to hundreds of
users of the build tool.

mock is used by extras developers to test builds on their own systems.
If we change the build root contents we need to make sure that those
changes are distributed out.

-sv