From fedora at leemhuis.info Sun Aug 6 11:07:46 2006 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 13:07:46 +0200 Subject: Fix problems building Extras packages for FC3 and FC4 Message-ID: <44D5CD82.8040103@leemhuis.info> 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? The patch does what's described above and also fixes the default buildroots for older dists (see patch for details). CU thl From williams at redhat.com Mon Aug 7 15:31:09 2006 From: williams at redhat.com (Clark Williams) Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 10:31:09 -0500 Subject: Fix problems building Extras packages for FC3 and FC4 In-Reply-To: <44D5CD82.8040103@leemhuis.info> References: <44D5CD82.8040103@leemhuis.info> Message-ID: <44D75CBD.1000605@redhat.com> -----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----- From williams at redhat.com Mon Aug 7 16:31:45 2006 From: williams at redhat.com (Clark Williams) Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 11:31:45 -0500 Subject: Fix problems building Extras packages for FC3 and FC4 In-Reply-To: <44D75CBD.1000605@redhat.com> References: <44D5CD82.8040103@leemhuis.info> <44D75CBD.1000605@redhat.com> Message-ID: <44D76AF1.3060905@redhat.com> -----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 --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----- From jkeating at j2solutions.net Thu Aug 10 19:20:36 2006 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:20:36 -0400 Subject: Upstream bugzilla for mock? Message-ID: <200608101520.37089.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Where do bugs that apply to upstream mock go? Filing them against a distribution package doesn't make sense, nor does filing them against the infrastructure extras-buildsystem either. Is there an upstream bug system? -- Jesse Keating RHCE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedoralegacy.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From skvidal at linux.duke.edu Thu Aug 10 19:23:36 2006 From: skvidal at linux.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:23:36 -0400 Subject: Upstream bugzilla for mock? In-Reply-To: <200608101520.37089.jkeating@j2solutions.net> References: <200608101520.37089.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: <1155237817.14426.25.camel@cutter> On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 15:20 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > Where do bugs that apply to upstream mock go? Filing them against a > distribution package doesn't make sense, nor does filing them against the > infrastructure extras-buildsystem either. Is there an upstream bug system? upstream mock IS fedora. primary mock cvs is in /cvs/fedora maybe we need an infrastructure/mock item? -sv From jkeating at j2solutions.net Thu Aug 10 19:27:39 2006 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:27:39 -0400 Subject: Upstream bugzilla for mock? In-Reply-To: <1155237817.14426.25.camel@cutter> References: <200608101520.37089.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <1155237817.14426.25.camel@cutter> Message-ID: <200608101527.39789.jkeating@j2solutions.net> On Thursday 10 August 2006 15:23, seth vidal wrote: > upstream mock IS fedora. > > primary mock cvs is in /cvs/fedora > > maybe we need an infrastructure/mock item? The Fedora Project is upstream for mock yes, but the distribution isn't (: I was thinking more of a Fedora Projects product, with mock being one componet. This could be used for other things that are Fedora hosted. I'll take this to FAB. In the mean time, who would own the componet mock? -- Jesse Keating RHCE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedoralegacy.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From williams at redhat.com Thu Aug 10 19:41:05 2006 From: williams at redhat.com (Clark Williams) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 14:41:05 -0500 Subject: Upstream bugzilla for mock? In-Reply-To: <200608101527.39789.jkeating@j2solutions.net> References: <200608101520.37089.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <1155237817.14426.25.camel@cutter> <200608101527.39789.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: <44DB8BD1.7040702@redhat.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jesse Keating wrote: > On Thursday 10 August 2006 15:23, seth vidal wrote: >> upstream mock IS fedora. >> >> primary mock cvs is in /cvs/fedora >> >> maybe we need an infrastructure/mock item? > > The Fedora Project is upstream for mock yes, but the distribution isn't (: > > I was thinking more of a Fedora Projects product, with mock being one > componet. This could be used for other things that are Fedora hosted. > > I'll take this to FAB. In the mean time, who would own the componet mock? > Wouldn't that be Michael and I? Clark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFE24vQHyuj/+TTEp0RAjkEAKCmkzbjeHFKUjd3Ki3/BJ7nvzykdwCgtO1z 6ylNWRXVvkKKSiTKRZFuBiw= =5Qk9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From skvidal at linux.duke.edu Thu Aug 10 19:50:35 2006 From: skvidal at linux.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:50:35 -0400 Subject: Upstream bugzilla for mock? In-Reply-To: <44DB8BD1.7040702@redhat.com> References: <200608101520.37089.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <1155237817.14426.25.camel@cutter> <200608101527.39789.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <44DB8BD1.7040702@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1155239436.14426.29.camel@cutter> On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 14:41 -0500, Clark Williams wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Jesse Keating wrote: > > On Thursday 10 August 2006 15:23, seth vidal wrote: > >> upstream mock IS fedora. > >> > >> primary mock cvs is in /cvs/fedora > >> > >> maybe we need an infrastructure/mock item? > > > > The Fedora Project is upstream for mock yes, but the distribution isn't (: > > > > I was thinking more of a Fedora Projects product, with mock being one > > componet. This could be used for other things that are Fedora hosted. > > > > I'll take this to FAB. In the mean time, who would own the componet mock? > > > > Wouldn't that be Michael and I? > yes. -sv From jkeating at j2solutions.net Thu Aug 10 19:51:02 2006 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:51:02 -0400 Subject: Upstream bugzilla for mock? In-Reply-To: <44DB8BD1.7040702@redhat.com> References: <200608101520.37089.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <200608101527.39789.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <44DB8BD1.7040702@redhat.com> Message-ID: <200608101551.02365.jkeating@j2solutions.net> On Thursday 10 August 2006 15:41, Clark Williams wrote: > Wouldn't that be Michael and I? There can be only one! Well, one email that is. If you wanted to create a bugzilla account that was an alias to you two, or to some list we could do that, or I could use one of you for the assignee and the other for initial CC, or any combination of the above. -- Jesse Keating RHCE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedoralegacy.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From williams at redhat.com Thu Aug 10 19:57:03 2006 From: williams at redhat.com (Clark Williams) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 14:57:03 -0500 Subject: Upstream bugzilla for mock? In-Reply-To: <200608101551.02365.jkeating@j2solutions.net> References: <200608101520.37089.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <200608101527.39789.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <44DB8BD1.7040702@redhat.com> <200608101551.02365.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: <44DB8F8F.8080904@redhat.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jesse Keating wrote: > On Thursday 10 August 2006 15:41, Clark Williams wrote: >> Wouldn't that be Michael and I? > > There can be only one! Well, not knowing what Michael looks like or how big he is, I'm not going to sign up to take him on with a large edged weapon :) > > Well, one email that is. If you wanted to create a bugzilla account that was > an alias to you two, or to some list we could do that, or I could use one of > you for the assignee and the other for initial CC, or any combination of the > above. > Put me down as the assignee for now (I'm assuming that if we put together an email alias solution, you would help us straighten it out). If it's a pain to go back and modify we can set up an alias now. Clark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFE24+OHyuj/+TTEp0RAiekAJ0em7ljaLMDVrEQvDJcDeX2/m160wCgy+EU CcD9moRE4zLFYAxHiAXOEa0= =j1ql -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jkeating at j2solutions.net Thu Aug 10 20:14:27 2006 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 16:14:27 -0400 Subject: Upstream bugzilla for mock? In-Reply-To: <44DB8F8F.8080904@redhat.com> References: <200608101520.37089.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <200608101551.02365.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <44DB8F8F.8080904@redhat.com> Message-ID: <200608101614.28036.jkeating@j2solutions.net> On Thursday 10 August 2006 15:57, Clark Williams wrote: > Put me down as the assignee for now (I'm assuming that if we put > together an email alias solution, you would help us straighten it > out). If it's a pain to go back and modify we can set up an alias now. Easily done. Michael doesn't have a bugzilla account, so I can't put him on CC yet. Its easy to change later though. -- Jesse Keating RHCE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedoralegacy.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jkeating at j2solutions.net Thu Aug 10 20:15:13 2006 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 16:15:13 -0400 Subject: New "upstream" bugzilla point Message-ID: <200608101615.13550.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Bugzilla -> Fedora Hosted Projects -> mock Bugzilla -> Fedora Hosted Projects -> plague I'm going to start moving some bugs over. -- Jesse Keating RHCE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedoralegacy.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Christian.Iseli at licr.org Thu Aug 10 22:00:51 2006 From: Christian.Iseli at licr.org (Christian Iseli) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 00:00:51 +0200 Subject: slides Message-ID: <20060811000051.1f684dfd@ludwig-alpha> Hi folks, Anyone has slides he would be willing to share that describe plague and mock ? I'd like to give a short presentation to co-workers here... Thanks, Christian From williams at redhat.com Wed Aug 16 15:59:16 2006 From: williams at redhat.com (Clark Williams) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 10:59:16 -0500 Subject: mock BZ#196930 questions/thoughts Message-ID: <44E340D4.7000402@redhat.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I actually had a couple of hours without having to go to a meeting or be on a conference call, so I started looking at the open BZ's on mock. BZ #196930 has been partially addressed by updating the buildsys-build specfile and generating binary RPMS for each supported distro. The remaining items are: 1. Adding a config_opts['runuser'] = '/bin/su' for FC[12] cfg files. 2. Potentially adding an RHL 8 cfg file 3. Potentially including the buildsys-build.spec in the mock binary RPM I think #1 is a no brainer and will commit changes to CVS in a bit. The second part gave me a bit of pause. It was easy enough to copy the RHL9 cfg file to an RHL8 one and mangle the paths, but I hesitate to actually ship a file with a URL which implies that Fedora Legacy supports it. My though was to remove the Fedora Legacy host from the URL and insert in the yum repo specifications. That way it should be painfully obvious that it's not supported by Fedora Legacy and that there's Some Assembly Required(tm). For number 3, I don't have a problem including the buildsys-build specfile in the mock package for people to use, but I wondered if we do, where should we put it? /usr/share/doc/mock? /etc/mock? /var/lib/mock? Thoughts? Clark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFE40DUHyuj/+TTEp0RAi5FAJ9/BAc7qvfAmWbLrRueeAOcUGbPIwCfbJUw 9AF0Ec1DWpiTuscUMMeaa8c= =8+L4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jkeating at j2solutions.net Wed Aug 16 16:08:43 2006 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 12:08:43 -0400 Subject: mock BZ#196930 questions/thoughts In-Reply-To: <44E340D4.7000402@redhat.com> References: <44E340D4.7000402@redhat.com> Message-ID: <200608161208.43835.jkeating@j2solutions.net> On Wednesday 16 August 2006 11:59, Clark Williams wrote: > For number 3, I don't have a problem including the buildsys-build > specfile in the mock package for people to use, but I wondered if we > do, where should we put it? /usr/share/doc/mock? /etc/mock? /var/lib/mock? I would think doc. It's considered an "example" imho. -- Jesse Keating RHCE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedoralegacy.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Michael_E_Brown at Dell.com Wed Aug 16 16:30:19 2006 From: Michael_E_Brown at Dell.com (Michael_E_Brown at Dell.com) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 11:30:19 -0500 Subject: mock BZ#196930 questions/thoughts In-Reply-To: <200608161208.43835.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: <35C9A9D68AB3FA4AB63692802656D9EC010F4598@ausx3mps303.aus.amer.dell.com> Seconded. -- Michael > -----Original Message----- > From: fedora-buildsys-list-bounces at redhat.com > [mailto:fedora-buildsys-list-bounces at redhat.com] On Behalf Of > Jesse Keating > Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 11:09 AM > To: fedora-buildsys-list at redhat.com > Subject: Re: mock BZ#196930 questions/thoughts > > On Wednesday 16 August 2006 11:59, Clark Williams wrote: > > For number 3, I don't have a problem including the buildsys-build > > specfile in the mock package for people to use, but I wondered if we > > do, where should we put it? /usr/share/doc/mock? /etc/mock? > /var/lib/mock? > > I would think doc. It's considered an "example" imho. > > -- > Jesse Keating RHCE (geek.j2solutions.net) > Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedoralegacy.org) > GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub > From williams at redhat.com Wed Aug 16 16:44:49 2006 From: williams at redhat.com (Clark Williams) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 11:44:49 -0500 Subject: mock BZ#196930 questions/thoughts In-Reply-To: <35C9A9D68AB3FA4AB63692802656D9EC010F4598@ausx3mps303.aus.amer.dell.com> References: <35C9A9D68AB3FA4AB63692802656D9EC010F4598@ausx3mps303.aus.amer.dell.com> Message-ID: <44E34B81.5070103@redhat.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Michael_E_Brown at Dell.com wrote: > Seconded. > -- > Michael > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: fedora-buildsys-list-bounces at redhat.com >> [mailto:fedora-buildsys-list-bounces at redhat.com] On Behalf Of >> Jesse Keating >> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 11:09 AM >> To: fedora-buildsys-list at redhat.com >> Subject: Re: mock BZ#196930 questions/thoughts >> >> On Wednesday 16 August 2006 11:59, Clark Williams wrote: >>> For number 3, I don't have a problem including the buildsys-build >>> specfile in the mock package for people to use, but I wondered if we >>> do, where should we put it? /usr/share/doc/mock? /etc/mock? >> /var/lib/mock? >> >> I would think doc. It's considered an "example" imho. >> So let it be written. So let it be done! Clark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFE40uBHyuj/+TTEp0RAkyjAKC3JxRcA4SeDd0ZbixKyIcnZuvBfwCgwB3A 2peZyCuj8JqMlH2pI385H7A= =jxvY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From williams at redhat.com Wed Aug 16 17:11:31 2006 From: williams at redhat.com (Clark Williams) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 12:11:31 -0500 Subject: Disttags in mock? Message-ID: <44E351C3.4020308@redhat.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Do we need to add a disttag to the mock specfile? My initial thought was no, since it's a noarch and pretty much should run on any python >= 2.2. But, I'm not positive that we shouldn't add a disttag; just a nagging feeling. So I thought I'd throw it out there... Clark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFE41HDHyuj/+TTEp0RAi8oAKCpi9CC53V16ppZBdlzVmNd/qoZGQCcDx9D jAmtiHxP+Zcv+W7PkfO4aEI= =n2Xp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jkeating at j2solutions.net Wed Aug 16 17:19:02 2006 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 13:19:02 -0400 Subject: Disttags in mock? In-Reply-To: <44E351C3.4020308@redhat.com> References: <44E351C3.4020308@redhat.com> Message-ID: <200608161319.03098.jkeating@j2solutions.net> On Wednesday 16 August 2006 13:11, Clark Williams wrote: > Do we need to add a disttag to the mock specfile? > > My initial thought was no, since it's a noarch and pretty much should > run on any python >= 2.2. But, I'm not positive that we shouldn't add > a disttag; just a nagging feeling. ?So I thought I'd throw it out there... I added a disttag in the Extras CVS for this reason: When I want to release a new mock to extras, I'm usually releasing the same thing across all releases. Because of this, the spec is going to be identical, and the only thing that would change between the releases is the release number. Since %{?dist} lets that be autogenerated, the exact same spec can be used across all the releases. Makes it easy for me. -- Jesse Keating RHCE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedoralegacy.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From williams at redhat.com Wed Aug 16 17:23:14 2006 From: williams at redhat.com (Clark Williams) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 12:23:14 -0500 Subject: Disttags in mock? In-Reply-To: <200608161319.03098.jkeating@j2solutions.net> References: <44E351C3.4020308@redhat.com> <200608161319.03098.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: <44E35482.9080107@redhat.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jesse Keating wrote: > On Wednesday 16 August 2006 13:11, Clark Williams wrote: >> Do we need to add a disttag to the mock specfile? >> >> My initial thought was no, since it's a noarch and pretty much should >> run on any python >= 2.2. But, I'm not positive that we shouldn't add >> a disttag; just a nagging feeling. So I thought I'd throw it out there... > > I added a disttag in the Extras CVS for this reason: > > When I want to release a new mock to extras, I'm usually releasing the same > thing across all releases. Because of this, the spec is going to be > identical, and the only thing that would change between the releases is the > release number. Since %{?dist} lets that be autogenerated, the exact same > spec can be used across all the releases. Makes it easy for me. So, you'd like it if we added it to the upstream copy? I'm not against since there seems to be a use for it. Clark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFE41SCHyuj/+TTEp0RAsfWAKCMM5uv2DQD/TKrjuztc7TLR0KcdACfdFyX tH2Cz7M2l0bxYB5UJaifYus= =QHdy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From Michael_E_Brown at Dell.com Wed Aug 16 17:26:48 2006 From: Michael_E_Brown at Dell.com (Michael_E_Brown at Dell.com) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 12:26:48 -0500 Subject: Disttags in mock? In-Reply-To: <44E35482.9080107@redhat.com> Message-ID: <35C9A9D68AB3FA4AB63692802656D9EC010F459D@ausx3mps303.aus.amer.dell.com> I think dist tag would be good, myself. There are many positive reasons for it, and I cannot think of a drawback. -- Michael > -----Original Message----- > From: fedora-buildsys-list-bounces at redhat.com > [mailto:fedora-buildsys-list-bounces at redhat.com] On Behalf Of > Clark Williams > Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 12:23 PM > To: Discussion of Fedora build system > Subject: Re: Disttags in mock? > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Jesse Keating wrote: > > On Wednesday 16 August 2006 13:11, Clark Williams wrote: > >> Do we need to add a disttag to the mock specfile? > >> > >> My initial thought was no, since it's a noarch and pretty > much should > >> run on any python >= 2.2. But, I'm not positive that we > shouldn't add > >> a disttag; just a nagging feeling. So I thought I'd throw > it out there... > > > > I added a disttag in the Extras CVS for this reason: > > > > When I want to release a new mock to extras, I'm usually > releasing the > same > > thing across all releases. Because of this, the spec is going to be > > identical, and the only thing that would change between the > releases is > the > > release number. Since %{?dist} lets that be autogenerated, > the exact same > > spec can be used across all the releases. Makes it easy for me. > > So, you'd like it if we added it to the upstream copy? I'm not against > since there seems to be a use for it. > > Clark > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFE41SCHyuj/+TTEp0RAsfWAKCMM5uv2DQD/TKrjuztc7TLR0KcdACfdFyX > tH2Cz7M2l0bxYB5UJaifYus= > =QHdy > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > -- > Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list > Fedora-buildsys-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list > From jkeating at j2solutions.net Wed Aug 16 17:35:24 2006 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 13:35:24 -0400 Subject: Disttags in mock? In-Reply-To: <44E35482.9080107@redhat.com> References: <44E351C3.4020308@redhat.com> <200608161319.03098.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <44E35482.9080107@redhat.com> Message-ID: <200608161335.28505.jkeating@j2solutions.net> On Wednesday 16 August 2006 13:23, Clark Williams wrote: > So, you'd like it if we added it to the upstream copy? I'm not against > since there seems to be a use for it. Yes please (: Also, you should do a diff against the spec that is in extras CVS. I don't _think_ I changed much (and I didn't comment in the changelog about any such changes), but a diff would be good to do anyway. -- Jesse Keating RHCE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedoralegacy.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From williams at redhat.com Wed Aug 16 17:50:35 2006 From: williams at redhat.com (Clark Williams) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 12:50:35 -0500 Subject: Disttags in mock? In-Reply-To: <200608161335.28505.jkeating@j2solutions.net> References: <44E351C3.4020308@redhat.com> <200608161319.03098.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <44E35482.9080107@redhat.com> <200608161335.28505.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: <44E35AEB.9080806@redhat.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jesse Keating wrote: > On Wednesday 16 August 2006 13:23, Clark Williams wrote: >> So, you'd like it if we added it to the upstream copy? I'm not against >> since there seems to be a use for it. > > Yes please (: Okey doke, it's in both the mock-0.6 branch (what's being released to the world, atm) and the HEAD branch (currently 0.7). > > Also, you should do a diff against the spec that is in extras CVS. I don't > _think_ I changed much (and I didn't comment in the changelog about any such > changes), but a diff would be good to do anyway. > Gladly, but I have no idea where that repo is :). Should I just pull the SRPM from an extras repo? Clark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFE41rrHyuj/+TTEp0RApUEAKCyYpaOB/bVtxaiGxqiS1dLfwaojACePv2J GlBMF7EiWDD2Pa2PnWJpRv0= =KgBP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jkeating at j2solutions.net Wed Aug 16 17:57:38 2006 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 13:57:38 -0400 Subject: Disttags in mock? In-Reply-To: <44E35AEB.9080806@redhat.com> References: <44E351C3.4020308@redhat.com> <200608161335.28505.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <44E35AEB.9080806@redhat.com> Message-ID: <200608161357.38582.jkeating@j2solutions.net> On Wednesday 16 August 2006 13:50, Clark Williams wrote: > Gladly, but I have no idea where that repo is :). ?Should I just pull > the SRPM from an extras repo? Sure you can do that... I've attached it here too. -- Jesse Keating RHCE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedoralegacy.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- Summary: Builds packages inside chroots Name: mock Version: 0.6 Release: 4%{?dist} License: GPL Group: Development/Tools Source: http://fedoraproject.org/projects/mock/releases/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz URL: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Projects/Mock Patch0: devellink.patch BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Requires: python, yum >= 2.2.1 Requires(pre): shadow-utils BuildRequires: libselinux-devel %description Mock takes a srpm and builds it in a chroot %prep %setup -q %patch -p 1 %build make %install rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install # make the default.cfg link cd $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_sysconfdir}/%{name} %if 0%{?fedora:1} if [ -f fedora-%{fedora}-%{_target_cpu}-core.cfg ]; then ln -s fedora-%{fedora}-%{_target_cpu}-core.cfg default.cfg fi %endif # if we haven't created a default link yet, try to do so as devel if [ ! -f default.cfg ]; then if [ -f fedora-development-%{_target_cpu}-core.cfg ]; then ln -s fedora-development-%{_target_cpu}-core.cfg default.cfg else ln -s fedora-development-i386-core.cfg default.cfg fi fi %clean rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT %pre if [ $1 -eq 1 ]; then groupadd -r mock >/dev/null 2>&1 || : fi %files %defattr(-, root, root) %doc README ChangeLog %dir %{_sysconfdir}/%{name} %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/%{name}/*.cfg %{_bindir}/%{name} %{_libexecdir}/mock-yum %{_mandir}/man1/mock.1* %attr(04750, root, mock) %{_sbindir}/mock-helper %attr(02775, root, mock) %dir /var/lib/mock %{_libdir}/libselinux-mock.so %changelog * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Wed Jun 21 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-3 - Add patch symlink fedora-6 to development, not 5. * Tue Jun 20 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-1 - New upstream version 0.6 * Tue Mar 21 2006 Dan Williams - 0.4-8 - bump release for fc5/fc6 split * Tue Mar 21 2006 Dan Williams - 0.4-7 - Update to mock CVS; add symlinks for /dev/std[in|out|err] to buildroots * Thu Mar 2 2006 Seth Vidal - 0.4-6 - iterate for gcc rebuild and fc5 final * Tue Jan 24 2006 Dan Williams - 0.4-5 - Back out setpgrp patch, found a better way to do it in plague * Tue Jan 24 2006 Dan Williams - 0.4-4 - Add option to create new process group so mock and its children may be more easily killed * Wed Jan 18 2006 Dan Williams - 0.4-3 - Add unpackaged files fix from RH#163576 (Adrian Reber) * Tue Dec 27 2005 Seth Vidal - add patch from Andreas Thienemann - adds man page * Tue Aug 16 2005 Matthias Saou 0.4-2 - Fix ?fedora check when not defined (would fail to parse). * Thu Aug 4 2005 Seth Vidal - 0.4 - update urls - add in selinux buildreq and mock-yum file * Sun Jun 12 2005 Jeremy Katz - set default.cfg based on both arch and distro built for * Sat Jun 11 2005 Seth Vidal - security fix in mock-helper * Sat Jun 11 2005 Seth Vidal - mock 0.3 - security release - mock-helper allowed execution of arbitrary commands by member of mock group * Sun Jun 5 2005 Seth Vidal - clean up packaging for fedora extras * Thu May 19 2005 Seth Vidal - second packaging and backing down the yum ver req * Sun May 15 2005 Seth Vidal - first version/packaging From williams at redhat.com Wed Aug 16 17:59:57 2006 From: williams at redhat.com (Clark Williams) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 12:59:57 -0500 Subject: Mock going forward Message-ID: <44E35D1D.2000402@redhat.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ok, last unsolicited mock email of the day. Really! I promise... We're currently shipping mock from the mock-0.6 branch of the mock CVS repository. The HEAD (0.7) is the branch that contains the re-architected launcher and the elevate/drop privilege logic. I'm wondering when/how we push the new version of mock out to the world? My preference would be to wait for FC6 to go gold, then switch over to HEAD and deal with mock breakage at that point. Of course, the complete lack of complaints from all you dedicated fedora buildsys readers probably means that mock-0.7 is perfect in every way, so we probably don't have to worry about that, eh? :) Anyway, I'd be interested to hear what everyone thinks and I'd like to learn what the mechanism is for implementing it. Is implementation merely telling Jeremy or Jesse what branch to pull from? Or do we have to do more? Clark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFE410cHyuj/+TTEp0RAsmsAKDDlOns80a9CorfSURSSEzjp+wslgCeLRrK 9Mcp4IziZ6O3ojXjcm64GoQ= =IeOW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jkeating at j2solutions.net Wed Aug 16 18:08:34 2006 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 14:08:34 -0400 Subject: Mock going forward In-Reply-To: <44E35D1D.2000402@redhat.com> References: <44E35D1D.2000402@redhat.com> Message-ID: <200608161408.37457.jkeating@j2solutions.net> On Wednesday 16 August 2006 13:59, Clark Williams wrote: > Anyway, I'd be interested to hear what everyone thinks and I'd like to > learn what the mechanism is for implementing it. Is implementation > merely telling Jeremy or Jesse what branch to pull from? Or do we have > to do more? In other projects, upstream picks a time to make a 'release' of a tarball. Then downstream distros, like Fedora, would decide when to consume that tarball and push it out to their users. Personally I'd like to see 0.6 be The Shipped mock for FC6. Once we start development toward FC7 (when we branch all packages for FC-6 / FE-6), we can then look at either packaging a cvs snapshot of HEAD, or the mock upstream could pick a time to make a "0.7" release. Downstream, Extras, I would package either the snapshot or the 0.7 release into development and our happy rawhide users would get to beat up on it. Hopefully we'd be able to reach some sort of stability with the feature set of 0.7 by the time FC7Test2 or FC7Test3 is ready to ship, and 0.7 could be "The Mock" for FC7 (neat that the numbers line up...) Soon we should figure out what feature set we would want to be happy with for the magical 1.0 release of mock, and shoot for a timeline. Then the fun starts (: -- Jesse Keating RHCE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedoralegacy.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From williams at redhat.com Wed Aug 16 18:17:18 2006 From: williams at redhat.com (Clark Williams) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 13:17:18 -0500 Subject: Disttags in mock? In-Reply-To: <200608161357.38582.jkeating@j2solutions.net> References: <44E351C3.4020308@redhat.com> <200608161335.28505.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <44E35AEB.9080806@redhat.com> <200608161357.38582.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: <44E3612E.1070205@redhat.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jesse Keating wrote: > On Wednesday 16 August 2006 13:50, Clark Williams wrote: >> Gladly, but I have no idea where that repo is :). Should I just pull >> the SRPM from an extras repo? > > Sure you can do that... I've attached it here too. > Thanks, comments below > > %install > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install > # make the default.cfg link > cd $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_sysconfdir}/%{name} > > %if 0%{?fedora:1} > if [ -f fedora-%{fedora}-%{_target_cpu}-core.cfg ]; then > ln -s fedora-%{fedora}-%{_target_cpu}-core.cfg default.cfg > fi > %endif > > # if we haven't created a default link yet, try to do so as devel > if [ ! -f default.cfg ]; then > if [ -f fedora-development-%{_target_cpu}-core.cfg ]; then > ln -s fedora-development-%{_target_cpu}-core.cfg default.cfg > else > ln -s fedora-development-i386-core.cfg default.cfg > fi > fi > Here's the only real difference between your spec file and mine. Mine just has an unconditional symlink from development-i386 to default. As I read your logic, if the fedora tag is set, use that for setting the default symlink. Then if we haven't set default.cfg, if the target_cpu is set, use it to link to development, else default to development-i386. I think that will work for me. Michael/Seth, what do you guys think? Clark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFE42EuHyuj/+TTEp0RAqvuAKCKBC3UlzvzFrvGM7YQkm9PyOeyFQCgjJK+ 3T9rM/JucfBjODWTEOnnDvA= =6J4p -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jkeating at j2solutions.net Wed Aug 16 18:24:26 2006 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 14:24:26 -0400 Subject: Disttags in mock? In-Reply-To: <44E3612E.1070205@redhat.com> References: <44E351C3.4020308@redhat.com> <200608161357.38582.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <44E3612E.1070205@redhat.com> Message-ID: <200608161424.27072.jkeating@j2solutions.net> On Wednesday 16 August 2006 14:17, Clark Williams wrote: > Here's the only real difference between your spec file and mine. Mine > just has an unconditional symlink from development-i386 to default. As > I read your logic, if the fedora tag is set, use that for setting the > default symlink. Then if we haven't set default.cfg, if the target_cpu > is set, use it to link to development, else default to development-i386. > > I think that will work for me. Michael/Seth, what do you guys think? To be fair, I think that was in the spec before I took it over. -- Jesse Keating RHCE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedoralegacy.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From williams at redhat.com Wed Aug 16 18:30:32 2006 From: williams at redhat.com (Clark Williams) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 13:30:32 -0500 Subject: Mock going forward In-Reply-To: <200608161408.37457.jkeating@j2solutions.net> References: <44E35D1D.2000402@redhat.com> <200608161408.37457.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: <44E36448.2000600@redhat.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jesse Keating wrote: > On Wednesday 16 August 2006 13:59, Clark Williams wrote: >> Anyway, I'd be interested to hear what everyone thinks and I'd like to >> learn what the mechanism is for implementing it. Is implementation >> merely telling Jeremy or Jesse what branch to pull from? Or do we have >> to do more? > > In other projects, upstream picks a time to make a 'release' of a tarball. > Then downstream distros, like Fedora, would decide when to consume that > tarball and push it out to their users. > > Personally I'd like to see 0.6 be The Shipped mock for FC6. Once we start > development toward FC7 (when we branch all packages for FC-6 / FE-6), we can > then look at either packaging a cvs snapshot of HEAD, or the mock upstream > could pick a time to make a "0.7" release. Downstream, Extras, I would > package either the snapshot or the 0.7 release into development and our happy > rawhide users would get to beat up on it. Hopefully we'd be able to reach > some sort of stability with the feature set of 0.7 by the time FC7Test2 or > FC7Test3 is ready to ship, and 0.7 could be "The Mock" for FC7 (neat that > the numbers line up...) I agree that 0.6 should be shipped with FC6. I like the idea of beating up the 0.7 branch on the development branch for FC7. > > Soon we should figure out what feature set we would want to be happy with for > the magical 1.0 release of mock, and shoot for a timeline. Then the fun > starts (: Keeping in line with our razor-blade focus for mock ("we just build packages in chroots"), I actually don't think there's much more to do for 1.0. Once we are comfortable with the functional and security aspects of the 0.7 mock, I'd call it cooked. Assuming of course no one comes up with a killer feature that is :). Clark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFE42RHHyuj/+TTEp0RAju4AJ4h1UpdD1t2cPTbWLO0meZkid1hxQCg4R0R og9uobVVvikk+BfOXIt1fJo= =slzL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jkeating at j2solutions.net Wed Aug 16 18:37:59 2006 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 14:37:59 -0400 Subject: Mock going forward In-Reply-To: <44E36448.2000600@redhat.com> References: <44E35D1D.2000402@redhat.com> <200608161408.37457.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <44E36448.2000600@redhat.com> Message-ID: <200608161437.59843.jkeating@j2solutions.net> On Wednesday 16 August 2006 14:30, Clark Williams wrote: > Keeping in line with our razor-blade focus for mock ("we just build > packages in chroots"), I actually don't think there's much more to do > for 1.0. Once we are comfortable with the functional and security > aspects of the 0.7 mock, I'd call it cooked. Assuming of course no one > comes up with a killer feature that is :). I'd be happy to see a 1.0 mock in FC7 released (: Once 0.7 settles down a bit, I'd really like to get Red Hat's buildsystem guys to beat up on it and see if we can get anything they need upstream before 1.0 so that when upstream mock goes 1.0, Red Hat can consume 1.0 and runwith an unmodified mock. -- Jesse Keating RHCE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedoralegacy.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From williams at redhat.com Wed Aug 16 18:48:56 2006 From: williams at redhat.com (Clark Williams) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 13:48:56 -0500 Subject: Mock going forward In-Reply-To: <200608161437.59843.jkeating@j2solutions.net> References: <44E35D1D.2000402@redhat.com> <200608161408.37457.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <44E36448.2000600@redhat.com> <200608161437.59843.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: <44E36898.7070906@redhat.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jesse Keating wrote: > On Wednesday 16 August 2006 14:30, Clark Williams wrote: >> Keeping in line with our razor-blade focus for mock ("we just build >> packages in chroots"), I actually don't think there's much more to do >> for 1.0. Once we are comfortable with the functional and security >> aspects of the 0.7 mock, I'd call it cooked. Assuming of course no one >> comes up with a killer feature that is :). > > I'd be happy to see a 1.0 mock in FC7 released (: > > Once 0.7 settles down a bit, I'd really like to get Red Hat's buildsystem guys > to beat up on it and see if we can get anything they need upstream before 1.0 > so that when upstream mock goes 1.0, Red Hat can consume 1.0 and runwith an > unmodified mock. > I think we're agreed here. The tentative plan is we let FC6 go gold, then when development becomes pre-FC7, we push mock-0.7 into development. We then figure out some way to force Dan and Jeremy to use the new mock in the buildsystem and as we fix bugs we up the mock version until when it's stable, it becomes 1.0 for the FC7 release. Viola! (or Walla, as we say in the South). Clark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFE42iXHyuj/+TTEp0RAk/3AJ4zKSNQRYFTXde+Hk2J4c4uAeeSagCfRX+G AYS7Q0TshTLG2tTc3jvN1q0= =QZQw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From Michael_E_Brown at Dell.com Wed Aug 16 19:09:46 2006 From: Michael_E_Brown at Dell.com (Michael_E_Brown at Dell.com) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 14:09:46 -0500 Subject: Disttags in mock? In-Reply-To: <44E3612E.1070205@redhat.com> Message-ID: <35C9A9D68AB3FA4AB63692802656D9EC010F459E@ausx3mps303.aus.amer.dell.com> Looks fine to me. -- Michael > -----Original Message----- > From: fedora-buildsys-list-bounces at redhat.com > [mailto:fedora-buildsys-list-bounces at redhat.com] On Behalf Of > Clark Williams > Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 1:17 PM > To: Discussion of Fedora build system > Subject: Re: Disttags in mock? > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Jesse Keating wrote: > > On Wednesday 16 August 2006 13:50, Clark Williams wrote: > >> Gladly, but I have no idea where that repo is :). Should > I just pull > >> the SRPM from an extras repo? > > > > Sure you can do that... I've attached it here too. > > > > Thanks, comments below > > > > > %install > > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > > make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install > > # make the default.cfg link > > cd $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_sysconfdir}/%{name} > > > > %if 0%{?fedora:1} > > if [ -f fedora-%{fedora}-%{_target_cpu}-core.cfg ]; then > > ln -s fedora-%{fedora}-%{_target_cpu}-core.cfg default.cfg > > fi > > %endif > > > > # if we haven't created a default link yet, try to do so as devel > > if [ ! -f default.cfg ]; then > > if [ -f fedora-development-%{_target_cpu}-core.cfg ]; then > > ln -s fedora-development-%{_target_cpu}-core.cfg default.cfg > > else > > ln -s fedora-development-i386-core.cfg default.cfg > > fi > > fi > > > > Here's the only real difference between your spec file and mine. Mine > just has an unconditional symlink from development-i386 to default. As > I read your logic, if the fedora tag is set, use that for setting the > default symlink. Then if we haven't set default.cfg, if the target_cpu > is set, use it to link to development, else default to > development-i386. > > I think that will work for me. Michael/Seth, what do you guys think? > > Clark > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFE42EuHyuj/+TTEp0RAqvuAKCKBC3UlzvzFrvGM7YQkm9PyOeyFQCgjJK+ > 3T9rM/JucfBjODWTEOnnDvA= > =6J4p > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > -- > Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list > Fedora-buildsys-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list > From williams at redhat.com Wed Aug 16 19:42:16 2006 From: williams at redhat.com (Clark Williams) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 14:42:16 -0500 Subject: Disttags in mock? In-Reply-To: <35C9A9D68AB3FA4AB63692802656D9EC010F459E@ausx3mps303.aus.amer.dell.com> References: <35C9A9D68AB3FA4AB63692802656D9EC010F459E@ausx3mps303.aus.amer.dell.com> Message-ID: <44E37518.7030905@redhat.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Michael_E_Brown at Dell.com wrote: > Looks fine to me. > -- > Michael > Ok, it's in. Clark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFE43UXHyuj/+TTEp0RAho4AJ4zkwZpuYTCsyFTG31h8AxWFiVfCQCeNCPj CoTJvS2MAnYUrudgEAamyEM= =oON+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From williams at redhat.com Wed Aug 16 22:32:47 2006 From: williams at redhat.com (Clark Williams) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 17:32:47 -0500 Subject: updated man page Message-ID: <44E39D0F.4020506@redhat.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ok, I lied about not posting another mock message today. You can dock my mock pay 50%... Attached is an updated man page for mock. Please take a moment to look it over (man ./mock.1) and see if there are any egregious errors. Clark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFE450OHyuj/+TTEp0RAkL6AJ99q+dJl1yjjAxYsZCsurgFa440iQCg291S mGMG87HdfVug6x6V0YAAdEg= =Dc9E -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: mock.1 URL: From rhbugs at n-dimensional.de Wed Aug 16 23:11:27 2006 From: rhbugs at n-dimensional.de (Hans Ulrich Niedermann) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 01:11:27 +0200 Subject: mock SELinux policy as RPM package Message-ID: <1155769888.3744.8.camel@mir> Hi, the question of a package of the mock SELinux policy from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/MockTricks has come up a few times in the past, and I have made an RPM package for my own use some time ago: http://n-dimensional.de/software/mock-selinux-policy/ It doesn't have all the bells and whistles Paul Howarth has mentioned in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SELinux/PolicyModules yet (my package predates that document by several weeks), but should be too difficult to adapt if someone is interested. (This is my second try to post here as my last message seems to have been eaten by the moderation system.) Gru?, Uli From adpacifico at yahoo.com Thu Aug 17 00:21:47 2006 From: adpacifico at yahoo.com (Al Pacifico) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 17:21:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Mock hangs - why Message-ID: <20060817002147.74290.qmail@web35907.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I have fifteen CPAN packages that I'm packaging as RPMs for FC5, and one (and just one) of them seems to hang mock (mock-0.6-4.fc5). All of them check out with rpmlint and all build using rpmbuild. All SRPMs except 'perl-DBIx-Migration-0.05-1.fc5.src.rpm' build flawlessly with mock. But 'mock perl-DBIx-Migration-0.05-1.fc5.src.rpm' seems to hang. Adding the --debug option, the screen output (and root log) of 'mock perl-DBIx-Migration-0.05-1.fc5.src.rpm' ends with: Executing /usr/sbin/mock-helper chroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-5-i386-core/root /sbin/runuser - root -c "cd /;/sbin/runuser -c 'rpmbuild --rebuild --target i386 --nodeps /builddir/build/SRPMS/perl-DBIx-Migration-0.05-1.fc5.src.rpm' mockbuild" Then, the command prompt never comes back and when I interrupt mock with ctrl-C (I've left my machine running mock with this SRPM for over a day, so I don't think it's an impatience thing), keystrokes are retyped at the console after a long delay and many keystrokes, if at all. With my other 14 packages, if using the --debug option, this command is followed by the usual rpmbuild output at this point, the usual mock 'Results and/or logs in: /var/lib/mock/fedora-5-i386-core/result' message, and then the command prompt. I solicited advice from Jesse Keating who suggested trying the mock shell, and what I learned is that 'su - mockbuild' prompts for a password even though I'm in the chroot'ed shell as 'root'. What is puzzling is that this is before trying to rebuild the SRPM, so it's not that this package alters the behavior of mock (as I had previously thought). So, I tried the following (on Jesse's advice): [build at powell SRPMS]$ mock init init clean prep This may take a while ending done Finished initializing root [build at powell SRPMS]$ mock shell init mock-chroot> id uid=0(root) gid=501 groups=101,501 context=user_u:system_r:unconfined_t:s0 mock-chroot> su - mockbuild Password: su: incorrect password This leads me to believe that when I try to rebuild this SRPM using 'mock perl-DBIx-Migration-0.05-1.fc5.src.rpm', mock is prompting me for a password for user 'mockbuild' and therefore appears to hang. I have no idea why this does not happen with the other fourteen SRPM's and just with this one or when using 'mock shell'. Google offered a tantalizing clue on the fedora-selinux list (last post in the thread is at URL: http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-selinux-list/2006-August/msg00073.html) which described mock hanging at the same place on older versions of Fedora Core, related to older versions of selinux. Output of rpm -V mock is: [build at powell SRPMS]$ rpm -V mock S.5....T. c /etc/mock/fedora-5-i386-core.cfg [build at powell SRPMS]$ which is exactly what I'd expect, and other packages build fine under mock: [build at powell SRPMS]$ mock perl-Tie-RegexpHash-0.15-1.src.rpm init clean prep This may take a while setup build ending done Results and/or logs in: /var/lib/mock/fedora-5-i386-core/result ... so mock is not goofed up. My /etc/mock/default.cfg points to a slightly tweaked configuration script, which basically just changes the repositories to local mirrors. I've attached it to this message. Couple of questions: 1. Can someone check on his/her box that 'su mockbuild' from the chroot'ed shell has the same behavior and post back? 2. Would a mock guru out there have any suggestions? -al __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: fedora-5-i386-core.cfg URL: From dcbw at redhat.com Thu Aug 17 14:10:59 2006 From: dcbw at redhat.com (Dan Williams) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:10:59 -0400 Subject: Mock hangs - why In-Reply-To: <20060817002147.74290.qmail@web35907.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060817002147.74290.qmail@web35907.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1155823859.2665.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 17:21 -0700, Al Pacifico wrote: > I have fifteen CPAN packages that I'm packaging as > RPMs for FC5, and one (and just one) of them seems to > hang mock (mock-0.6-4.fc5). All of them check out with > rpmlint and all build using rpmbuild. All SRPMs except > 'perl-DBIx-Migration-0.05-1.fc5.src.rpm' build > flawlessly with mock. > > But 'mock perl-DBIx-Migration-0.05-1.fc5.src.rpm' > seems to hang. Adding the --debug option, the screen > output (and root log) of 'mock > perl-DBIx-Migration-0.05-1.fc5.src.rpm' ends with: > > Executing /usr/sbin/mock-helper chroot > /var/lib/mock/fedora-5-i386-core/root /sbin/runuser - > root -c "cd /;/sbin/runuser -c 'rpmbuild --rebuild > --target i386 --nodeps > /builddir/build/SRPMS/perl-DBIx-Migration-0.05-1.fc5.src.rpm' > mockbuild" > > Then, the command prompt never comes back and when I > interrupt mock with ctrl-C (I've left my machine > running mock with this SRPM for over a day, so I don't > think it's an impatience thing), keystrokes are > retyped at the console after a long delay and many > keystrokes, if at all. Is some process taking up all your CPU? Is that process part of the build of your package? Install and look at the output of the 'pstree' command; that will show you exactly what mock has launched and the parent/child relationships between the build processes and mock. You can also try to 'strace' the process that seems to be hanging and perhaps get more information out of it. Sometimes attaching to the hung build process with gdb shows usable backtrace info, sometimes not. In the Extras buildsystem we've had problems with reproducible build hangs a few times, which were generally solved by updating the kernel. Dan > With my other 14 packages, if using the --debug > option, this command is followed by the usual rpmbuild > output at this point, the usual mock 'Results and/or > logs in: /var/lib/mock/fedora-5-i386-core/result' > message, and then the command prompt. > > I solicited advice from Jesse Keating who suggested > trying the mock shell, and what I learned is that 'su > - mockbuild' prompts for a password even though I'm in > the chroot'ed shell as 'root'. What is puzzling is > that this is before trying to rebuild the SRPM, so > it's not that this package alters the behavior of mock > (as I had previously thought). > > So, I tried the following (on Jesse's advice): > [build at powell SRPMS]$ mock init > init > clean > prep > This may take a while > ending > done > Finished initializing root > [build at powell SRPMS]$ mock shell > init > mock-chroot> id > uid=0(root) gid=501 groups=101,501 > context=user_u:system_r:unconfined_t:s0 > mock-chroot> su - mockbuild > Password: > su: incorrect password > > This leads me to believe that when I try to rebuild > this SRPM using 'mock > perl-DBIx-Migration-0.05-1.fc5.src.rpm', mock is > prompting me for a password for user 'mockbuild' and > therefore appears to hang. > > I have no idea why this does not happen with the other > fourteen SRPM's and just with this one or when using > 'mock shell'. > > Google offered a tantalizing clue on the > fedora-selinux list (last post in the thread is at > URL: > http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-selinux-list/2006-August/msg00073.html) > which described mock hanging at the same place on > older versions of Fedora Core, related to older > versions of selinux. > > Output of rpm -V mock is: > [build at powell SRPMS]$ rpm -V mock > S.5....T. c /etc/mock/fedora-5-i386-core.cfg > [build at powell SRPMS]$ > > which is exactly what I'd expect, and other packages > build fine under mock: > [build at powell SRPMS]$ mock > perl-Tie-RegexpHash-0.15-1.src.rpm > init > clean > prep > This may take a while > setup > build > ending > done > Results and/or logs in: > /var/lib/mock/fedora-5-i386-core/result > > ... so mock is not goofed up. > > My /etc/mock/default.cfg points to a slightly tweaked > configuration script, which basically just changes the > repositories to local mirrors. I've attached it to > this message. > > Couple of questions: > 1. Can someone check on his/her box that 'su > mockbuild' from the chroot'ed shell has the same > behavior and post back? > 2. Would a mock guru out there have any suggestions? > -al > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > plain text document attachment (fedora-5-i386-core.cfg), > "1060207214-fedora-5-i386-core.cfg" > #!/usr/bin/python -tt import os config_opts['root'] = 'fedora-5-i386-core' config_opts['target_arch'] = 'i386' config_opts['yum.conf'] = """ [main] cachedir=/var/cache/yum debuglevel=1 reposdir=/dev/null logfile=/var/log/yum.log retries=20 obsoletes=1 gpgcheck=0 assumeyes=1 # repos [core] name=core #baseurl=http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/$releasever/$basearch/os/ #mirrorlist=http://fedora.redhat.com/download/mirrors/fedora-core-$releasever baseurl=http://joplin/yum/Fedora/Core/5/base/i386/ enabled=1 #following line for "priorities" yum plug-in.... see http://wiki.centos.org/PackageManagement/Yum/Priorities priority=1 gpgcheck=1 gpgkey=file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY [updates-released] name=updates #baseurl=http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/updates/$releasever/$basearch/ #mirrorlist=http://fedora.redhat.com/download/mirrors/updates-released-fc$releasever baseurl=http://joplin/yum/Fedora/Core/5/updates/i386/ enabled=1 #following line for "priorities" yum plug-in.... see http://wiki.centos.org/PackageManagement/Yum/Priorities priority=1 gpgcheck=1 gpgkey=file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora [groups] name=groups baseurl=http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/buildgroups/5/i386/ [extras] name=extras #baseurl=http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/extras/$releasever/$basearch/ mirrorlist=http://fedora.redhat.com/download/mirrors/fedora-extras-5 enabled=1 #following line for "priorities" yum plug-in.... see http://wiki.centos.org/PackageManagement/Yum/Priorities priority=10 gpgkey=file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-extras gpgcheck=1 [pacifico-testing] name=Fedora Core Pacifico testting $releasever - $basearch baseurl=file:///home/build/yum-repo/Fedora/Core/5/pacifico-testing/i386/ enabled=1 gpgcheck=1 gpgkey=file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/GPG-KEY-apacifico # Name: RPMforge RPM Repository for Fedora Core 5 - i386 # URL: http://rpmforge.net/ [rpmforge] name = Fedora Core 5 - i386 - RPMforge.net - dries #baseurl = http://apt.sw.be/dries/fedora/fc5/$basearch/dries/RPMS mirrorlist = http://apt.sw.be/dries/fedora/fc5/mirrors-rpmforge #mirrorlist = file:///etc/yum.repos.d/mirrors-rpmforge enabled = 1 gpgkey = file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-rpmforge-dries gpgcheck = 1 """ > -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list at redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list From williams at redhat.com Thu Aug 17 15:36:58 2006 From: williams at redhat.com (Clark Williams) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:36:58 -0500 Subject: Mock hangs - why In-Reply-To: <1155823859.2665.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20060817002147.74290.qmail@web35907.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1155823859.2665.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <44E48D1A.2070202@redhat.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dan Williams wrote: > > Is some process taking up all your CPU? Is that process part of the > build of your package? > > Install and look at the output of the 'pstree' command; that will show > you exactly what mock has launched and the parent/child relationships > between the build processes and mock. You can also try to 'strace' the > process that seems to be hanging and perhaps get more information out of > it. Sometimes attaching to the hung build process with gdb shows usable > backtrace info, sometimes not. > > In the Extras buildsystem we've had problems with reproducible build > hangs a few times, which were generally solved by updating the kernel. > What kernel are you running on the build system? Clark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFE5I0aHyuj/+TTEp0RAgMLAJ4vw8P4giSWkjqd4cJwxAdBOey8KQCeIP0t 7KsZJmvVQrtUHtss67SOzQY= =DJxo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From williams at redhat.com Thu Aug 17 15:55:56 2006 From: williams at redhat.com (Clark Williams) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:55:56 -0500 Subject: mock SELinux policy as RPM package In-Reply-To: <1155769888.3744.8.camel@mir> References: <1155769888.3744.8.camel@mir> Message-ID: <44E4918C.5090902@redhat.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hans Ulrich Niedermann wrote: > Hi, > > the question of a package of the mock SELinux policy from > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/MockTricks > > has come up a few times in the past, and I have made an RPM package for > my own use some time ago: > > http://n-dimensional.de/software/mock-selinux-policy/ > > It doesn't have all the bells and whistles Paul Howarth has mentioned in > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SELinux/PolicyModules yet > (my package predates that document by several weeks), but should be too > difficult to adapt if someone is interested. > > (This is my second try to post here as my last message seems to have > been eaten by the moderation system.) > > Gru?, > - From a quick read of the Wiki, it looks like there are packages that fail to build on FC5 hosts due to policy problems (I didn't realize that). This means to me that we should add a loadable policy module as part of the mock package. Seth, Michael, Dan, et al, what do you guys think? Clark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFE5JGMHyuj/+TTEp0RAo0AAKC8kcKFQBIxlz81FB+/i7bdnCK/qgCfaJM7 u/I7yrLpa2CQnT5qHS0Ws0M= =DUj/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From Michael_E_Brown at dell.com Thu Aug 17 18:54:59 2006 From: Michael_E_Brown at dell.com (Michael_E_Brown at dell.com) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:54:59 -0500 Subject: mock SELinux policy as RPM package In-Reply-To: <44E4918C.5090902@redhat.com> Message-ID: <35C9A9D68AB3FA4AB63692802656D9EC010F45A4@ausx3mps303.aus.amer.dell.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: fedora-buildsys-list-bounces at redhat.com > [mailto:fedora-buildsys-list-bounces at redhat.com] On Behalf Of > Clark Williams > Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 10:56 AM > To: Discussion of Fedora build system > Subject: Re: mock SELinux policy as RPM package > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hans Ulrich Niedermann wrote: > > Hi, > > > > the question of a package of the mock SELinux policy from > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/MockTricks > > > > has come up a few times in the past, and I have made an RPM > package for > > my own use some time ago: > > > > http://n-dimensional.de/software/mock-selinux-policy/ > > > > It doesn't have all the bells and whistles Paul Howarth has > mentioned in > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SELinux/PolicyMo > dules yet > > (my package predates that document by several weeks), but > should be too > > difficult to adapt if someone is interested. > > > > (This is my second try to post here as my last message seems to have > > been eaten by the moderation system.) > > > > Gru?, > > > > > - From a quick read of the Wiki, it looks like there are packages that > fail to build on FC5 hosts due to policy problems (I didn't realize > that). This means to me that we should add a loadable policy > module as > part of the mock package. > > Seth, Michael, Dan, et al, what do you guys think? I think it would be a good idea to package an selinux policy directly in with the mock package. This would give people a good starting place for tweaking if they have problems, and encourage them to send their fixes upstream. Hans policy might be a good starting point if it passes review by somebody who knows more about selinux than I do. -- Michael From williams at redhat.com Thu Aug 17 20:24:59 2006 From: williams at redhat.com (Clark Williams) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:24:59 -0500 Subject: mock SELinux policy as RPM package In-Reply-To: <35C9A9D68AB3FA4AB63692802656D9EC010F45A4@ausx3mps303.aus.amer.dell.com> References: <35C9A9D68AB3FA4AB63692802656D9EC010F45A4@ausx3mps303.aus.amer.dell.com> Message-ID: <44E4D09B.8060208@redhat.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Michael_E_Brown at dell.com wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: fedora-buildsys-list-bounces at redhat.com >> [mailto:fedora-buildsys-list-bounces at redhat.com] On Behalf Of >> Clark Williams >> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 10:56 AM >> To: Discussion of Fedora build system >> Subject: Re: mock SELinux policy as RPM package >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Hans Ulrich Niedermann wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> the question of a package of the mock SELinux policy from >>> >>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/MockTricks >>> >>> has come up a few times in the past, and I have made an RPM >> package for >>> my own use some time ago: >>> >>> http://n-dimensional.de/software/mock-selinux-policy/ >>> >>> It doesn't have all the bells and whistles Paul Howarth has >> mentioned in >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SELinux/PolicyMo >> dules yet >>> (my package predates that document by several weeks), but >> should be too >>> difficult to adapt if someone is interested. >>> >>> (This is my second try to post here as my last message seems to have >>> been eaten by the moderation system.) >>> >>> Gru?, >>> >> >> - From a quick read of the Wiki, it looks like there are packages that >> fail to build on FC5 hosts due to policy problems (I didn't realize >> that). This means to me that we should add a loadable policy >> module as >> part of the mock package. >> >> Seth, Michael, Dan, et al, what do you guys think? > > I think it would be a good idea to package an selinux policy directly in with the mock package. This would give people a good starting place for tweaking if they have problems, and encourage them to send their fixes upstream. > > Hans policy might be a good starting point if it passes review by somebody who knows more about selinux than I do. > -- Yeah, you and I are in the same boat. I can *spell* SELinux, but that's about it. I'll poke around a bit with the policy and see what it would take to integrate it. Might be able to get Dan Walsh to look at it as well. Clark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFE5NCaHyuj/+TTEp0RAjAtAJ9LGRhjBlmVCUynuRFDa+dfSRD+rQCg1lvM Kj/kgW53htgL82aWEYiISII= =ZKzj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From adpacifico at yahoo.com Thu Aug 17 23:59:09 2006 From: adpacifico at yahoo.com (Al Pacifico) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:59:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Mock hangs - why In-Reply-To: <20060817160009.3E814739B4@hormel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <20060817235909.57825.qmail@web35913.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > > Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:10:59 -0400 > From: Dan Williams > Subject: Re: Mock hangs - why > To: Discussion of Fedora build system > > Message-ID: > <1155823859.2665.21.camel at localhost.localdomain> > Content-Type: text/plain > > On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 17:21 -0700, Al Pacifico > wrote: > > But 'mock perl-DBIx-Migration-0.05-1.fc5.src.rpm' > > seems to hang. Adding the --debug option, the > screen > > output (and root log) of 'mock > > perl-DBIx-Migration-0.05-1.fc5.src.rpm' ends with: > > > > Executing /usr/sbin/mock-helper chroot > > /var/lib/mock/fedora-5-i386-core/root > /sbin/runuser - > > root -c "cd /;/sbin/runuser -c 'rpmbuild --rebuild > > --target i386 --nodeps > > > /builddir/build/SRPMS/perl-DBIx-Migration-0.05-1.fc5.src.rpm' > > mockbuild" > > > > Then, the command prompt never comes back and when > I > > interrupt mock with ctrl-C (I've left my machine > > running mock with this SRPM for over a day, so I > don't > > think it's an impatience thing), keystrokes are > > retyped at the console after a long delay and many > > keystrokes, if at all. > > Is some process taking up all your CPU? Is that > process part of the > build of your package? > > Install and look at the output of the 'pstree' > command; that will show > you exactly what mock has launched and the > parent/child relationships > between the build processes and mock. You can also > try to 'strace' the > process that seems to be hanging and perhaps get > more information out of > it. Sometimes attaching to the hung build process > with gdb shows usable > backtrace info, sometimes not. > > In the Extras buildsystem we've had problems with > reproducible build > hangs a few times, which were generally solved by > updating the kernel. > > Dan > Dan- I don't think that is the problem. At present, mock is hung (as described above) and 'pstree build' yields: bash───mock───sh───runuser───bash───runuser───rpmbuild───sh───perl and 'uptime' yields: 16:30:20 up 7:54, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 At present, I'm starting to work on strace... I need to carefully review that thread on fedora-selinux list to see how Paul Howarth limited strace to the command in question or else I'll likely be overwhelmed by the output of 'strace mock '. > Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:36:58 -0500 > From: Clark Williams > Subject: Re: Mock hangs - why > To: Discussion of Fedora build system > > Message-ID: <44E48D1A.2070202 at redhat.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Dan Williams wrote: > > In the Extras buildsystem we've had problems with > reproducible build > > hangs a few times, which were generally solved by > updating the kernel. > > > > What kernel are you running on the build system? > Clark- Reproducible with kernel-smp.i686 2.6.17-1.2157_FC5 and kernel-smp.i686 2.6.17-1.2174_FC5. I updated to 2174 this morning after reading what Dan wrote. I'm still wondering if the password prompt following 'su' after executing 'mock shell' gives the same behavior on others' systems... and if not, which kernel they are running (might help pinpoint the problem). -al __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From adpacifico at yahoo.com Fri Aug 18 02:51:06 2006 From: adpacifico at yahoo.com (Al Pacifico) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 19:51:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Mock hangs - why Message-ID: <20060818025106.66410.qmail@web35903.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Sorry to post twice, but I need to correct what I just wrote, as the problem **HAS** changed following the kernel upgrade from kernel-smp.i686 2.6.17-1.2157_FC5 to kernel-smp.i686 2.6.17-1.2174_FC5: --- Al Pacifico wrote: > Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:59:09 -0700 (PDT) > > Dan- > I don't think that is the problem. At present, mock > is > hung (as described above) and 'pstree build' yields: > bash───mock───sh───runuser───bash───runuser───rpmbuild───sh───perl This didn't make sense, in that if the problem persisted after the kernel upgrade, the output should be: bash───mock───sh───runuser or, perhaps: bash───mock───sh───runuser───bash───runuser since previously the debugging output suggests mock has hung prior to or while starting rpmbuild. Repeated, with --debug, it seems to hang at the same place: DEBUG: Executing /usr/sbin/mock-helper chroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-5-i386-core/root /sbin/runuser - root -c "cd /;/sbin/runuser -c 'rpmbuild --rebuild --target i386 --nodeps /builddir/build/SRPMS/perl-DBIx-Migration-0.05-1.fc5.src.rpm' mockbuild" ...and after seeing that, I prematurely posted that the problem was uncorrected with a kernel update. After typing 'u', I see: u Installing /builddir/build/SRPMS/perl-DBIx-Migration-0.05-1.fc5.src.rpm Building target platforms: i386 Building for target i386 Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.10545 Executing(%build): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.10545 This module requires Module::Build to install itself. Install Module::Build now from CPAN? [y] *** Cannot install without Module::Build. Exiting ... error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.10545 Error building package from perl-DBIx-Migration-0.05-1.fc5.src.rpm, See build log ending DEBUG: Executing /usr/sbin/mock-helper umount /var/lib/mock/fedora-5-i386-core/root/proc DEBUG: Executing /usr/sbin/mock-helper umount /var/lib/mock/fedora-5-i386-core/root/dev/pts done [build at powell SRPMS]$ I modified the .spec file, adding a BuildRequire line for the Module::Build module and a couple more, and now the SRPM rebuilds fine under mock. Thanks to Dan for sharing his experience and insights! With 'mock shell', however, the previously-described behavior persists despite the kernel upgrade. -al __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From dennis at ausil.us Fri Aug 18 13:25:26 2006 From: dennis at ausil.us (Dennis Gilmore) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 08:25:26 -0500 Subject: sparc weirdness Message-ID: <200608180825.27261.dennis@ausil.us> Hey all, I have a odd situtation that im trying to work out the best way to handle. gcc on sparc needs glibc for sparc and sparc64 but it gets built as sparc. somehow i need to have sparc64 glibc in the buildroot only for gcc. even though the target is sparc. Dennis From williams at redhat.com Fri Aug 18 18:48:15 2006 From: williams at redhat.com (Clark Williams) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 13:48:15 -0500 Subject: sparc weirdness In-Reply-To: <200608180825.27261.dennis@ausil.us> References: <200608180825.27261.dennis@ausil.us> Message-ID: <44E60B6F.8000703@redhat.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dennis Gilmore wrote: > Hey all, > > I have a odd situtation that im trying to work out the best way to handle. > gcc on sparc needs glibc for sparc and sparc64 but it gets built as sparc. > somehow i need to have sparc64 glibc in the buildroot only for gcc. even > though the target is sparc. > > Dennis > I've started three replies to this and have bogged down every time. Sigh. If I'm correct here, the problem is that you need both 32-bit and 64-bit glibc's in the same chroot to build gcc for a sparc. I looked on a x86_64 FC5 system and it has two glibc-2.4-8 packages, but if you list them both, one is the 64 bit version and the other is the 32-bit version. This implies to me that they were both "installed" as opposed to "updated". I can't really see an easy way to force mock/yum to do this, so I think the only way will be multiple invocations of mock and rpm. Something like: $ mock -r fedora-devel-sparc-core init $ rpm --root /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-sparc-core/root \ -ihv glibc-2.4-8.sparc64.rpm $ mock -r fedora-devel-sparc-core --no-clean You can't install the 64-bit rpm while inside the chroot, because you're using the native RPM to do all RPM manipulations; hence the invocation of rpm. It's ugly, but I'm not sure I see any other way to do what you're asking. Clark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFE5gtvHyuj/+TTEp0RAucgAKCjoJxHbTxh0mOQPYPRzQco1BLPnwCeNEha yN19ABYID2WOEmDo10qCbac= =a50F -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jkeating at j2solutions.net Fri Aug 18 19:05:11 2006 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 15:05:11 -0400 Subject: sparc weirdness In-Reply-To: <44E60B6F.8000703@redhat.com> References: <200608180825.27261.dennis@ausil.us> <44E60B6F.8000703@redhat.com> Message-ID: <200608181505.11524.jkeating@j2solutions.net> On Friday 18 August 2006 14:48, Clark Williams wrote: > If I'm correct here, the problem is that you need both 32-bit and 64-bit > glibc's in the same chroot to build gcc for a sparc. I looked on a > x86_64 FC5 system and it has two glibc-2.4-8 packages, but if you list > them both, one is the 64 bit version and the other is the 32-bit > version. This implies to me that they were both "installed" as opposed > to "updated". I can't really see an easy way to force mock/yum to do > this, so I think the only way will be multiple invocations of mock and > rpm. Something like: We handle this at Red Hat by having a file buildrequirement on a file that is provided by the 32bit glibc, as well as a buildrequirement on just glibc. This way no matter what arch you're on, you'll get the 32bit glibc. Now, at Red Hat we had to create a fake 'glibc32' package that is built x86_64 so that it is available in the x86_64 repo. Perhaps you can do the same for sparc? -- Jesse Keating RHCE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedoralegacy.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dennis at ausil.us Fri Aug 18 20:25:55 2006 From: dennis at ausil.us (Dennis Gilmore) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 15:25:55 -0500 Subject: sparc weirdness In-Reply-To: <200608181505.11524.jkeating@j2solutions.net> References: <200608180825.27261.dennis@ausil.us> <44E60B6F.8000703@redhat.com> <200608181505.11524.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: <200608181525.55846.dennis@ausil.us> On Friday 18 August 2006 14:05, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Friday 18 August 2006 14:48, Clark Williams wrote: > > If I'm correct here, the problem is that you need both 32-bit and 64-bit > > glibc's in the same chroot to build gcc for a sparc. I looked on a > > x86_64 FC5 system and it has two glibc-2.4-8 packages, but if you list > > them both, one is the 64 bit version and the other is the 32-bit > > version. This implies to me that they were both "installed" as opposed > > to "updated". I can't really see an easy way to force mock/yum to do > > this, so I think the only way will be multiple invocations of mock and > > rpm. Something like: > > We handle this at Red Hat by having a file buildrequirement on a file that > is provided by the 32bit glibc, as well as a buildrequirement on just > glibc. This way no matter what arch you're on, you'll get the 32bit glibc. > Now, at Red Hat we had to create a fake 'glibc32' package that is built > x86_64 so that it is available in the x86_64 repo. Perhaps you can do the > same for sparc? perhaps, but it needs to be the other way around. that is i need the 64 bit glibc in a 32bit chroot to build gcc. so i guess i need to build a glibc64 'fake' package gcc has a BuildRequires /lib64/libc.so.6 /usr/lib64/libc.so so its file based I will work out what i need to do for the glibc64 package Dennis From adpacifico at yahoo.com Mon Aug 14 15:58:52 2006 From: adpacifico at yahoo.com (Al Pacifico) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:58:52 -0000 Subject: Mock hangs - why? Message-ID: <20060814145837.15510.qmail@web35908.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I have fifteen CPAN packages that I'm packaging as RPMs for FC5, and one (and only one) of them seems to hang mock. Is this an appropriate place to ask for advice? Thanks. -al __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com