Fix problems building Extras packages for FC3 and FC4

[Clark Williams]

-----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-----