Fix problems building Extras packages for FC3 and FC4

[Clark Williams]

-----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-----