From cweyl at alumni.drew.edu Fri Sep 1 16:28:07 2006 From: cweyl at alumni.drew.edu (Chris Weyl) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 09:28:07 -0700 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: <7dd7ab490609010928g2f84d723med5b7508ce1604f1@mail.gmail.com> On 8/16/06, 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 :). A while ago and on a different list, tibbs proposed adding one last bit to the buildcycle: * installing rpmlint into the buildroot * installing the built packages into the buildroot * running rpmlint against the installed packages and providing the rpmlint reports in results/ The idea here is to seamlessly give rpmlint reports on installed packages (there's a difference than on binaries, apparently) without having the builder/reviewer needlessly clutter up their host. Mock wouldn't have anything to do with the results once rpmlint is run; they'd just be another bit of information for the reviewers/packagers to use. My memory is a bit foggy on what happened to this, but is this something we could think about doing for mock, either 0.7 or 1.0? IMHO, something like this would be a great time saver, as it's something that's fairly routine. -Chris -- Chris Weyl Ex astris, scientia From tibbs at math.uh.edu Fri Sep 1 17:40:49 2006 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 12:40:49 -0500 Subject: Mock going forward In-Reply-To: <7dd7ab490609010928g2f84d723med5b7508ce1604f1@mail.gmail.com> (Chris Weyl's message of "Fri, 1 Sep 2006 09:28:07 -0700") References: <44E35D1D.2000402@redhat.com> <200608161408.37457.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <44E36448.2000600@redhat.com> <7dd7ab490609010928g2f84d723med5b7508ce1604f1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: >>>>> "CW" == Chris Weyl writes: CW> A while ago and on a different list, tibbs proposed adding one CW> last bit to the buildcycle: Actually I think it was this list. Honestly I don't think this needs to be in mock, but mock really needs to continue to give me the means to do that kind of thing. I already have this running just fine with no mock modifications (with the caveat that I can't figure out how to do this full process on an x86_64 when building an i386 package). - J< From williams at redhat.com Sat Sep 2 13:42:20 2006 From: williams at redhat.com (Clark Williams) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 08:42:20 -0500 Subject: Mock going forward In-Reply-To: <7dd7ab490609010928g2f84d723med5b7508ce1604f1@mail.gmail.com> References: <44E35D1D.2000402@redhat.com> <200608161408.37457.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <44E36448.2000600@redhat.com> <7dd7ab490609010928g2f84d723med5b7508ce1604f1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <44F98A3C.5030303@redhat.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Chris Weyl wrote: > On 8/16/06, 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 :). > > A while ago and on a different list, tibbs proposed adding one last > bit to the buildcycle: > > * installing rpmlint into the buildroot > * installing the built packages into the buildroot > * running rpmlint against the installed packages and providing the > rpmlint reports in results/ > > The idea here is to seamlessly give rpmlint reports on installed > packages (there's a difference than on binaries, apparently) without > having the builder/reviewer needlessly clutter up their host. Mock > wouldn't have anything to do with the results once rpmlint is run; > they'd just be another bit of information for the reviewers/packagers > to use. > > My memory is a bit foggy on what happened to this, but is this > something we could think about doing for mock, either 0.7 or 1.0? > IMHO, something like this would be a great time saver, as it's > something that's fairly routine. > I actually had code in my local sandbox that would run rpmlint on the generated SRPM and RPMs, but going much farther than that gets a bit more complicated. The discussion we had at the time indicated that most folks thought that it was testing not building and that it was best done by other logic. While I kinda think that adding an rpmlint feature would be cool, an objective look makes me think they're right. Lets keep mock a chroot manager, not a test framework. I think I would prefer to make it easy to install things into the chroot so that what you want to do turns into: $ mock -r SRPM $ mock --no-clean -r install rpmlint $ mock --no-clean -r install $ mock --no-clean -r chroot rpmlint What I haven't gotten my head around is what needs to be done for the hypothetical "install" command. It may just be running yum with the appropriate root arguments to install rpmlint, then just running rpm to install the target rpms into the chroot. Or maybe we just add rpmlint to the default package set. It may be that we don't need a new command and we can get everything done with what exists and external logic. I'd welcome discussion on how to do this and on how to improve chroot management in general. Clark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFE+Yo8Hyuj/+TTEp0RAtAVAKDhsjGjAfHrjgKPkLBm1dtoK18qpgCfemcT Ugvx4v20/UTIFerUevFgCYU= =zSS+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jkeating at j2solutions.net Sat Sep 2 13:56:47 2006 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 09:56:47 -0400 Subject: Mock going forward In-Reply-To: <44F98A3C.5030303@redhat.com> References: <44E35D1D.2000402@redhat.com> <200608161408.37457.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <44E36448.2000600@redhat.com> <7dd7ab490609010928g2f84d723med5b7508ce1604f1@mail.gmail.com> <44F98A3C.5030303@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1157205407.6577.60.camel@ender> On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 08:42 -0500, Clark Williams wrote: > What I haven't gotten my head around is what needs to be done for the > hypothetical "install" command. It may just be running yum with the > appropriate root arguments to install rpmlint, then just running rpm > to > install the target rpms into the chroot. Or maybe we just add rpmlint > to > the default package set. It may be that we don't need a new command > and > we can get everything done with what exists and external logic. > > I'd welcome discussion on how to do this and on how to improve chroot > management in general. > Whats wrong with using mockhelper yum --installroot /chroot localinstall /path/to/buildrpms/*.rpm ? -- 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: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From williams at redhat.com Sat Sep 2 18:38:09 2006 From: williams at redhat.com (Clark Williams) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 13:38:09 -0500 Subject: Mock going forward In-Reply-To: <1157205407.6577.60.camel@ender> References: <44E35D1D.2000402@redhat.com> <200608161408.37457.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <44E36448.2000600@redhat.com> <7dd7ab490609010928g2f84d723med5b7508ce1604f1@mail.gmail.com> <44F98A3C.5030303@redhat.com> <1157205407.6577.60.camel@ender> Message-ID: <44F9CF91.5050108@redhat.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jesse Keating wrote: > On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 08:42 -0500, Clark Williams wrote: >> What I haven't gotten my head around is what needs to be done for the >> hypothetical "install" command. It may just be running yum with the >> appropriate root arguments to install rpmlint, then just running rpm >> to >> install the target rpms into the chroot. Or maybe we just add rpmlint >> to >> the default package set. It may be that we don't need a new command >> and >> we can get everything done with what exists and external logic. >> >> I'd welcome discussion on how to do this and on how to improve chroot >> management in general. >> > > Whats wrong with using mockhelper yum --installroot /chroot > localinstall /path/to/buildrpms/*.rpm ? > Well, because in 0.7 and greater, there is no mockhelper. The /usr/bin/mock program is a setuid root launcher that starts "python /usr/bin/mock.py" with whatever arguments were passed in. Clark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFE+c+RHyuj/+TTEp0RAne4AKDB6kfE7tgaa2gQXxWUw6Aac735IQCbB+8b mwMm86+KP6wQrqzdlUdpl4w= =Ehob -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From katzj at redhat.com Sat Sep 2 18:49:12 2006 From: katzj at redhat.com (Jeremy Katz) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 14:49:12 -0400 Subject: Mock going forward In-Reply-To: <44F9CF91.5050108@redhat.com> References: <44E35D1D.2000402@redhat.com> <200608161408.37457.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <44E36448.2000600@redhat.com> <7dd7ab490609010928g2f84d723med5b7508ce1604f1@mail.gmail.com> <44F98A3C.5030303@redhat.com> <1157205407.6577.60.camel@ender> <44F9CF91.5050108@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1157222952.11059.2.camel@aglarond.local> Kind of an aside... On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 13:38 -0500, Clark Williams wrote: > Well, because in 0.7 and greater, there is no mockhelper. The > /usr/bin/mock program is a setuid root launcher that starts "python > /usr/bin/mock.py" with whatever arguments were passed in. It might be worth moving /usr/bin/mock.py to be somewhere that's not in the path... otherwise, this is bound to be somewhat confusing[1] Jeremy [1] To me, if to no one else :-) From jkeating at j2solutions.net Sat Sep 2 18:48:43 2006 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 14:48:43 -0400 Subject: Mock going forward In-Reply-To: <44F9CF91.5050108@redhat.com> References: <44E35D1D.2000402@redhat.com> <200608161408.37457.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <44E36448.2000600@redhat.com> <7dd7ab490609010928g2f84d723med5b7508ce1604f1@mail.gmail.com> <44F98A3C.5030303@redhat.com> <1157205407.6577.60.camel@ender> <44F9CF91.5050108@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1157222923.6577.129.camel@ender> On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 13:38 -0500, Clark Williams wrote: > Well, because in 0.7 and greater, there is no mockhelper. The > /usr/bin/mock program is a setuid root launcher that starts "python > /usr/bin/mock.py" with whatever arguments were passed in. Ok, I haven't played with the 0.7, but surely you've made some space available to do commands like this? We depend heavily on being able to install a package or package list in the buildroot then run some commands in the buildroot. Its an integral part of our tree composition tools. -- 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: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From williams at redhat.com Sun Sep 3 21:32:28 2006 From: williams at redhat.com (Clark Williams) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 16:32:28 -0500 Subject: Mock going forward In-Reply-To: <1157222952.11059.2.camel@aglarond.local> References: <44E35D1D.2000402@redhat.com> <200608161408.37457.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <44E36448.2000600@redhat.com> <7dd7ab490609010928g2f84d723med5b7508ce1604f1@mail.gmail.com> <44F98A3C.5030303@redhat.com> <1157205407.6577.60.camel@ender> <44F9CF91.5050108@redhat.com> <1157222952.11059.2.camel@aglarond.local> Message-ID: <44FB49EC.1050605@redhat.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jeremy Katz wrote: > Kind of an aside... > > On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 13:38 -0500, Clark Williams wrote: >> Well, because in 0.7 and greater, there is no mockhelper. The >> /usr/bin/mock program is a setuid root launcher that starts "python >> /usr/bin/mock.py" with whatever arguments were passed in. > > It might be worth moving /usr/bin/mock.py to be somewhere that's not in > the path... otherwise, this is bound to be somewhat confusing[1] > > Jeremy > > [1] To me, if to no one else :-) > Ah, it's all about you, Jeremy :) I had considered it but was more concerned with other things (like trying to clean up the BZ's for 0.6). Where would you suggest? /opt/mock? Clark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFE+0mrHyuj/+TTEp0RArG9AKCks5F7dpZgxVTmFP3rwQMVLCFE1QCdEeRp JRKJt+IsfUmKwarWrFkjQgI= =ouVA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From williams at redhat.com Sun Sep 3 21:56:40 2006 From: williams at redhat.com (Clark Williams) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 16:56:40 -0500 Subject: Mock going forward In-Reply-To: <1157222923.6577.129.camel@ender> References: <44E35D1D.2000402@redhat.com> <200608161408.37457.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <44E36448.2000600@redhat.com> <7dd7ab490609010928g2f84d723med5b7508ce1604f1@mail.gmail.com> <44F98A3C.5030303@redhat.com> <1157205407.6577.60.camel@ender> <44F9CF91.5050108@redhat.com> <1157222923.6577.129.camel@ender> Message-ID: <44FB4F98.4010604@redhat.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jesse Keating wrote: > On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 13:38 -0500, Clark Williams wrote: >> Well, because in 0.7 and greater, there is no mockhelper. The >> /usr/bin/mock program is a setuid root launcher that starts "python >> /usr/bin/mock.py" with whatever arguments were passed in. > > Ok, I haven't played with the 0.7, but surely you've made some space > available to do commands like this? We depend heavily on being able to > install a package or package list in the buildroot then run some > commands in the buildroot. Its an integral part of our tree composition > tools. > The 'chroot' command for running commands in the build root is still there, so you can run whatever you need in the chroot. What remains is to make it easy to install arbitrary rpms into the chroot. I think the way to do this is to have an 'install' command that accepts binary rpms (i.e. doesn't involve yum repositories) and runs the host rpm to put the contents into the build root. Hmmm. Thinking about this a bit more makes me wonder if we need to be able to install rpm's *using* yum, since yum brings with it the ability to resolve dependencies. I say this because the RPM we just generated with mock might have Requires: that aren't in the build chroot and would need to be there for installing the the rpm prior to running rpmlint. I hate to add one command to install a local rpm and another to install using yum. A quick scan of the yum man page makes me think that it might work to just invoke 'yum install '. Can anyone confirm/deny that invoking yum with a path to an rpm will work (I'm not in a position to do so at the moment). Clark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFE+09oHyuj/+TTEp0RAvuDAKDHCAALdFPNR5cOYMixEeU974xP3gCfQ8OS yzNM0ThtwBjdhKI1lU1Hwgg= =26V1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From skvidal at linux.duke.edu Sun Sep 3 22:00:17 2006 From: skvidal at linux.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 18:00:17 -0400 Subject: Mock going forward In-Reply-To: <44FB4F98.4010604@redhat.com> References: <44E35D1D.2000402@redhat.com> <200608161408.37457.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <44E36448.2000600@redhat.com> <7dd7ab490609010928g2f84d723med5b7508ce1604f1@mail.gmail.com> <44F98A3C.5030303@redhat.com> <1157205407.6577.60.camel@ender> <44F9CF91.5050108@redhat.com> <1157222923.6577.129.camel@ender> <44FB4F98.4010604@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1157320817.15121.0.camel@cutter> On Sun, 2006-09-03 at 16:56 -0500, Clark Williams wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Jesse Keating wrote: > > On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 13:38 -0500, Clark Williams wrote: > >> Well, because in 0.7 and greater, there is no mockhelper. The > >> /usr/bin/mock program is a setuid root launcher that starts "python > >> /usr/bin/mock.py" with whatever arguments were passed in. > > > > Ok, I haven't played with the 0.7, but surely you've made some space > > available to do commands like this? We depend heavily on being able to > > install a package or package list in the buildroot then run some > > commands in the buildroot. Its an integral part of our tree composition > > tools. > > > > The 'chroot' command for running commands in the build root is still > there, so you can run whatever you need in the chroot. What remains is > to make it easy to install arbitrary rpms into the chroot. I think the > way to do this is to have an 'install' command that accepts binary rpms > (i.e. doesn't involve yum repositories) and runs the host rpm to put the > contents into the build root. > > Hmmm. Thinking about this a bit more makes me wonder if we need to be > able to install rpm's *using* yum, since yum brings with it the ability > to resolve dependencies. I say this because the RPM we just generated > with mock might have Requires: that aren't in the build chroot and would > need to be there for installing the the rpm prior to running rpmlint. I > hate to add one command to install a local rpm and another to install > using yum. A quick scan of the yum man page makes me think that it might > work to just invoke 'yum install '. > > Can anyone confirm/deny that invoking yum with a path to an rpm will > work (I'm not in a position to do so at the moment). yes, it works. You might want to check where it expects to find the rpm when using an installroot ie: does it find it in /path/to/rpm or installroot/path/to/rpm. I don't remember which at this moment. -sv From katzj at redhat.com Sun Sep 3 22:11:38 2006 From: katzj at redhat.com (Jeremy Katz) Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 18:11:38 -0400 Subject: Mock going forward In-Reply-To: <44FB49EC.1050605@redhat.com> References: <44E35D1D.2000402@redhat.com> <200608161408.37457.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <44E36448.2000600@redhat.com> <7dd7ab490609010928g2f84d723med5b7508ce1604f1@mail.gmail.com> <44F98A3C.5030303@redhat.com> <1157205407.6577.60.camel@ender> <44F9CF91.5050108@redhat.com> <1157222952.11059.2.camel@aglarond.local> <44FB49EC.1050605@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1157321498.13910.9.camel@aglarond.local> On Sun, 2006-09-03 at 16:32 -0500, Clark Williams wrote: > Jeremy Katz wrote: > > Kind of an aside... > > > > On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 13:38 -0500, Clark Williams wrote: > >> Well, because in 0.7 and greater, there is no mockhelper. The > >> /usr/bin/mock program is a setuid root launcher that starts "python > >> /usr/bin/mock.py" with whatever arguments were passed in. > > > > It might be worth moving /usr/bin/mock.py to be somewhere that's not in > > the path... otherwise, this is bound to be somewhat confusing[1] > > > > Jeremy > > > > [1] To me, if to no one else :-) > > Ah, it's all about you, Jeremy :) As often as I can arrange :-P > I had considered it but was more concerned with other things (like > trying to clean up the BZ's for 0.6). > > Where would you suggest? /opt/mock? Nah, just that /usr/bin/mock should probably execute perhaps /usr/libexec/mock.py -- that way, you don't do moc and get hits for both mock and mock.py and become confused as to which you're actually supposed to use Jeremy From Christian.Iseli at licr.org Mon Sep 4 13:26:26 2006 From: Christian.Iseli at licr.org (Christian Iseli) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 15:26:26 +0200 Subject: Mock going forward In-Reply-To: <44FB4F98.4010604@redhat.com> References: <44E35D1D.2000402@redhat.com> <200608161408.37457.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <44E36448.2000600@redhat.com> <7dd7ab490609010928g2f84d723med5b7508ce1604f1@mail.gmail.com> <44F98A3C.5030303@redhat.com> <1157205407.6577.60.camel@ender> <44F9CF91.5050108@redhat.com> <1157222923.6577.129.camel@ender> <44FB4F98.4010604@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20060904152626.70c123db@ludwig-alpha> On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 16:56:40 -0500, Clark Williams wrote: > Thinking about this a bit more makes me wonder if we need to be > able to install rpm's *using* yum, since yum brings with it the ability > to resolve dependencies. Yes, I think we'll need yum. > I say this because the RPM we just generated > with mock might have Requires: that aren't in the build chroot and would > need to be there for installing the the rpm prior to running rpmlint. Exactly. Cheers, Christian From Michael_E_Brown at Dell.com Tue Sep 5 16:55:13 2006 From: Michael_E_Brown at Dell.com (Michael_E_Brown at Dell.com) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 11:55:13 -0500 Subject: Mock going forward In-Reply-To: <1157321498.13910.9.camel@aglarond.local> Message-ID: <35C9A9D68AB3FA4AB63692802656D9EC010F4610@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 > Jeremy Katz > Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 5:12 PM > To: Discussion of Fedora build system > Subject: Re: Mock going forward > > On Sun, 2006-09-03 at 16:32 -0500, Clark Williams wrote: > > Jeremy Katz wrote: > > > Kind of an aside... > > > > > > On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 13:38 -0500, Clark Williams wrote: > > >> Well, because in 0.7 and greater, there is no mockhelper. The > > >> /usr/bin/mock program is a setuid root launcher that > starts "python > > >> /usr/bin/mock.py" with whatever arguments were passed in. > > > > > > It might be worth moving /usr/bin/mock.py to be somewhere > that's not in > > > the path... otherwise, this is bound to be somewhat confusing[1] > > > > > > Jeremy > > > > > > [1] To me, if to no one else :-) > > > > Ah, it's all about you, Jeremy :) > > As often as I can arrange :-P > > > I had considered it but was more concerned with other things (like > > trying to clean up the BZ's for 0.6). > > > > Where would you suggest? /opt/mock? > > Nah, just that /usr/bin/mock should probably execute > perhaps /usr/libexec/mock.py -- that way, you don't do > moc > and get hits for both mock and mock.py and become confused as to which > you're actually supposed to use /opt/ is reserved for sysadmin installation of add-on packages and iirc is normally empty on a clean install. /usr/libexec/mock/mock.py sounds like a good choice. The other option is to do similar to how yum does it: /usr/share/mock-cli/mock.py. -- Michael > > Jeremy > > -- > 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 Sep 6 14:39:10 2006 From: williams at redhat.com (Clark Williams) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 09:39:10 -0500 Subject: Mock going forward In-Reply-To: <35C9A9D68AB3FA4AB63692802656D9EC010F4610@ausx3mps303.aus.amer.dell.com> References: <35C9A9D68AB3FA4AB63692802656D9EC010F4610@ausx3mps303.aus.amer.dell.com> Message-ID: <44FEDD8E.1060905@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 >> Jeremy Katz >> Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 5:12 PM >> To: Discussion of Fedora build system >> Subject: Re: Mock going forward >> >> On Sun, 2006-09-03 at 16:32 -0500, Clark Williams wrote: >>> Jeremy Katz wrote: >>>> Kind of an aside... >>>> >>>> On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 13:38 -0500, Clark Williams wrote: >>>>> Well, because in 0.7 and greater, there is no mockhelper. The >>>>> /usr/bin/mock program is a setuid root launcher that >> starts "python >>>>> /usr/bin/mock.py" with whatever arguments were passed in. >>>> It might be worth moving /usr/bin/mock.py to be somewhere >> that's not in >>>> the path... otherwise, this is bound to be somewhat confusing[1] >>>> >>>> Jeremy >>>> >>>> [1] To me, if to no one else :-) >>> Ah, it's all about you, Jeremy :) >> As often as I can arrange :-P >> >>> I had considered it but was more concerned with other things (like >>> trying to clean up the BZ's for 0.6). >>> >>> Where would you suggest? /opt/mock? >> Nah, just that /usr/bin/mock should probably execute >> perhaps /usr/libexec/mock.py -- that way, you don't do >> moc >> and get hits for both mock and mock.py and become confused as to which >> you're actually supposed to use > > /opt/ is reserved for sysadmin installation of add-on packages and iirc > is normally empty on a clean install. /usr/libexec/mock/mock.py sounds > like a good choice. The other option is to do similar to how yum does > it: /usr/share/mock-cli/mock.py. > -- > Michael I think I like /usr/libexec/mock.py. Will that be acceptable to everyone? Clark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFE/t2OHyuj/+TTEp0RAgriAKDfgdXIn9uhI0qDStYfaAZ966P9/gCg3X6i SFMrQMQ/iDKdlLFUre+cMQI= =sCBq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jkeating at j2solutions.net Wed Sep 6 15:00:53 2006 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 11:00:53 -0400 Subject: Mock going forward In-Reply-To: <44FEDD8E.1060905@redhat.com> References: <35C9A9D68AB3FA4AB63692802656D9EC010F4610@ausx3mps303.aus.amer.dell.com> <44FEDD8E.1060905@redhat.com> Message-ID: <200609061100.57574.jkeating@j2solutions.net> On Wednesday 06 September 2006 10:39, Clark Williams wrote: > I think I like /usr/libexec/mock.py. > > Will that be acceptable to everyone? WORKSFORME -- 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 Sep 6 17:55:21 2006 From: Michael_E_Brown at Dell.com (Michael_E_Brown at Dell.com) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 12:55:21 -0500 Subject: Mock going forward In-Reply-To: <44FEDD8E.1060905@redhat.com> Message-ID: <35C9A9D68AB3FA4AB63692802656D9EC010F462B@ausx3mps303.aus.amer.dell.com> > > I think I like /usr/libexec/mock.py. > > Will that be acceptable to everyone? > Sounds good. -- Michael From sheltren at cs.ucsb.edu Fri Sep 8 21:29:53 2006 From: sheltren at cs.ucsb.edu (Jeff Sheltren) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 17:29:53 -0400 Subject: mock builds failing under CentOS 4.4 host Message-ID: <3D826E4C-79E6-431D-A07F-956AD74DC1B1@cs.ucsb.edu> I'm not sure if it was the move to CentOS 4.4 or what, but now my mock builds are failing on CentOS 4.4 hosts where they were working fine a couple weeks ago... Digging through root.log shows this message buried in the middle of all the 'yum install' output: error: can't create transaction lock on /var/lib/mock/fedora-4-i386- core/root/var/lock/rpm/transaction So far, I've had similar results building for FC3/FC4/EL4, so I'm guessing its a host machine issue rather than a chroot issue. Has anyone else come across this already? I am using an older version of mock - 0.4-2 on one machine, and 0.4-5 on another; has something changed since then to fix this issue? I guess I need to upgrade eventually to get the newer mock config setup, etc. but I've been putting that off... Thanks, Jeff From sheltren at cs.ucsb.edu Fri Sep 8 21:31:14 2006 From: sheltren at cs.ucsb.edu (Jeff Sheltren) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 17:31:14 -0400 Subject: mock builds failing under CentOS 4.4 host In-Reply-To: <3D826E4C-79E6-431D-A07F-956AD74DC1B1@cs.ucsb.edu> References: <3D826E4C-79E6-431D-A07F-956AD74DC1B1@cs.ucsb.edu> Message-ID: <4CB84652-4378-4EE9-827B-F4F5161FD085@cs.ucsb.edu> On Sep 8, 2006, at 5:29 PM, Jeff Sheltren wrote: > I'm not sure if it was the move to CentOS 4.4 or what, but now my > mock builds are failing on CentOS 4.4 hosts where they were working > fine a couple weeks ago... > > Digging through root.log shows this message buried in the middle of > all the 'yum install' output: > error: can't create transaction lock on /var/lib/mock/fedora-4-i386- > core/root/var/lock/rpm/transaction > > So far, I've had similar results building for FC3/FC4/EL4, so I'm > guessing its a host machine issue rather than a chroot issue. Has > anyone else come across this already? I am using an older version > of mock - 0.4-2 on one machine, and 0.4-5 on another; has something > changed since then to fix this issue? I guess I need to upgrade > eventually to get the newer mock config setup, etc. but I've been > putting that off... > > Thanks, > Jeff > Sorry, but I meant to add - inside the chroot, the directory /var exists, but /var/lock is not getting created. -Jeff From mail-lists at karan.org Fri Sep 8 22:06:16 2006 From: mail-lists at karan.org (Karanbir Singh) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 23:06:16 +0100 Subject: mock builds failing under CentOS 4.4 host In-Reply-To: <3D826E4C-79E6-431D-A07F-956AD74DC1B1@cs.ucsb.edu> References: <3D826E4C-79E6-431D-A07F-956AD74DC1B1@cs.ucsb.edu> Message-ID: <4501E958.3040407@karan.org> Jeff Sheltren wrote: > I'm not sure if it was the move to CentOS 4.4 or what, but now my mock > builds are failing on CentOS 4.4 hosts where they were working fine a > couple weeks ago... patch attached, for mock 0.4, easy to adapt to 0.6, I've not looked at 0.6+ as yet, but should work there too, its trivial. HTH -- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219 at icq -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: mock-centos-44.patch Type: text/x-patch Size: 586 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sheltren at cs.ucsb.edu Sat Sep 9 00:49:58 2006 From: sheltren at cs.ucsb.edu (Jeff Sheltren) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 20:49:58 -0400 Subject: mock builds failing under CentOS 4.4 host In-Reply-To: <4501E958.3040407@karan.org> References: <3D826E4C-79E6-431D-A07F-956AD74DC1B1@cs.ucsb.edu> <4501E958.3040407@karan.org> Message-ID: <74779923-2D1C-4731-A4E5-A4FB55258521@cs.ucsb.edu> On Sep 8, 2006, at 6:06 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote: > Jeff Sheltren wrote: >> I'm not sure if it was the move to CentOS 4.4 or what, but now my >> mock builds are failing on CentOS 4.4 hosts where they were >> working fine a couple weeks ago... > > patch attached, for mock 0.4, easy to adapt to 0.6, I've not looked > at 0.6+ as yet, but should work there too, its trivial. Thanks, Karanbir. That was my first thought (have mock create the directory), but I wasn't sure what the cause was, so I was reluctant to fix something I wasn't sure why it broke. Was this a change to the filesystem or rpm RPM(s) or what? -Jeff From mail-lists at karan.org Sat Sep 9 01:23:41 2006 From: mail-lists at karan.org (Karanbir Singh) Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 02:23:41 +0100 Subject: mock builds failing under CentOS 4.4 host In-Reply-To: <74779923-2D1C-4731-A4E5-A4FB55258521@cs.ucsb.edu> References: <3D826E4C-79E6-431D-A07F-956AD74DC1B1@cs.ucsb.edu> <4501E958.3040407@karan.org> <74779923-2D1C-4731-A4E5-A4FB55258521@cs.ucsb.edu> Message-ID: <4502179D.2040002@karan.org> Jeff Sheltren wrote: > On Sep 8, 2006, at 6:06 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote: > >> Jeff Sheltren wrote: >>> I'm not sure if it was the move to CentOS 4.4 or what, but now my >>> mock builds are failing on CentOS 4.4 hosts where they were working >>> fine a couple weeks ago... >> >> patch attached, for mock 0.4, easy to adapt to 0.6, I've not looked at >> 0.6+ as yet, but should work there too, its trivial. > > Thanks, Karanbir. That was my first thought (have mock create the > directory), but I wasn't sure what the cause was, so I was reluctant to > fix something I wasn't sure why it broke. Was this a change to the > filesystem or rpm RPM(s) or what? basically, rpm issue ( feature ? ) lots of info here : https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=151255 -- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219 at icq From sheltren at cs.ucsb.edu Sat Sep 9 10:55:44 2006 From: sheltren at cs.ucsb.edu (Jeff Sheltren) Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 06:55:44 -0400 Subject: mock builds failing under CentOS 4.4 host In-Reply-To: <4502179D.2040002@karan.org> References: <3D826E4C-79E6-431D-A07F-956AD74DC1B1@cs.ucsb.edu> <4501E958.3040407@karan.org> <74779923-2D1C-4731-A4E5-A4FB55258521@cs.ucsb.edu> <4502179D.2040002@karan.org> Message-ID: <2798701E-0AAE-45AA-9AB3-0F45CF637DFC@cs.ucsb.edu> On Sep 8, 2006, at 9:23 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote: > Jeff Sheltren wrote: >> Was this a change to the filesystem or rpm RPM(s) or what? > > basically, rpm issue ( feature ? ) lots of info here : > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=151255 Cool, thanks for the link! So, can somebody verify this bug w/ the latest version of mock? If so, I think we should apply Karanbir's patch... -Jeff From williams at redhat.com Mon Sep 11 17:55:31 2006 From: williams at redhat.com (Clark Williams) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 12:55:31 -0500 Subject: mock builds failing under CentOS 4.4 host In-Reply-To: <2798701E-0AAE-45AA-9AB3-0F45CF637DFC@cs.ucsb.edu> References: <3D826E4C-79E6-431D-A07F-956AD74DC1B1@cs.ucsb.edu> <4501E958.3040407@karan.org> <74779923-2D1C-4731-A4E5-A4FB55258521@cs.ucsb.edu> <4502179D.2040002@karan.org> <2798701E-0AAE-45AA-9AB3-0F45CF637DFC@cs.ucsb.edu> Message-ID: <4505A313.6020708@redhat.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jeff Sheltren wrote: > On Sep 8, 2006, at 9:23 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote: > >> Jeff Sheltren wrote: >>> Was this a change to the filesystem or rpm RPM(s) or what? >> >> basically, rpm issue ( feature ? ) lots of info here : >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=151255 > > Cool, thanks for the link! So, can somebody verify this bug w/ the > latest version of mock? If so, I think we should apply Karanbir's patch... > This one looks like a no-brainer, but I'm doing a bit of testing just to make sure (I've been bitten by "no-brainers" before :)). Once I verify that I haven't broken anything obvious, I'll push a new tarball up for Jesse to grab and stuff into Extras. Clark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFBaMSHyuj/+TTEp0RAqFVAKCMgU7jrm9Wdbk15RtA/4uGqO4bfACg0cCI wEfguIz/MPW/aFNXwesFYZw= =ZgVf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From sheltren at cs.ucsb.edu Mon Sep 11 21:05:20 2006 From: sheltren at cs.ucsb.edu (Jeff Sheltren) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:05:20 -0400 Subject: mock builds failing under CentOS 4.4 host In-Reply-To: <4505A313.6020708@redhat.com> References: <3D826E4C-79E6-431D-A07F-956AD74DC1B1@cs.ucsb.edu> <4501E958.3040407@karan.org> <74779923-2D1C-4731-A4E5-A4FB55258521@cs.ucsb.edu> <4502179D.2040002@karan.org> <2798701E-0AAE-45AA-9AB3-0F45CF637DFC@cs.ucsb.edu> <4505A313.6020708@redhat.com> Message-ID: <2DF1D1F9-F1B3-45E9-B0A5-DD37A2C6B48C@cs.ucsb.edu> On Sep 11, 2006, at 1:55 PM, Clark Williams wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Jeff Sheltren wrote: >> On Sep 8, 2006, at 9:23 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote: >> >>> Jeff Sheltren wrote: >>>> Was this a change to the filesystem or rpm RPM(s) or what? >>> >>> basically, rpm issue ( feature ? ) lots of info here : >>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=151255 >> >> Cool, thanks for the link! So, can somebody verify this bug w/ the >> latest version of mock? If so, I think we should apply Karanbir's >> patch... >> > > This one looks like a no-brainer, but I'm doing a bit of testing > just to > make sure (I've been bitten by "no-brainers" before :)). Once I verify > that I haven't broken anything obvious, I'll push a new tarball up for > Jesse to grab and stuff into Extras. > > Clark Cool, thanks. I wasn't trying to imply that someone else needs to do the patching and testing; I'm glad to do so considering I'm the one that brought up the problem ;) But if you already have a system in place for getting updates pushed to FE I don't want to step on your toes! Thanks, Jeff From rdieter at math.unl.edu Tue Sep 12 11:45:32 2006 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 06:45:32 -0500 Subject: mock builds failing under CentOS 4.4 host References: <3D826E4C-79E6-431D-A07F-956AD74DC1B1@cs.ucsb.edu> <4501E958.3040407@karan.org> Message-ID: Karanbir Singh wrote: > Jeff Sheltren wrote: >> I'm not sure if it was the move to CentOS 4.4 or what, but now my mock >> builds are failing on CentOS 4.4 hosts where they were working fine a >> couple weeks ago... > > patch attached, for mock 0.4, easy to adapt to 0.6, I've not looked at > 0.6+ as yet, but should work there too, its trivial. Patch works with mock-0.6.2 fine here. (: -- Rex From sheltren at cs.ucsb.edu Tue Sep 26 12:23:06 2006 From: sheltren at cs.ucsb.edu (Jeff Sheltren) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 08:23:06 -0400 Subject: mock builds failing under CentOS 4.4 host In-Reply-To: References: <3D826E4C-79E6-431D-A07F-956AD74DC1B1@cs.ucsb.edu> <4501E958.3040407@karan.org> Message-ID: <45191BAA.4080300@cs.ucsb.edu> Thanks, Rex. I'm also happy with it on my mock 0.4 installs, and haven't seen any ill effects :) So, any objections to me committing the attached patch? It is simply Karanbir's patch adapted for current CVS. Thanks, Jeff Rex Dieter wrote: > Karanbir Singh wrote: > > >> Jeff Sheltren wrote: >> >>> I'm not sure if it was the move to CentOS 4.4 or what, but now my mock >>> builds are failing on CentOS 4.4 hosts where they were working fine a >>> couple weeks ago... >>> >> patch attached, for mock 0.4, easy to adapt to 0.6, I've not looked at >> 0.6+ as yet, but should work there too, its trivial. >> > > Patch works with mock-0.6.2 fine here. (: > > -- Rex > > -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: mock-0.6.rpmlock.patch URL: From williams at redhat.com Tue Sep 26 14:13:15 2006 From: williams at redhat.com (Clark Williams) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 09:13:15 -0500 Subject: mock builds failing under CentOS 4.4 host In-Reply-To: <45191BAA.4080300@cs.ucsb.edu> References: <3D826E4C-79E6-431D-A07F-956AD74DC1B1@cs.ucsb.edu> <4501E958.3040407@karan.org> <45191BAA.4080300@cs.ucsb.edu> Message-ID: <4519357B.5090107@redhat.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jeff Sheltren wrote: > Thanks, Rex. I'm also happy with it on my mock 0.4 installs, and > haven't seen any ill effects :) > > So, any objections to me committing the attached patch? It is simply > Karanbir's patch adapted for current CVS. > > Thanks, > Jeff > Yeah, that patch (or my version of it) is already in CVS. Clark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFGTV7Hyuj/+TTEp0RAuLUAJ9OIocr9PUCk63VtbkZOA9/KwmbBACcCcdi p3v09u3MX7BK2d35li4rOKE= =Zw8J -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From sheltren at cs.ucsb.edu Tue Sep 26 16:12:04 2006 From: sheltren at cs.ucsb.edu (Jeff Sheltren) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 12:12:04 -0400 Subject: mock builds failing under CentOS 4.4 host In-Reply-To: <4519357B.5090107@redhat.com> References: <3D826E4C-79E6-431D-A07F-956AD74DC1B1@cs.ucsb.edu> <4501E958.3040407@karan.org> <45191BAA.4080300@cs.ucsb.edu> <4519357B.5090107@redhat.com> Message-ID: <45195154.4070707@cs.ucsb.edu> Cool, thanks - it wasn't there when I did a checkout this morning ;) -Jeff Clark Williams wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Jeff Sheltren wrote: > >> Thanks, Rex. I'm also happy with it on my mock 0.4 installs, and >> haven't seen any ill effects :) >> >> So, any objections to me committing the attached patch? It is simply >> Karanbir's patch adapted for current CVS. >> >> Thanks, >> Jeff >> >> > > Yeah, that patch (or my version of it) is already in CVS. > > Clark > > From williams at redhat.com Tue Sep 26 16:32:39 2006 From: williams at redhat.com (Clark Williams) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 11:32:39 -0500 Subject: mock builds failing under CentOS 4.4 host In-Reply-To: <45195154.4070707@cs.ucsb.edu> References: <3D826E4C-79E6-431D-A07F-956AD74DC1B1@cs.ucsb.edu> <4501E958.3040407@karan.org> <45191BAA.4080300@cs.ucsb.edu> <4519357B.5090107@redhat.com> <45195154.4070707@cs.ucsb.edu> Message-ID: <45195627.2020307@redhat.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jeff Sheltren wrote: > Cool, thanks - it wasn't there when I did a checkout this morning ;) > Well, it *should* have been... /me roots around in his mock HEAD sandbox... GAH! there it sits, not committed. In my defense, it's actually there in the FC6 branch. But I didn't commit it to the HEAD. It's there now. Mea Culpa... Clark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFGVYnHyuj/+TTEp0RAqXUAKDAJ6mVSlsPRmeDnk/hBK3+/FzlWQCglqWs wG982R2SCC8EEeZf+z2yvAQ= =1l4s -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From sheltren at cs.ucsb.edu Tue Sep 26 16:40:16 2006 From: sheltren at cs.ucsb.edu (Jeff Sheltren) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 12:40:16 -0400 Subject: mock builds failing under CentOS 4.4 host In-Reply-To: <45195627.2020307@redhat.com> References: <3D826E4C-79E6-431D-A07F-956AD74DC1B1@cs.ucsb.edu> <4501E958.3040407@karan.org> <45191BAA.4080300@cs.ucsb.edu> <4519357B.5090107@redhat.com> <45195154.4070707@cs.ucsb.edu> <45195627.2020307@redhat.com> Message-ID: <451957F0.2000203@cs.ucsb.edu> Clark Williams wrote: > Well, it *should* have been... > > /me roots around in his mock HEAD sandbox... > > GAH! there it sits, not committed. > > In my defense, it's actually there in the FC6 branch. But I didn't > commit it to the HEAD. > > It's there now. > > Mea Culpa... > > Clark > Hi Clark, thanks for your help! -Jeff