Checking dependencies of custom Fedora Spins

Wed May 7 12:22:35 UTC 2014

Hi Kay,

Thanks very much for the information. I see that this issue will be
addressed in F21
(https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/comps.git/commit/?id=33bb568e7dfecb4b8d859b73abec1ca5d24ebdde).

The minimal install that you describe made me approach my issue from a
different angle. I tried playing around with a few minimal kickstarts in
order to replicate the failed dependency issue I was observing. It turns
out that my issue was due to packages that I had explicitly excluded
from the spin in the kickstart (using the minus operator in the
%packages section) that were dependencies of other packages that were
being installed. The missing dependencies showed up in the pungi log as
warnings, but the tree and subsequent ISO creation processes completed
successfully.

I'll keep a closer eye on the warnings produced by pungi from here on
in.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 
Paul Jefferson

On Fri, Apr 25, 2014, at 04:06 PM, Kay Williams wrote:
> I ran into the same issue for rhel7 beta and reported it at
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040707.  That bug seems to
> have been made private somewhere along the way, so I've copied the
> relevant content below:
> 
> 
> ---------------------
> 
> Description Kay Williams 2013-12-11 18:42:37 EST 
> Description of problem:
> In previous versions, it was possible to create a custom install tree
> including packages from the core group, plus dependencies, plus a kernel
> (and any other desired packages).
> 
> This is not working in rhel 7.0 beta because anaconda requires several
> packages that are not listed in the core group. Among these packages are
> authconfig, chrony, firewalld and grub2. These packages are listed in
> other groups as follows:
> 
> authconfig, base
> chrony, base
> firewalld, base
> grub2, anaconda-tools
> 
> For custom install tree creation, it is convenient to have all of the
> anaconda requried packages listed in the core group (or else included in
> the stage2 install image).
> 
> Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
> Anaconda 19.31.36 and RHEL 7.0 Beta comps file
> 
> 
> How reproducible:
> Always.
> 
> Steps to Reproduce:
> 1. Create a custom install tree containing just packages from the core
> group + dependencies + a kernel + dependencies.
> 2. Attempt to install using the custom install tree.
> 
> Actual results:
> Anaconda fails attempting to install the missing package (authconfig,
> chrony, firewalld, or grub2).
> 
> Expected results:
> Install completes without error.
> 
> Comment 2 Bill Nottingham 2013-12-12 15:15:17 EST 
> @anaconda-tools is needed for any custom install distribution, as that is
> where bootloaders/filesystem utilities/storage utilities that may be used
> depend on your installation type are denoted.
> 
> Comment 3 Kay Williams 2013-12-12 19:30:19 EST 
> Hi Bill, we tried including both @core and @anaconda-tools in the custom
> distribution, but anaconda still fails attempting to install crony and
> firewalld.
> 
> In the big picture, ideally there would be a reliable formula for
> identifying the minimum set of packages required for a custom
> distribution. In the past, we used the formula '@core + a kernel +
> dependencies'.
> 
> At the moment, the formula seems to be '@core + @anaconda-tools (which
> brings in authconfig, grub2) + some packages from @base (crony,
> firewalld) + a kernel + dependencies'.  
> 
> Perhaps crony and firewalld (and potentially others?) should be listed in
> @anaconda-tools (authconfig is listed in both). 
> 
> Or is there another way? One model is to include all the tools needed for
> performing installation in the stage2 image. In this model the custom
> distribution can include just the packages needed for the end system
> without regard for anaconda install requirements.
> 
> Thanks for considering.
> 
> Comment 4 Bill Nottingham 2013-12-13 14:22:28 EST 
> This seems reasonable.
> 
> Vaclav - can you add chrony, firewalld, and authconfig to @anaconda-tools
> in RHEL 7 and Fedora?
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: kickstart-list-bounces at redhat.com
> [mailto:kickstart-list-bounces at redhat.com] On Behalf Of Paul Jefferson
> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 4:15 AM
> To: kickstart-list at redhat.com
> Subject: Checking dependencies of custom Fedora Spins
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> I am currently in the process of creating a custom spin of Fedora 19
> which will be based on the Fedora Xfce (or MATE) spin.
> 
> I have been through a couple of iterations of:
> 
>     * adding packages to the kickstart file
>     * building the installation tree using pungi (-G -B and -C)
>     * adding a custom kickstart and isolinux configuration to tree
>     * building the installation media (pungi -I)
> 
> only to discover when anaconda begins to install the packages that there
> are some unsatisfied dependencies.
> 
> I was just curious to see if anyone else is doing/has done this, and
> whether they found a good way of checking the dependences of the packages
> defined in the kickstart file prior to building the installation tree and
> media, as this is takes quite a bit of time.
> 
> Thanks very much,
> Paul
> 
> 
> --
> Paul Jefferson
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Kickstart-list mailing list
> Kickstart-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/kickstart-list
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Kickstart-list mailing list
> Kickstart-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/kickstart-list