[scl.org] devtoolset 2?

[Dave Johansen]

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Dave Johansen <davejohansen at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Honza Horak <hhorak at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On 01/13/2016 05:14 AM, Dave Johansen wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Honza Horak <hhorak at redhat.com
>>> <mailto:hhorak at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     On 01/06/2016 05:41 PM, Dave Johansen wrote:
>>>
>>>         On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 8:04 AM, Honza Horak <hhorak at redhat.com
>>>         <mailto:hhorak at redhat.com>
>>>         <mailto:hhorak at redhat.com <mailto:hhorak at redhat.com>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>              On 01/05/2016 04:35 PM, Dave Johansen wrote:
>>>
>>>                  On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Honza Horak
>>>         <hhorak at redhat.com <mailto:hhorak at redhat.com>
>>>                  <mailto:hhorak at redhat.com <mailto:hhorak at redhat.com>>
>>>                  <mailto:hhorak at redhat.com <mailto:hhorak at redhat.com>
>>>         <mailto:hhorak at redhat.com <mailto:hhorak at redhat.com>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>                       Interesting, you're first who asks for that.
>>>         Currently,
>>>                  there is
>>>                       nobody working on it.
>>>
>>>
>>>                  We're working on moving to EL 7, but still need to
>>>         support EL 6
>>>                  installations. We'd also like to start allowing use of
>>>         C++11 in
>>>                  our code
>>>                  base and using the same version of gcc on both EL 6 and
>>>         7 seemed
>>>                  like
>>>                  the best way to accomplish both of these goals.
>>>
>>>                       If you're willing to try that, I wouldn't be
>>>         against, I
>>>                  just must
>>>                       warn you that rebuilding devtoolset is always a
>>>         lot of fun
>>>                  (like
>>>
>>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/sclorg/2015-December/msg00050.html)..
>>>
>>>
>>>                  What's the best way to start this?
>>>                  Are there modifications that are required for source
>>>         .rpm (removing
>>>                  RedHat naming, etc)? Or is it just start building it
>>>         and dealing
>>>                  with
>>>                  the issues that pop up?
>>>
>>>
>>>              There is no need to remove any naming, we usually take srpm
>>>         from RH
>>>              and rebuild. However, the bootstrapping is usually very
>>>         challenging.
>>>              I'd recommend first to try to rebuild at least basic
>>> packages
>>>              yourself using mock (or copr), so you see how far you can
>>> get..
>>>              Then, if you'll see it is worth the work, we can create
>>>         tags/targets
>>>              in CBS and start with real rebuilds.
>>>
>>>
>>>         I was just going to start playing around with this on COPR and I
>>>         noticed
>>>         that there appears to already be an existing build of
>>> devtoolset-2:
>>>         https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/rhscl/devtoolset/
>>>
>>>         It looks like it's not complete because only some of the packages
>>>         succeeded, but would that serve as the best starting point? If
>>> so,
>>>         what's the best way to move forward with that?
>>>
>>>
>>>     Well, why not, I can add you as collaborator in this project -- what
>>>     is your copr username? However, I'm afraid that whoever tried that,
>>>     he got blocked on some non easy issues, which is the reason why it
>>>     is not finished.
>>>
>>>
>>> My username is daveisfera.
>>>
>>
>> Well, I've realized the copr is not named devtoolset-2, but just
>> devtoolset, which is not ideal.. and renaming is not possible in copr..
>> maybe it would be better if you'd create your own copr, which has correct
>> name..
>>
>> Is there anything special that needs to be done to do these builds?
>>>
>>
>> Honestly, I don't know what is necessary to fix the builds, but since
>> they were failing, I expect something would need to be fixed.
>>
>> Is there an original location for the source rpms? And is this COPR use
>>> those or some modification of them?
>>>
>>
>> The sources are available here:
>>
>> http://ftp.redhat.com/redhat/linux/enterprise/6Server/en/RHDevToolset/SRPMS/
>>
>
> It looks like the source .rpm for felix-gogo-parent is missing. What needs
> to happen for that to be added?
>

Also, it appears that some of them depend on maven plugins that aren't
available:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/daveisfera/devtoolset2/epel-6-x86_64/00163449-devtoolset-2-apache-commons-codec/root.log.gz
What can be done to resolve that?

Thanks,
Dave
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/sclorg/attachments/20160226/3eacb728/attachment.htm>