[scl.org] devtoolset 2?

Dave Johansen davejohansen at gmail.com
Sat Feb 27 20:57:32 UTC 2016

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Dave Johansen <davejohansen at gmail.com>

> 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?

It looks like the maven packages are supposed to come from the maven SCL,
so never mind about that. On a related note, the odd thing is that some of
the apache-common packages are in the devtoolset SCL and other are in maven
SCL. It just seems kind of odd to be broken up that way, but whatever works
I guess.

So, the only real issue seems to be the missing source .rpm for
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/sclorg/attachments/20160227/ab3351c2/attachment.htm>

More information about the SCLorg mailing list