[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [scl.org] Setting SCL RPM build options in COPR?



On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:39 AM, Davis, Daniel (NIH/NLM) [C]
<daniel davis nih gov> wrote:
> Nick,
>
> Now that your question has been answered, let me ask mine.    The instructions to build pyscl-devel separate from Copr are not clear enough for me.   Are you suggesting that I run pipsi in a virtual environment?

pipsi creates an auto-activated virtual environment, so the call to
`rpmlb` implicitly runs the command in an environment with all the
right Python dependencies. I'll add a note about how pipsi works to
the README for the benefit of folks that aren't already familiar with
it, as simply installing rpmlb into a separately managed virtual
environment is indeed a valid alternative.

>  How is scrlo-python involved?

It's the first and last item in the build recipe (the first time to
get the relevant scl macros and other helpers defined, the second time
to actually define the metapackage that depends on the default package
set for the SCL).

> I'm going to try later today, and want to be clear about what is involved...    I've built multi-package rpms before, sometimes from scripts and makefiles, but not multi-package repositories from scripts, and I've never used Copr and friends.   I've never used a chroot to build rpms, but I think I've installed mock even though I didn't really need it.

If you're on Fedora, you'll probably want to do "dnf install
fedora-packager" to ensure you have the necessary pieces (since the
script uses `fedpkg` in addition to `mock`).

If you're on RHEL or CentOS, you'll need to get `fedpkg` from EPEL instead.

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan
Red Hat Platform Engineering, Brisbane


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]