FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 09-01-2008, 12:52 PM
Ralph Angenendt
 
Default still trying to build upstream srpms

David Hrbáč wrote:
> Ralph Angenendt napsal(a):
> > You are the first to complain. So - no, there aren't known problems. All
> > mails to your address I can find in the maillog have been taken by the
> > MX for your domain with a status of 250.
>
> Ralph,
> I'm the second to complain. I can mention e.g.
> http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2008-August/003171.html

You didn't get that mail?

Ralph
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 09-01-2008, 02:04 PM
David Hrbáč
 
Default still trying to build upstream srpms

Ralph Angenendt napsal(a):
> You didn't get that mail?
>
> Ralph

Didn't.
DH
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 09-01-2008, 02:46 PM
Ralph Angenendt
 
Default still trying to build upstream srpms

David Hrbáč wrote:
> Ralph Angenendt napsal(a):
> > You didn't get that mail?
> >
> > Ralph
>
> Didn't.

Strange:

Aug 31 17:54:55 centosg postfix/smtp[3429]: ED5B3F3C270:
to=<hrbac.conf@seznam.cz>, relay=mx1.seznam.cz[77.75.72.42], delay=96,
status=sent (250 Mail 261272498 queued for delivery in session
5ac10000103f.)

Ralph
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 09-01-2008, 03:17 PM
Jeff Sheltren
 
Default still trying to build upstream srpms

On Aug 31, 2008, at 8:15 PM, Joe Pruett wrote:
second, even though karanbir will be trying to build the rpms i am
interested in, so far no one has actually answered how we know what
rpmbuild command line to give. there are lots of --define
possibilities and i don't see that info available from a binary
rpm. so how do we know how to build a package?


What's implied when people say mock is being used, is that there are
no special '--define', etc. flags passed to rpmbuild from within mock.


-Jeff

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 09-01-2008, 03:52 PM
Jeff Johnson
 
Default still trying to build upstream srpms

On Sep 1, 2008, at 11:17 AM, Jeff Sheltren wrote:


On Aug 31, 2008, at 8:15 PM, Joe Pruett wrote:
second, even though karanbir will be trying to build the rpms i am
interested in, so far no one has actually answered how we know
what rpmbuild command line to give. there are lots of --define
possibilities and i don't see that info available from a binary
rpm. so how do we know how to build a package?


What's implied when people say mock is being used, is that there
are no special '--define', etc. flags passed to rpmbuild from
within mock.




Hmmm, and why is passing --define (or not) relevant to anything in
the real world?


Yes, the CentOS issue is trying to identify a "reproducible build",
as defined by the
RHEL build system, and rpm macros are often different and
continuously changing.


If the macros used were the only part of the "reproducible build"
problem,

then --macrosused (and the RPMTAG_BUILDMACROS header extension)
solves the problem by spewing the list of all macros used
by rpmbuild (or any other rpm command) at termination,
and/or by including the equivalent list of used macros (and
definitions) within a *.src.rpm

header.

But the real problem is that all build systems contain versions of
compilers and toolchains

that are different. That's a whole different class of problem.

So not passing --define is hardly relevant imho, the tool chains used
for building

are what is very tricky to identify and attempt to "reproduce".

73 de Jeff
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 09-01-2008, 08:58 PM
Joe Pruett
 
Default still trying to build upstream srpms

What's implied when people say mock is being used, is that there are no
special '--define', etc. flags passed to rpmbuild from within mock.




Hmmm, and why is passing --define (or not) relevant to anything in the real
world?


Yes, the CentOS issue is trying to identify a "reproducible build", as
defined by the
RHEL build system, and rpm macros are often different and continuously
changing.


If the macros used were the only part of the "reproducible build" problem,
then --macrosused (and the RPMTAG_BUILDMACROS header extension)
solves the problem by spewing the list of all macros used
by rpmbuild (or any other rpm command) at termination,
and/or by including the equivalent list of used macros (and definitions)
within a *.src.rpm

header.

But the real problem is that all build systems contain versions of compilers
and toolchains

that are different. That's a whole different class of problem.

So not passing --define is hardly relevant imho, the tool chains used for
building

are what is very tricky to identify and attempt to "reproduce".


a lot of rpms use --define to control how the package is built, what
functions to enable in the package. postgresql is a good example. it has
47 %if clauses in the spec file that directly or indirectly rely on
--define switches at rpmbuild time.


this --macrosused/RPMTAG_BUILDMACROS sounds like exactly what i'm looking
for, but it doesn't appear to be part of the rpm system used by rh/centos.


but without the newer rpm system, how do the centos builders know what
flags to use to build an rpm? are they all built without any --define
flags? do we know that is how rh does it?

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 09-01-2008, 09:09 PM
Jeff Johnson
 
Default still trying to build upstream srpms

On Sep 1, 2008, at 4:58 PM, Joe Pruett wrote:

What's implied when people say mock is being used, is that there
are no special '--define', etc. flags passed to rpmbuild from
within mock.


Hmmm, and why is passing --define (or not) relevant to anything in
the real world?


Yes, the CentOS issue is trying to identify a "reproducible
build", as defined by the
RHEL build system, and rpm macros are often different and
continuously changing.


If the macros used were the only part of the "reproducible build"
problem,

then --macrosused (and the RPMTAG_BUILDMACROS header extension)
solves the problem by spewing the list of all macros used
by rpmbuild (or any other rpm command) at termination,
and/or by including the equivalent list of used macros (and
definitions) within a *.src.rpm

header.

But the real problem is that all build systems contain versions of
compilers and toolchains

that are different. That's a whole different class of problem.

So not passing --define is hardly relevant imho, the tool chains
used for building

are what is very tricky to identify and attempt to "reproduce".


a lot of rpms use --define to control how the package is built,
what functions to enable in the package. postgresql is a good
example. it has 47 %if clauses in the spec file that directly or
indirectly rely on --define switches at rpmbuild time.


this --macrosused/RPMTAG_BUILDMACROS sounds like exactly what i'm
looking for, but it doesn't appear to be part of the rpm system
used by rh/centos.




Yup. too bad for you & Centos.

FWIW, adding %dump at the very end of spec file, and grep'ping out
the used macros which are marked in the %dump spewage (unused
macros look like "^-14:..." while used macros look like ("-14=..." iirc)
will work with all versions of rpm I've ever touched.

FYI, the "-14" is "the level of macro recursion", and negative
numbers are
global. The value identifies where the macro was defined. Not useful
at all,

but that's what the "-14" is and does.

Porting --macrosused to rpm-4.5.6.7.8.9. ain't rocket science either ...

but without the newer rpm system, how do the centos builders know
what flags to use to build an rpm? are they all built without any
--define flags? do we know that is how rh does it?


I'd guess that all the --with/--without "stuff" is hard wired into a
macro config file (or perhaps done directly by mock), another reason
why "No --define in mock ..." Simply Does Not Matter.

73 de Jeff
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:01 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org