Hi Leonard,

Had a few issues building x86_64 gcc from upstream rhel6 sources also. I was building using a beta2 workstation install.
I was able to build them adding the official i386 beta2 repo, pulling deps with yum-builddep and building with rpmbuild. I've shared them in case you are interested:


http://mirror.frameos.org/frameos/6/core/x86_64/Packages/

Hope that helps.

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Leonard den Ottolander <leonard@den.ottolander.nl> wrote:

Hi,



On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 23:57 +0100, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:

> So I built the x86_64

> version with a plain rpmbuild. For the i686 I used mock.



On the base system I did forget to install redhat-rpm-config. Even

though this will not make the build fail it does result in a much bigger

glibc-2.12-1.7.el6.x86_64.rpm as compared to the original

glibc-2.12-1.4.el6.x86_64.rpm, even though almost all of the files

inside are identical in size. I suppose the difference in file size is

caused by the lack of brp-compress and the invocation of it after the

build.



Since the macros file is missing too

%_binary_filedigest_algorithm 8

is not set when building on the base system. This option sets the

FILEDIGEST checksum to use SHA-256 instead of MD5. Could this be the

cause for rpm not to consider the config and document files from the

x86_64 and i686 glibc rpms to be identical?



Regards,

Leonard.



--

mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research





_______________________________________________

CentOS-devel mailing list

CentOS-devel@centos.org

http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel



--
FrameOS Linux
website: http://www.frameos.org
twitter:** @rubiojr
blog:***** http://blog.frameos.org



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

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Leonard den Ottolander <leonard@den.ottolander.nl> wrote:

Hello Sergio,



On Wed, 2010-11-24 at 10:23 +0100, Sergio Rubio wrote:

> Had a few issues building x86_64 gcc from upstream rhel6 sources also.

> I was building using a beta2 workstation install.



> I've shared them in case you are interested:



What I'm doing is a fun build, so thanks for the offer but I will

continue building this system by myself.



Building both glibc's in a mock root (with redhat-rpm-config) installed

resulted in two rpms that did not conflict with one another, so I could

continue building gcc in the updated mock root. The x86_64 version

compiled fine so far, going to start the i686 build in a minute. I

suppose my guess that the difference in check summing in the original

builds was the cause of my issue was right. At least it had something to

do with the macro setup as the absence of redhat-rpm-config was the only

difference in both build environments.

Great, let us know how it goes please. I'm particularly interested in the result.

If you could share the mock config used after that, If'd greatly appreciate it.


Thanks for sharing.




Regards,

Leonard.



--

mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research





_______________________________________________

CentOS-devel mailing list

CentOS-devel@centos.org

http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel



--
FrameOS Linux
website: http://www.frameos.org
twitter:** @rubiojr
blog:***** http://blog.frameos.org



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

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Leonard den Ottolander <leonard@den.ottolander.nl> wrote:

Hello Sergio,



On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 12:50 +0100, Sergio Rubio wrote:

> If you could share the mock config used after that, If'd greatly

> appreciate it.



I'm using the epel-6-x86_64 and epel-6-i386 configs from the rebuilt

Fedora 14 1.1.6-1 srpm - you need pigz from Fedora too -, enabling the

beta and beta-optional repos. (Some of the devel packages are only

available in beta-optional.) To this I added a local repo

"updates" (using a file:// baseurl) - I commented out the default

"updates" repo to avoid naming conflicts but you could use a different

name instead - to which I copy the resulting rpms. This way the build

roots automatically get updated with the fresh rpms after an invocation

of

$ creatrepo .

in the repo directory and a subsequent mock rebuild.



Since binutils didn't need an update going from 6beta to 6 I currently

only have the mock roots patched with the glibc-2.12-1.7.el6 and related

rpms. Next I will be adding the gcc-4.4.4-13.el6 and related rpms so

subsequent packages will be build with the new compiler.

Thanks for the input. Greatly appreciated.

I'm using a similar strategy, though my mock is older. I'll give it a try.


Regards.
*



Regards,

Leonard.



--

mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research





_______________________________________________

CentOS-devel mailing list

CentOS-devel@centos.org

http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel



--
FrameOS Linux
website: http://www.frameos.org
twitter:** @rubiojr
blog:***** http://blog.frameos.org



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

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010, Sergio Rubio wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Leonard den Ottolander <
> leonard@den.ottolander.nl> wrote:
>
>> Hello Sergio,
>>
>> On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 12:50 +0100, Sergio Rubio wrote:
>>> If you could share the mock config used after that, If'd greatly
>>> appreciate it.
>>
>> I'm using the epel-6-x86_64 and epel-6-i386 configs from the rebuilt
>> Fedora 14 1.1.6-1 srpm - you need pigz from Fedora too -, enabling the
>> beta and beta-optional repos. (Some of the devel packages are only
>> available in beta-optional.) To this I added a local repo
>> "updates" (using a file:// baseurl) - I commented out the default
>> "updates" repo to avoid naming conflicts but you could use a different
>> name instead - to which I copy the resulting rpms. This way the build
>> roots automatically get updated with the fresh rpms after an invocation
>> of
>> $ creatrepo .
>> in the repo directory and a subsequent mock rebuild.
>>
>> Since binutils didn't need an update going from 6beta to 6 I currently
>> only have the mock roots patched with the glibc-2.12-1.7.el6 and related
>> rpms. Next I will be adding the gcc-4.4.4-13.el6 and related rpms so
>> subsequent packages will be build with the new compiler.
>>
>
> Thanks for the input. Greatly appreciated.
>
> I'm using a similar strategy, though my mock is older. I'll give it a try.

RPMforge provides working mock packages for RHEL5 and RHEL6. Those
packages can be found at:

http://packages.sw.be/mock/

Kind regards,
--
-- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/
-- dagit linux solutions, info@dagit.net, http://dagit.net/

[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Dag Wieers <dag@wieers.com> wrote:

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010, Sergio Rubio wrote:




>>

>

> Thanks for the input. Greatly appreciated.

>

> I'm using a similar strategy, though my mock is older. I'll give it a try.



RPMforge provides working mock packages for RHEL5 and RHEL6. Those

packages can be found at:



* * http://packages.sw.be/mock/

Awesome. Are they different from F14 packages?*Thanks.





Kind regards,

--

-- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/

-- dagit linux solutions, info@dagit.net, http://dagit.net/



[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]

_______________________________________________

CentOS-devel mailing list

CentOS-devel@centos.org

http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel



--
FrameOS Linux
website: http://www.frameos.org
twitter:** @rubiojr
blog:***** http://blog.frameos.org



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

On 11/25/2010 04:23 PM, Sergio Rubio wrote:
> > I'm using a similar strategy, though my mock is older. I'll give
> it a try.
>
> http://packages.sw.be/mock/
>
> Awesome. Are they different from F14 packages?
> Thanks.

Can you please take all this non-centos related stuff to a more relevant
list please.

Also, be considerate when you are posting to the mailing list, trim your
posts down to whats relevant

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

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010, Sergio Rubio wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Dag Wieers <dag@wieers.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Nov 2010, Sergio Rubio wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for the input. Greatly appreciated.
>>>
>>> I'm using a similar strategy, though my mock is older. I'll give it a
>> try.
>>
>> RPMforge provides working mock packages for RHEL5 and RHEL6. Those
>> packages can be found at:
>>
>> http://packages.sw.be/mock/
>
> Awesome. Are they different from F14 packages?

I don't know. It's trivial to find out, isn't ?

--
-- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/
-- dagit linux solutions, info@dagit.net, http://dagit.net/

[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010, Karanbir Singh wrote:

> On 11/25/2010 04:23 PM, Sergio Rubio wrote:
>> > I'm using a similar strategy, though my mock is older. I'll give
>> it a try.
>>
>> http://packages.sw.be/mock/
>>
>> Awesome. Are they different from F14 packages?
>> Thanks.
>
> Can you please take all this non-centos related stuff to a more relevant
> list please.

I'd consider this list to be the most relevant. In fact, this thread was
about CentOS, wasn't it ?

--
-- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/
-- dagit linux solutions, info@dagit.net, http://dagit.net/

[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On 25/11/2010 19:05, Dag Wieers wrote:
>> Can you please take all this non-centos related stuff to a more relevant
>> list please.
>
> I'd consider this list to be the most relevant. In fact, this thread was
> about CentOS, wasn't it ?
>

This is the centos-devel list, its focused around development issues in
and around centos. This thread has nothing to do with that.

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

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010, Karanbir Singh wrote:

> On 25/11/2010 19:05, Dag Wieers wrote:
>>> Can you please take all this non-centos related stuff to a more relevant
>>> list please.
>>
>> I'd consider this list to be the most relevant. In fact, this thread was
>> about CentOS, wasn't it ?
>
> This is the centos-devel list, its focused around development issues in
> and around centos. This thread has nothing to do with that.

The thread is about a conflict when rebuilding a RHEL source package,
which incidentally is what CentOS is doing. And the C in CentOS stands for
community, but it's very clear you don't want to have anything to do with
that.

Which I guess is your right.

--
-- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/
-- dagit linux solutions, info@dagit.net, http://dagit.net/

[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel