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 > Redhat > EPEL Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-20-2007, 08:29 PM
Michael E Brown
 
Default mock 0.8.9 for EPEL-5

On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 11:22:53PM +0200, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
> On 11/20/2007 09:53 PM, Michael E Brown wrote:
> >All,
> > Mock 0.8.9 is sitting in the upstream git repository. I have tested
> >this version on RHEL5, and it appears to work satisfactorily there. I
> >have fixed the last remaining issue that I have seen on RHEL.
> >
> >
> [...]
> I've been using version 0.8.7 in Fedora 7 since released and after being
> pointed to the new way of adding "-j 3" for parallel make, I am
> extremely happy with it. The speed difference is noticeable.

Thanks. I put a *lot* of work into making it faster.

> What I would have liked to see and I think that is worth including is a
> simple Readme with a couple of common examples on how to add options
> (the new way) to .conf files.

Good point to bring up: one of the things I've tried to do with mock
0.8.x is to keep the '/etc/mock/defaults.cfg' file up-to-date with the
latest config options that are available. So, if you want to know any of
the configuration file options that can be set, look in there and you
should see examples of how to configure them. All the options are either
self-explanatory, or have blurbs.

Also, I have tried very hard to keep the manpage up-to-date as well,
documenting all the cmdline switches. So, one of the areas that mock
0.8.x has improved is the documentation.

> Bottom line, I am very much in favor of including the new version in
> EPEL. I don't believe the few differences in config are worth forcing
> 7yrs worth of maintenance of the old (and broken) version.

Thanks.

--
Michael

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
 
Old 11-20-2007, 08:29 PM
Manuel Wolfshant
 
Default mock 0.8.9 for EPEL-5

On 11/20/2007 11:20 PM, Michael E Brown wrote:

On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 02:05:46PM -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:


Ok I am going to ask the harder question . How does this affect
RHEL-4 and such?



Does not affect RHEL4. I dont intend to upgrade mock in RHEL4 at this
time, as I dont have a box to test this out on. Nor do I think it worth
the effort to do so, as I doubt there are any users (or at least *very*
few, if any.)

I have to contradict you here. To my knowledge Centos 4 is quite popular
and even though lots of people have switched their devel boxes to C5 or
Fedora, those still using C4 need love, too.
To tell the truth the only reasons I've switched my workstation (which I
also use as devel box now) to C5 and later to Fedora were

- I could not obtain a decent application for C4 to manage my IPod nano
- gaim (aka pidgin) became very difficult to compile due to BRs for
versions of libraries not available in C4


_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
 
Old 11-20-2007, 08:35 PM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default mock 0.8.9 for EPEL-5

On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 03:02:11PM -0600, Michael E Brown wrote:
>
> Because the config format changed in Fedora and all of 3 people emailed
> me about it.

Looks like enough people to me, but...

> > But why not have just fixed the nasty bug only and leave the old mock?
>
> Mock in EPEL5 is 0.7.2. I have an *experimental* 0.7.7 patchset that
> has been verified to *not* fix the problem. The change from 0.7.2 to
> 0.7.7+patch to fix this is, in itself, a pretty large jump with several
> new features.

... in that case I guess you'll have to update. It doesn't looks like
very EPELish to me, but I understand the issues you are facing, and I
withdraw my opposition.

--
Pat

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
 
Old 11-20-2007, 08:42 PM
Michael E Brown
 
Default mock 0.8.9 for EPEL-5

On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 11:29:29PM +0200, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
> On 11/20/2007 11:20 PM, Michael E Brown wrote:
> >On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 02:05:46PM -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> >
> >>Ok I am going to ask the harder question . How does this affect
> >>RHEL-4 and such?
> >>
> >
> >Does not affect RHEL4. I dont intend to upgrade mock in RHEL4 at this
> >time, as I dont have a box to test this out on. Nor do I think it worth
> >the effort to do so, as I doubt there are any users (or at least *very*
> >few, if any.)
> >
> I have to contradict you here. To my knowledge Centos 4 is quite popular
> and even though lots of people have switched their devel boxes to C5 or
> Fedora, those still using C4 need love, too.

Yes, I know Centos 4 and RHEL4 are popular. My point was that I didnt
think that many people actually ran mock on them. I've gotten very
little in the way of feedback from people running mock on EL4. The vast
majority of people (that I know about) running mock do so on
Fedora-<recent>, or RHEL5.

As always, there are a very few people who might actually be running
mock there, I just havent heard from them.

If there is a large contingent of people running mock on EL-4, I would
be happy to update mock on EL-4 to latest if there is A) demand, and B)
somebody who is willing to test and (possibly) submit patches if there
are issues.
--
Michael

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
 
Old 11-20-2007, 08:42 PM
Manuel Wolfshant
 
Default mock 0.8.9 for EPEL-5

On 11/20/2007 11:29 PM, Michael E Brown wrote:

Good point to bring up: one of the things I've tried to do with mock
0.8.x is to keep the '/etc/mock/defaults.cfg' file up-to-date with the
latest config options that are available. So, if you want to know any of
the configuration file options that can be set, look in there and you
should see examples of how to configure them. All the options are either
self-explanatory, or have blurbs.


How about adding something along
"The included /etc/mock/defaults.cfg describes the new format of options
and is also a good example on how to add your own parameters "

to the bundled Readme and/or the man?


Also, I have tried very hard to keep the manpage up-to-date as well,
documenting all the cmdline switches. So, one of the areas that mock
0.8.x has improved is the documentation.

The man page was the first thing I've read (unlike my usual habit of
reading the man pages only as a last resort, when nothing else helps
). But since I am ... hum.. parallel to python, I needed the help of
ivazquez (thank you, again!) to see the light in

config_opts['macros']['%_smp_mflags']= '-j3'
Second thought, since testing parallel builds is mandatory for Fedora, I
think it would be nice to have the above line included by default
(commented out for compatibility with previous versions) in all repo
configs.



_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
 
Old 11-20-2007, 08:44 PM
Michael E Brown
 
Default mock 0.8.9 for EPEL-5

On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 10:35:54PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 03:02:11PM -0600, Michael E Brown wrote:
> >
> > Because the config format changed in Fedora and all of 3 people emailed
> > me about it.
>
> Looks like enough people to me, but...
>
> > > But why not have just fixed the nasty bug only and leave the old mock?
> >
> > Mock in EPEL5 is 0.7.2. I have an *experimental* 0.7.7 patchset that
> > has been verified to *not* fix the problem. The change from 0.7.2 to
> > 0.7.7+patch to fix this is, in itself, a pretty large jump with several
> > new features.
>
> ... in that case I guess you'll have to update. It doesn't looks like
> very EPELish to me, but I understand the issues you are facing, and I
> withdraw my opposition.

Thank you.

Based on the discussion, I will plan on pushing an update into testing
this week. I will send out another note once that has been done.

Thank you to everybody who contributed to the discussion, as well.
--
Michael

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
 
Old 11-20-2007, 08:44 PM
"Stephen John Smoogen"
 
Default mock 0.8.9 for EPEL-5

On Nov 20, 2007 2:29 PM, Manuel Wolfshant <wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro> wrote:
> On 11/20/2007 11:20 PM, Michael E Brown wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 02:05:46PM -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> >
> >> Ok I am going to ask the harder question . How does this affect
> >> RHEL-4 and such?
> >>
> >
> > Does not affect RHEL4. I dont intend to upgrade mock in RHEL4 at this
> > time, as I dont have a box to test this out on. Nor do I think it worth
> > the effort to do so, as I doubt there are any users (or at least *very*
> > few, if any.)
> >
> I have to contradict you here. To my knowledge Centos 4 is quite popular
> and even though lots of people have switched their devel boxes to C5 or
> Fedora, those still using C4 need love, too.

>From what I can tell with 3 sites, the numbers are the following:

60%+ EL-3
30%+ EL-4
5% + EL-5
5% other.

The EL-3 is going down and EL-4/5 are going up... 5 with new systems
and 4 with 3 systems that have software that is now tested for them.
The big thing with Enterprise systems is that they are very slow to
make changes. For one government lab, EL-4 is just reaching what they
consider stable.. 5 will be after a couple of dot releases so that
they know if its going to have big changes like EL-4 did early on.

The EL-3 still has new systems coming up on them. Mostly because it is
very stable and they want all the mail-servers running the same OS
until they move the next set of hardware/software fixes which will
probably go to 4. And a whole large project which uses some of the
same software is going on the same cycle but needs stuff that they get
from EL-4 and compile to 3.




--
Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
 
Old 11-20-2007, 08:44 PM
Rich Megginson
 
Default mock 0.8.9 for EPEL-5

Michael E Brown wrote:

On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 11:29:29PM +0200, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:


On 11/20/2007 11:20 PM, Michael E Brown wrote:


On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 02:05:46PM -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:



Ok I am going to ask the harder question . How does this affect
RHEL-4 and such?



Does not affect RHEL4. I dont intend to upgrade mock in RHEL4 at this
time, as I dont have a box to test this out on. Nor do I think it worth
the effort to do so, as I doubt there are any users (or at least *very*
few, if any.)


I have to contradict you here. To my knowledge Centos 4 is quite popular
and even though lots of people have switched their devel boxes to C5 or
Fedora, those still using C4 need love, too.



Yes, I know Centos 4 and RHEL4 are popular. My point was that I didnt
think that many people actually ran mock on them. I've gotten very
little in the way of feedback from people running mock on EL4. The vast
majority of people (that I know about) running mock do so on
Fedora-<recent>, or RHEL5.

As always, there are a very few people who might actually be running
mock there, I just havent heard from them.

I tried it - I had to hunt through the epel testing repo to find a
yum/mock that would actually work on rhel4. However, if I can happily
use fedora to build el4 packages with mock, then I would rather do that
than actually have to run el4 just to build packages.


So with mock 0.8.x, I can build el4 and el5 packages on fedora?

If there is a large contingent of people running mock on EL-4, I would
be happy to update mock on EL-4 to latest if there is A) demand, and B)
somebody who is willing to test and (possibly) submit patches if there
are issues.
--
Michael

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list



_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
 
Old 11-20-2007, 08:45 PM
Manuel Wolfshant
 
Default mock 0.8.9 for EPEL-5

On 11/20/2007 11:42 PM, Michael E Brown wrote:


If there is a large contingent of people running mock on EL-4, I would
be happy to update mock on EL-4 to latest if there is A) demand, and B)
somebody who is willing to test and (possibly) submit patches if there
are issues.
I do not know how many people run mock in EL-4 / Centos 4, but I
will be more than happy to help you testing. Maybe I also learn a bit of
python with this occasion...


_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
 
Old 11-20-2007, 08:46 PM
Michael E Brown
 
Default mock 0.8.9 for EPEL-5

On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 11:42:37PM +0200, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
> On 11/20/2007 11:29 PM, Michael E Brown wrote:
> >Good point to bring up: one of the things I've tried to do with mock
> >0.8.x is to keep the '/etc/mock/defaults.cfg' file up-to-date with the
> >latest config options that are available. So, if you want to know any of
> >the configuration file options that can be set, look in there and you
> >should see examples of how to configure them. All the options are either
> >self-explanatory, or have blurbs.
> >
> How about adding something along
> "The included /etc/mock/defaults.cfg describes the new format of options
> and is also a good example on how to add your own parameters "
> to the bundled Readme and/or the man?

Done. Thanks for the suggestion.

>
> >Also, I have tried very hard to keep the manpage up-to-date as well,
> >documenting all the cmdline switches. So, one of the areas that mock
> >0.8.x has improved is the documentation.
> >
> The man page was the first thing I've read (unlike my usual habit of
> reading the man pages only as a last resort, when nothing else helps
> ). But since I am ... hum.. parallel to python, I needed the help of
> ivazquez (thank you, again!) to see the light in
> config_opts['macros']['%_smp_mflags']= '-j3'
> Second thought, since testing parallel builds is mandatory for Fedora, I
> think it would be nice to have the above line included by default
> (commented out for compatibility with previous versions) in all repo
> configs.

There is a head-scratcher. I *thought* that it was rpmbuild's
responsibility to automatically detect the number of processors in the
system and add this flag, if necessary.

I'll ask about it in #fedora-devel.
--
Michael

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:02 AM.

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