On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 15:59 -0500, Clark Williams wrote: > I don't have a problem with this. I'm not sure I buy the argument that > we need to do a clean of the chroot every time. Partially that's > because I do a lot of cross-tools stuff which requires that I keep a > chroot around for multiple builds. But even discounting that, I don't > see what building an srpm in a chroot can do that will corrupt the > chroot so that a subsequent build will fail or be incorrect. Mostly > you're in there because you want a particular set of binaries > (programs and libraries). Once those are installed, who cares if the > rpm database gets trashed or the passwd file has some crufty entries > in it? >
The clean is non-negotiable. Pollution of chroot is a big deal, especially in wanting to make sure we've created consistent and repeatable builds, not to mention security. As I mentioned to matt, Jochen, from several months ago, wrote a patch to do manual creation of a cached chroot so we could simply copy that image into place if it exists and run a 'yum update' on it to make sure it is current. The clean is important for consistent builds and we must always have a clean chroot for our builds of fedora. Moving away from that requirement in mock (w/o special options) is just setting up users for confusion and failure. > I'm not sure that I would consider the "failure stops everything" a > limitation, since it saves you having to dig through tons of log file > entries to find where the failure occurred (I never liked that make > option anyway :)). You could probably get away with removing the > sys.exit() in the for loop, but then you'd have to remember the exit > status, etc. failure should stop everything, especially for related but not _Required_ builds happening before. -sv -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
