On Mon, 2013-12-16 at 15:15 -0500, Stéphane Graber wrote: > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 03:05:11PM -0500, Michael H. Warfield wrote: > > On Mon, 2013-12-16 at 14:54 -0500, Stéphane Graber wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 02:30:29PM -0500, Dwight Engen wrote: > > > > On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 09:52:22 -0500 > > > > "Michael H. Warfield" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Ok... > > > > > > > > > > So I work on a lot of RHEL / CentOS / Fedora / SL / NST stuff. > > > > > Basically they're all rpm based systems. I generally test through the > > > > > rpms. i.e. I don't build from scratch, scratch, I rebuild rpm's for > > > > > myself and install from yum each time. It actually makes things > > > > > easier and, occasionally, I spot something that I realize is wrong > > > > > that wouldn't show up otherwise... > > > > > > > > > > I've been puzzling about something and I think now that the > > > > > lxc.spec.in file needs some loving care and updating. What I noticed > > > > > was that a number of posts refer to "lxc-ls --fancy" but my version > > > > > of lxc-ls is a bash script and doesn't have that option. That's from > > > > > src/lxc/legacy. There's the python script lxc-ls but that's not > > > > > getting installed in the rpm by the spec file. Installing by hand, > > > > > the Python lxc-ls gives me "python: lxc module not found" or some > > > > > such. > > > > > > > > Hi Mike, I also almost always just build an rpm and install it. The > > > > python > > > > stuff doesn't get built on Oracle Linux 6.5 (so I suspect it will be > > > > the same for RHEL, CentOS, SL etc., but not Fedora) because there is no > > > > python3 available, which is why the legacy lxc-ls gets included there. > > > > I'd think configure would get the newer stuff built on Fedora, but maybe > > > > the .spec isn't packaging it? > > > > > Up until this morning the python3 binding required an explicit > > > --enable-python passed to configure. I only fixed that specific issue > > > last night and have it now to auto-detection instead. > > > > Uh... So, if I understand this correctly, we're going to have > > functionality shifting depending on the presence of Python3? That ain't > > good. That means the same package built on Fedora 19 with Python3 > > installed is going to be materially different (command line behavior) > > than if it's built on CentOS6, which, like Oracle, has no Python3? > > Sigh... Not exactly the answer I wanted to hear.
> Right, that's making things consistent with pretty much all of our other > --enable-FEATURE flags which default to yes if the needed libraries are > present. > Lua was already behaving like that, so it made sense to make python3 do > the same. YEAH! Both of them! Once I added this: %define _with_python 1 %define _with_lua 1 to the top of lxc.spec.in then it all builds fine and I get the lua rpm as well. Proceeding with regression testing now. It builds on Fedora 19 but I need to test other builds, including Oracle, CentOS, and RHEL. Somehow, that feels too easy. I'm expecting it to go radioactive on those earlier revs. I feel like that needs an autoconf configure in it to switch it in building lxc.spec from lxc.spec.in but then you have a bit of a chicken and egg situation (but you do anyways where you have to run configure to generate the lxc.spec file before you can build the package). > Note that you can always force the value one way or another using > --enable-python or --disable-python. Yup. Got it. Thanks! Mike > > > > > Crap. That means the spec file has not been updated for all this API > > > > > stuff that's been going on and I'm not sure what needs to be updated > > > > > in there. I'd like to look at making those changes and bringing that > > > > > up to date ASAP before we go Beta (priority over a couple of other > > > > > putter projects) but I'd like some guidance over what's needed. I > > > > > fear it's more than just getting lxc-ls to the latest and greatest... > > > > > > > > I think it does make sense to update the .spec file and split out > > > > python into a separate pkg like the lua stuff is. > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > lxc-devel mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-devel > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > lxc-devel mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-devel > > > > -- > > Michael H. Warfield (AI4NB) | (770) 978-7061 | [email protected] > > /\/\|=mhw=|\/\/ | (678) 463-0932 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/ > > NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of > > all > > PGP Key: 0x674627FF | possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it! > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > lxc-devel mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-devel > > > _______________________________________________ > lxc-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-devel -- Michael H. Warfield (AI4NB) | (770) 978-7061 | [email protected] /\/\|=mhw=|\/\/ | (678) 463-0932 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/ NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all PGP Key: 0x674627FF | possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it!
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ lxc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-devel
