OK, that makes perfect sense. Thanks for the history lesson :-P Since I always prefer to build everything myself, I'm just now looking into your mockbuild.pl script, since I am also profoundly lazy and want to automate all the stuff I just spent the week hacking on by hand.
Can I expect that to work? I found a few of your older blog posts about it, but I also know that a LOT has happened lately with automated builds for OpenAFS, and I want to make sure I'm not spending time on something that's been abandoned. It certainly looks like what I need. I will have a list of kernels I care about, and I will want to be able to quickly rebuild a complete set of binary kmod-openafs-* rpms based on whatever release of patched source tree is interesting. On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Simon Wilkinson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 8 Oct 2010, at 11:37, Phillip Moore wrote: > > > No, the problem is that the openafs.spec file behaves a little wierd for > the i386 and i686 targets. I confess to not really understand the practical > difference here. > > Historically, all RedHat operating systems built userspace binaries for the > i386 architecture, and kernel modules for i586 and i686. Due to the way that > RPM worked, that would require two passes, one for the i386 target and the > other for i686. As it was most likely that if you were building for i386 you > wanted the user space, and for i686 that you wanted kernel modules, the spec > file was wired that way. > > This is all changing, though. Current Fedoras build all packages for i686 > (in the same way as happens for x86_64), so we should probably change the > spec file to not have this default behaviour. All of the OpenAFS builds come > through the build system, which overrides the spec file defaults, which is > why we haven't noticed these problems. > > Patches are, as always, welcome! > > S. > >
