Re: How to handel spinning when i686 versions of packages don't make it into the updates repo?
On Mon, 2010-01-04 at 18:08 -0500, Mike McLean wrote: > Is there a mechanism to remove 'fallen' multilib packages? If not, > couldn't there be update errors? For that matter, what if the lingering > older multilib package contains a security flaw? > > My apologies if this has been discussed to death elsewhere. It is not often that this situation happens, and usually we take a second look at the type of update going in, and whether or not it would be suitable as an update to a stable Fedora release. Alas we cannot always detect this before the push goes live (autoqa will fix this, I hope). I do not know if the stale multilib version gets cleaned up or not. I think there is some code to handle it at anaconda upgrade time where this type of scenario is more likely to occur. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: How to handel spinning when i686 versions of packages don't make it into the updates repo?
On Mon, 2010-01-04 at 11:11 -0500, Mike McLean wrote: > On 12/30/2009 02:05 AM, William F. Acker WB2FLW +1 303 722 7209 wrote: > > I've always noticed that when a package is updated, sometimes the i686 > > version isn't put into the x86_64 repo for updates. As a workaround, I > > Can you give some examples? If multilib content is inconsistent across > updates then we really ought to sort that out. > Multilib set is dynamically determined each compose. If the package itself changes in a way that no longer triggers the multilib algorithm, then it will fall out of being multilib. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: Can I avoid the ppc builder?
On Sun, 2009-12-06 at 10:27 -0500, David Juran wrote: > Hello. > > Is there a way I can keep my builds away from the ppc builders? I'm trying to > push an update to my noarch (java) package > (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1847061) but it seems to > end up on a ppc64 builder and fail miserably )-: > Now I promise I will try to dig in to the root cause of the build failure > but since ppc no longer is a primary architecture, the failed build on PPC > shouldn't hold up the release on the primary architectures. > Not really, that is a bit of a problem. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: Signing RPMs
On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 09:38 +0100, Steve Traylen wrote: > The full edited script is here > > http://cern.ch/steve.traylen/tmp/oat-sign_unsigned.py > > is there something else I need to change? The traceback is looking in the dict of your key for a size, as gpg keys can come in many sizes and shapes, the script acts differently depending on the size of the key. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: Adding builders without NFS access
On Sep 28, 2009, at 9:39, Josh Boyer wrote: Hi All, I believe that currently any koji builder needs to have read-only access to /mnt/koji, normally realized by NFS mounting. I am wondering if there is a way to add builders to a koji instance without requiring this. In my thinking, this essentially means that all builders must be colocated in the same lab. That is a bit unfortunate, given that adding builders outside of the local lab is one of the things that could really help a secondary arch. Has any work gone into not requiring /mnt/koji to the builders? Thanks, josh -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list Should be fine if you take them out of the createrepo channel -- Jes -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: [PATCH] pungi: Fix dependency resolution to recurse properly.
On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 11:22 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > It wasn't properly recusing in the --selfhosting or --fulltree cases > before, leading to potenial broken deps. > > Applied and built on rawhide. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: mock rpmdb version issue with epel-5-i386 target
On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 12:26 -0400, Mike McLean wrote: > It is unfortunate that this incompatibility was introduced in rpm, but > it was for a good reason -- sha256 sums replaced semi-insecure md5sums. Note that you'll have rpmdb mismatches even when creating an EL5 chroot on EL5, if you create an i386 chroot on an x86_64 host. Just that difference is enough to cause rpmdb mismatches. A work around if you must work within the chroot is to remove the db cache, rm -f /var/lib/rpm/__db* -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: mock tarball download
On Fri, 2009-09-04 at 16:41 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote: > here's where they [c|sh]ould be: > https://fedorahosted.org/releases/m/o/mock/ > > but they don't appear to have been uploaded there. We've been lazy about putting the tarball up, since we do releases from git tags. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: Koji and Signing RPMS
On Wed, 2009-08-19 at 12:02 -0400, Mike McLean wrote: > On 08/19/2009 05:08 AM, Greg Trahair wrote: > > I'm using Koji in combination with Mash to create rpms, but at the > > moment I'm not signing them and I need to start that now. I'm finding > > it quite hard to find any way that the koji/mash combination can do this > > without me having to create my own mechanism. > > Koji does not have an internal signing mechanism. It tracks signatures > and can store differently signed copies of the same rpm efficiently, but > it does not create signatures. > > If you import a signed rpm, koji will import the signature. You can > import signatures for an rpm later by using the import-sig subcommand. > > The basic tool for signing rpms is rpm itself. > http://docs.fedoraproject.org/drafts/rpm-guide-en/ch11s04.html > > To sign an rpm from koji, you should make a copy of the file, sign it > with the appropriate rpm command, and import the signature. Fedora > rel-eng has a script to help automate this. Note that you should not > simply sign the file directly under /mnt/koji, as this causes an > inconsistency between the filesystem and the database (hence the copy step). > > https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/browser/scripts/sign_unsigned.py A recent project was started to create a secure signing server for doing these types of operations: https://fedorahosted.org/sigul/ https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/browser/scripts/sigulsign_unsigned.py has been written to use the sigul setup. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: Using koji to build Fedora ppc on i386
On Sun, 2009-08-16 at 23:42 -0700, NGUYEN VAN TAN wrote: > I'm wondering there is possible to build Fedora 9 PPC on an I386 Fedora 9 by > using koji. > If it is possible how to configure koji to do that. Not easily possible. You'd have to be running koji under qemu and make sure all launched process are under qemu, which will make it extremely slow. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: pungi recent bug
On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 15:38 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote: > so if the dep is just 'Requires: wormux-data' then pungi/yum is doing the > right thing by pulling in all arches of the same pkg. Much like it would > do for glibc.i586, i686, etc. > > version-specific Requires would, i think, fix it. > > other suggestions welcome. Only thing I could come up with is some hack in pungi to consider noarch and any other binary arch the same enough so that you only get the highest n-v-r in those cases. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: pungi recent bug
On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 15:12 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote: > > If you add a version-specific dep for wormux-data to the wormux > package > does the problem go away? > > and why do we have 2 wormux-data's in the tree? One is likely in the Everything tree, and another in the updates tree. One is i586, one is noarch. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: pungi recent bug
On Sat, 2009-08-01 at 03:21 +0100, Sergio Monteiro Basto wrote: > On Sun, 2009-07-19 at 10:57 +0100, Sergio Monteiro Basto wrote: > > > > That's the log I can get for wormux. > > > > > > > > > > > > So you exclude wormux but not wormux-data? > > yes, to just exclude wormux, I think just appears wormux in duplicates > > and also is enough to solve the duplicated. > > Hi, updating the information : > > I build pungi-2.0.16 reverting this commit : > http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/pungi.git?p=pungi.git;a=commitdiff_plain;h=44c4028447884828e01ff3769962011bc53c428d > and can confirm this commit is the one which breaks my "builds" . > > About seeing logs, I just found extend logs recently and if you want see > it too: http://sergiomb.no-ip.org/f11/logs/i386.log > > Analyzing logs: > wormux-data is repeated and not detect by checkduplicated because one > is .i586 and other is .noarch (for example in 64 bits I can have same > package in .i586 and in .x86_64 and they aren't duplicated) > > Pungi.INFO: Checking deps of wormux.i586 > yum.verbose.YumBase.DEBUG: Matched wormux-data-0.8.2-5.fc11.i586 to require > for wormux-data > yum.verbose.YumBase.DEBUG: Matched wormux-data-0.8.3-1.fc11.noarch to require > for wormux-data > Pungi.INFO: Added wormux-data.noarch for wormux.i586 > Pungi.INFO: Added wormux-data.i586 for wormux.i586 > > this looks (to me) wrong. > > hope that can help > Thanks, Ah, that's interesting. Since the arch changed, using the yum API call to find the best matches by arch means we'll get both matches. I'll need to look into that and work with seth to find a better API call to use here. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: Creating a custom distro with pungi
On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 20:44 +0200, Julian Aloofi wrote:
> I'm currently trying to create a custom distro with pungi. More
> precisely, I've been using rpm -qa --qf="%{n}\n" to create a list of
> packages currently installed on my system, added the needed repos
> (rpmfusion-free, rpmfusion-free-updates and adobe-linux-i386) and built
> a kickstart file out of this. Now I have some questions, and it's pretty
> hard to find any documentation about that, so I thought I'd just ask on
> this list.
>
> 1.)How can I specify which packages should be installed by default?
> The packages in my kickstart file get added, but don't get installed by
> default. I figured out that it had something to do with some xml files,
> but what exactly do I have to do to, for example, install all packages
> from the kickstart file by default? I'm not so comfortable with anaconda
> and repo files, so please mention file locations if I have to edit some
> files.
You would have to modify the comps xml file to list the packages you
wish installed and set them to manditory or default. The graphical
package selection is generated via this file which lists the various
categories, groups, and packages within the groups.
> 2.)How can I replace fedora-logos, fedora-release and
> fedora-release-notes with generic-logos, generic-release and
> generic-release-notes? I tried to exclude them from repos in the
> kickstart file and excluding them from the package manifest, however it
> didn't work.
>
This I'm not familiar with, I haven't tried doing it with pungi. I'd
have to look a bit deeper into it.
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--
Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list
Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: pungi recent bug
On Jul 18, 2009, at 15:46, Sergio Monteiro Basto > wrote: Hi, On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 14:44 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 21:35 +0100, Sergio Monteiro Basto wrote: Hi, I am trying http://sergiomb.no-ip.org/pungi/confs/buildiso-f11.sh with pungi-2.0.16-1.fc11 don't obey to less like: -wormux-0.8.2-5.fc11.i586 I saw on changelog: 2.0.14-1 - Fix package excludes in kickstart files Pungi treats the -foo entries much like kickstart does now, in that it won't actively /select/ that package, but the package could still be brought in due to dependencies. Check your pungi logs to see when/ where wormux is being brought in. Well , when I pungi fedora11 with updates, many packages appears duplicated on dir Packages, and this is the root of the problem. For example, now, when I updated with latest updates, the dir packages contains: plplot-5.9.2-4.fc11.i586 plplot-5.9.4-1.fc11.i586 plplot-devel-5.9.2-4.fc11.i586 plplot-devel-5.9.4-1.fc11.i586 plplot-libs-5.9.2-4.fc11.i586 plplot-libs-5.9.4-1.fc11.i586 qmf-0.5.752600-5.fc11.i586 qmf-0.5.790661-1.fc11.i586 qpidc-0.5.752600-5.fc11.i586 qpidc-0.5.790661-1.fc11.i586 The updated and the original (from fedora11 release), to workaround this issues , I put -plplot-5.9.2-4.fc11.i586 on .ks, which btw stops to work in latest pungi. I don't think that the old version 5.9.2-4 is need it any more. So who I build a repo without duplicated ? that my goal. Thanks, -- Sérgio M. B. -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list Hrm that may be a bug. Pungi is only supposed to grab the latest version of a package but since I mostly test on rawhide I may have misses this bug -- Jes -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: pungi recent bug
On Jul 18, 2009, at 16:01, Sergio Monteiro Basto > wrote: BTW : my builds can be found on http://sergiomb.no-ip.org/pungi/11/ when I'm not building a new one :) On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 14:44 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: Check your pungi logs to see when/where wormux is being brought in. Pungi:INFO: Checking deps of wormux-data.noarch Pungi:INFO: Added wormux.i586 for wormux-data.noarch Pungi:INFO: Checking deps of wormux.i586 Pungi:INFO: Added wormux-data.noarch for wormux.i586 Pungi:INFO: Added wormux-data.i586 for wormux.i586 Pungi:INFO: Checking deps of wormux-data.i586 Pungi:INFO: Added wormux.i586 for wormux-data.i586 Pungi:INFO: Checking deps of wormux.i586 and Pungi:INFO: Download list: [(...) u'wormux-data.i586', u'wormux-data.noarch', u'wormux.i586', u'wormux.i586', (...) ] That's the log I can get for wormux. Thanks, -- Sérgio M. B. -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list So you exclude wormux but not wormux-data? -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: pungi recent bug
On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 21:35 +0100, Sergio Monteiro Basto wrote: > Hi, > I am trying http://sergiomb.no-ip.org/pungi/confs/buildiso-f11.sh > with pungi-2.0.16-1.fc11 don't obey to less like: > -wormux-0.8.2-5.fc11.i586 > > I saw on changelog: > 2.0.14-1 - Fix package excludes in kickstart files Pungi treats the -foo entries much like kickstart does now, in that it won't actively /select/ that package, but the package could still be brought in due to dependencies. Check your pungi logs to see when/where wormux is being brought in. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: mock gid
On Thu, 2009-07-09 at 14:24 +0530, Jitesh Shah wrote: > I see some code in mock that picks up the mockuser uid/gid from the host > machine. why is it so? > > I ask because recently, we came across some issues while building in > koji where the builds failed with this : > DEBUG util.py:280: Executing command: ['/usr/sbin/groupadd', '-g', '499', > 'mockbuild'] > DEBUG util.py:256: groupadd: GID 499 is not unique > DEBUG util.py:319: Child returncode was: 4 > (http://arm.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=45343&name=root.log) > > GID 499 is already taken (in this case, by avahi). > What is a good way to workaround this problem? > > Regards, > Jitesh > > (PS: I am not sure whether this is the right place to ask mock-related > questions. Let me know if I need to redirect it to the mock community) > I do believe it picks the mock uid/gid from the host system so that the correct write permissions exist inside the chroot, particularly for doing things as non-root such as the rpm build. Perhaps we need to do the group addition step before we install the BuildRequirements. I assume that avahi picks a somewhat random UID when it installs itself? -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: [PATCH 5/8] Remove obsolete code.
On Fri, 2009-04-03 at 15:53 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Signed-off-by: Bill Nottingham > --- > src/pypungi/__init__.py |2 -- > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/src/pypungi/__init__.py b/src/pypungi/__init__.py > index 3271f26..bd57bf8 100644 > --- a/src/pypungi/__init__.py > +++ b/src/pypungi/__init__.py > @@ -424,8 +424,6 @@ class Pungi(pypungi.PungiBase): > """Make the package lists self hosting. Requires yum > still configured, a list of package objects, and a > a list of source rpms.""" > -for srpm in self.srpmpolist: > -self.ayum.tsInfo.addInstall(srpm) > deppass = 1 > checked_srpms = [] > while 1: The patch set fails to apply from here out. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: bind-mounting files in mock
On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 10:37 -0500, Clark Williams wrote: > It's not described in the man page, so I'm a bit leery about depending > on that behavior. That being said, it's not a normal use-case for mock > builds, so it'll probably only bite the livecd creation stuff it the > bind-mount behavior changes. > > Ok, I'll pull it in for the next release. I need that functionality too when building install images. Rather than see more and different code paths when chroot generating, I think there would be some value in using the same code path regardless of how the chroot is used. I think the bind mounting of dev/ is only there for the loop entries, I don't know of any other mock consumers that require a real /dev/ tree. We might consider just always file bind mounting a few loop entries in and only having one code path. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Mock patch to use hosts timezone info in the chroot (try 3)
GRRR. git format-patch and /then/ git send-email. *sigh* Here is a third attempt at sending the patch. -- Jes -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
[PATCH] Copy the hosts tzdata (/etc/localtime) into the chroot
---
py/mock/backend.py |7 +++
1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/py/mock/backend.py b/py/mock/backend.py
index 2bc63df..86b3fb7 100644
--- a/py/mock/backend.py
+++ b/py/mock/backend.py
@@ -263,6 +263,13 @@ class Root(object):
# create rpmbuild dir
self._buildDirSetup()
+# set up timezone to match host
+localtimedir = self.makeChrootPath('etc')
+localtimepath = self.makeChrootPath('etc', 'localtime')
+if os.path.exists(localtimepath):
+os.remove(localtimepath)
+shutil.copy2('/etc/localtime', localtimedir)
+
# done with init
self._callHooks('postinit')
--
1.6.0.6
--
Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list
Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
[PATCH] Copy the hosts tzdata (/etc/localtime) into the chroot
---
py/mock/backend.py |7 +++
1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/py/mock/backend.py b/py/mock/backend.py
index 2bc63df..6c9bb6e 100644
--- a/py/mock/backend.py
+++ b/py/mock/backend.py
@@ -263,6 +263,13 @@ class Root(object):
# create rpmbuild dir
self._buildDirSetup()
+# set up timezone to match host
+localtimedir = self.makeChrootPath('etc')
+localtimepath = self.makeChrootPath('etc', 'localtime')
+if os.path.exists(resolvpath):
+os.remove(resolvpath)
+shutil.copy2('/etc/localtime', localtimedir)
+
# done with init
self._callHooks('postinit')
--
1.6.0.6
--
Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list
Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Mock patch to use hosts timezone info in the chroot (try 2)
Another try at this. I noticed I used the wrong variable and could have wound up removing /etc/resolv.conf by accident. -- Jes -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
[PATCH] Copy the hosts tzdata (/etc/localtime) into the chroot
---
py/mock/backend.py |7 +++
1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/py/mock/backend.py b/py/mock/backend.py
index 2bc63df..6c9bb6e 100644
--- a/py/mock/backend.py
+++ b/py/mock/backend.py
@@ -263,6 +263,13 @@ class Root(object):
# create rpmbuild dir
self._buildDirSetup()
+# set up timezone to match host
+localtimedir = self.makeChrootPath('etc')
+localtimepath = self.makeChrootPath('etc', 'localtime')
+if os.path.exists(resolvpath):
+os.remove(resolvpath)
+shutil.copy2('/etc/localtime', localtimedir)
+
# done with init
self._callHooks('postinit')
--
1.6.0.6
--
Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list
Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Mock patch to use hosts timezone info in the chroot
This patch copies the host /etc/localtime into the chroot. This allows the chroot to have the same timezone info as the host, which plays into timestamps and such. -- Jes -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
[Fwd: [PATCH] Use hashlib if available instead of md5]
Forwarded Message
From: Tom "spot" Callaway
To: Jesse Keating
Subject: [PATCH] Use hashlib if available instead of md5
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 17:18:32 -0500
This patch converts all calls of md5 function to use hashlib if present.
The old md5 function is deprecated in Python 2.6, and this silences the
warning messages (along with providing a slight performance improvement).
Please apply to rawhide. :)
~spot
plain text document attachment (koji-use-hashlib-if-available.patch)
From 4c76e7ee1f56057d77b0e7e9f0422e7eabedbf10 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tom "spot" Callaway
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 17:15:31 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] Convert all calls of md5 function to use hashlib if present
(Python 2.6 change).
---
builder/kojid|8 ++--
cli/koji |8 ++--
hub/kojihub.py | 25 -
koji/__init__.py |8 ++--
www/kojiweb/index.py |9 +++--
5 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/builder/kojid b/builder/kojid
index b7900db..fe72fdc 100755
--- a/builder/kojid
+++ b/builder/kojid
@@ -33,7 +33,6 @@ import errno
import glob
import logging
import logging.handlers
-import md5
import os
import pprint
import pwd
@@ -242,7 +241,12 @@ def incrementalUpload(fname, fd, path, retries=5,
logger=None):
break
data = base64.encodestring(contents)
-digest = md5.new(contents).hexdigest()
+try:
+import hashlib
+digest = hashlib.md5(contents).hexdigest()
+except ImportError:
+import md5
+digest = md5.new(contents).hexdigest()
del contents
tries = 0
diff --git a/cli/koji b/cli/koji
index 0ec732f..40974c7 100755
--- a/cli/koji
+++ b/cli/koji
@@ -31,7 +31,6 @@ import base64
import koji
import koji.util
import fnmatch
-import md5
import os
import re
import pprint
@@ -1173,7 +1172,12 @@ def handle_import_sig(options, session, args):
previous = session.queryRPMSigs(rpm_id=rinfo['id'], sigkey=sigkey)
assert len(previous) <= 1
if previous:
-sighash = md5.new(sighdr).hexdigest()
+try:
+import hashlib
+sighash = hashlib.md5(sighdr).hexdigest()
+except ImportError:
+import md5
+sighash = md5.new(sighdr).hexdigest()
if previous[0]['sighash'] == sighash:
print _("Signature already imported: %s") % path
continue
diff --git a/hub/kojihub.py b/hub/kojihub.py
index 8a24bec..0965243 100644
--- a/hub/kojihub.py
+++ b/hub/kojihub.py
@@ -32,7 +32,6 @@ import logging
import logging.handlers
import fcntl
import fnmatch
-import md5
import os
import pgdb
import random
@@ -3535,7 +3534,12 @@ def add_rpm_sig(an_rpm, sighdr):
#we use the sigkey='' to represent unsigned in the db (so that
uniqueness works)
else:
sigkey = koji.hex_string(sigkey[13:17])
-sighash = md5.new(sighdr).hexdigest()
+try:
+import hashlib
+sighash = hashlib.md5(sighdr).hexdigest()
+except ImportError:
+import md5
+sighash = md5.new(sighdr).hexdigest()
rpm_id = rinfo['id']
# - db entry
q = """SELECT sighash FROM rpmsigs WHERE rpm_id=%(rpm_id)i AND
sigkey=%(sigkey)s"""
@@ -4771,8 +4775,14 @@ class RootExports(object):
if size is not None:
if size != len(contents): return False
if md5sum is not None:
-if md5sum != md5.new(contents).hexdigest():
-return False
+try:
+import hashlib
+if md5sum != hashlib.md5(contents).hexdigest():
+return False
+except ImportError:
+import md5
+if md5sum != md5.new(contents).hexdigest():
+return False
uploadpath = koji.pathinfo.work()
#XXX - have an incoming dir and move after upload complete
# SECURITY - ensure path remains under uploadpath
@@ -4831,7 +4841,12 @@ class RootExports(object):
fcntl.lockf(fd, fcntl.LOCK_UN)
if md5sum is not None:
#check final md5sum
-sum = md5.new()
+try:
+import hashlib
+sum = hashlib.md5()
+except ImportError:
+import md5
+sum = md5.new()
fcntl.lockf(fd, fcntl.LOCK_SH|fcntl.LOCK_NB)
try:
# log_error("checking md5sum")
diff --git a/koji/__init__.py b/koji/__init__.py
index 6e04cb3..89e9783 100644
--- a/koji/__init__.py
+++ b/koji/__init__.py
@@
Re: change in --copyin?
On Sun, 2009-02-01 at 10:17 -0600, Clark Williams wrote: > > Jesse is having an issue with --copyin; he's getting a permission > denied when trying to copy the system /etc/hosts to the > chroot /etc/hosts. This is due to the uidManager.dropPrivsForever() > near the top of the --copyin logic block. My question is, do we need to > drop privs there? Seems kinda crippling to --copyin if you can only > copy stuff to /tmp or the homedir in the chroot. > > Or is allowing modification of the chroot environment a security issue > we're not willing to live with? Can we check to see if mock has been > kicked off as root (or does the pam helper logic neuter that)? Hrm, this is kind of scary, mock is trying to prevent this action? The weird thing is that an error is reported that the action was not allowed, yet the end result is that the file is indeed copied. So if we're trying to prevent it, we're not doing a good job. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: [PATCH 1,2/2] pungi patches
On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 03:17 +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > That's only in splittree, which I presume is only executed for split > media, right? Yeah, I see now that it has to be done in both places. I forgot how the DVD mkisofs call was done, and I was only tested the split media stuff last night. Good catch. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: [PATCH 1,2/2] pungi patches
On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 17:56 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 02:39 +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > > 0001) Do not include boot.iso on any disc, per > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-January/msg02070.html > > 1 was already done upstream, > https://fedorahosted.org/pungi/changeset/972240b9729dc023dff6a5ea519f2a55944b8c08 > > Boot.iso needs to not be in the splitdirs that splittree will make or > else the size estimation that splittree does will be off, and the first > CD won't use up the extra space. I think I see why your patch may be needed, boot.iso may still wind up on the DVD here. Looking closer. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: [PATCH 1,2/2] pungi patches
On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 02:39 +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > 0001) Do not include boot.iso on any disc, per > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-January/msg02070.html 1 was already done upstream, https://fedorahosted.org/pungi/changeset/972240b9729dc023dff6a5ea519f2a55944b8c08 Boot.iso needs to not be in the splitdirs that splittree will make or else the size estimation that splittree does will be off, and the first CD won't use up the extra space. > 0002) the more cosmetic patch, I just so happened to see this; extraargs > had two append() calls while "-o" and isofile were meant to be together. > The patch makes this one extend call so that no accidents happen when > someone inserts a line in between. Thanks, I'll apply that. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Koji support for larger gpg rpm signatures
As part of our sha-256 efforts, we're trying to sign rpms with a sha-2 digest. I'm attempting to sign packages with a RSA key that is size 4096, the biggest possible. However I'm running into problems importing this into koji, due to my local signing software haven stolen come code from koji to determine what the sigkey is. The koji code makes an assumption about where the key ID exists in the signature header, and it seems this assumption is wrong when larger keys are used. Mitr who has been helping me says that for a quick hack, when getting the key chunk out of the hex, we can assume that sigkey[13:17] works if sigkey[0] is 0x88, but if 0 is 0x89, we have to go to 14:18. This comes up a few times in koji code, so I thought some discussion was in order before setting off to make a patch. Is there anything better we can do instead of snaking raw data out of headers? -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: Koji feature proposals
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 08:42 +0100, Oliver Falk wrote: > Alright. I got it now - I think :-) > > So a build in koji will produce a noarch package for every arch. And > then you need to decide which noarch package to take and how to find out > if there are (arch specific) differences in those "noarch's", right? Yep! You got it now. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: Koji feature proposals
On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 17:23 +0100, Oliver Falk wrote: > > OKOK. I thought rpmbuild will automagically produce arch-specific and > noarch packages in 'one step'... It will, for one arch. You do a rpmbuild --rebuild foo (on x86_64) and it'll spit out x86_64 binary packages and potentially a noarch package. What we care about is doing the same command on i386 and generating i386 packages and a noarch package, having the i386 produced noarch package match the x86_64 produced noarch package. To the best of my knowledge there is no way to convince rpmbuild to produce both i386 /and/ x86_64 packages in the same run. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: Koji feature proposals
On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 09:08 +0100, Oliver Falk wrote: > Yet another post install section processing script (YAPISPS) :-) > > And yes, if it's not really noarch, it should fail. But shouldn't rpm > itself check that? I mean, if someone writes a script to check that it > should possibly go directly into rpm upstream sources... rpm itself only ever builds for one target at a time, so a script to check to see if what was produced from one target build is different from another target build doesn't necessarily make sense in rpm sources, at least not something ran automated. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: Can pungi put packages in the iso that are not installed?
On Tue, 2008-12-23 at 15:22 -0600, Joe Nall wrote: > I was trying to avoid maintaining 2 ks files. I solved the problem by > using sed to create an install ks from the pungi ks. Just curious, can I ask what output of pungi you're using and how you're doing the install? -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: Can pungi put packages in the iso that are not installed?
On Tue, 2008-12-23 at 14:53 -0500, Yaakov Nemoy wrote: > 2008/12/23 Jesse Keating : > > On Tue, 2008-12-23 at 08:01 -0600, Joe Nall wrote: > >> Sorry, I wasn't clear. Not an interactive install. > > > > Doesn't matter. Put the packages in the ks file you feed pungi and > > they'll wind up in the compose, regardless if they get used later. > > Would this require a second ks file that omits the package name, for > the automated install, so that it will be on the media, but not > actually installed by default? > There is no requirement that the ks file you use to compose is the same ks file you use to install. In fact, them being so is somewhat silly, as if you have a local mirror, just do your installs over the network, instead of doing a compose and then installing from media. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: Can pungi put packages in the iso that are not installed?
On Tue, 2008-12-23 at 08:01 -0600, Joe Nall wrote: > Sorry, I wasn't clear. Not an interactive install. Doesn't matter. Put the packages in the ks file you feed pungi and they'll wind up in the compose, regardless if they get used later. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: Can pungi put packages in the iso that are not installed?
On Mon, 2008-12-22 at 22:29 -0600, Joe Nall wrote: > Can pungi put packages/groups in the iso that are not installed? > > Context: I'm building spin using pungi that includes packages that get > installed in a second pass in a manner similar to firstboot. The > packages require a number of services to be running to properly > configure themselves and can't be grouped in the initial install. > I want to include the packages in the repo, but not install them until > the system has more services running. Sure! Just make sure they are in the %packages section of your pungi kickstart file and pungi will make sure they're on the install tree/media. Whether or not the user can select them during the initial install is of no concern of Pungi's. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: Pungi 2.0 in F9
On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 09:49 -0500, Bryan Kearney wrote: > Are there any plans to bring 2.0 back into F9? I am working on an > appliance building tool which sits on top of pungi, appliance-creator, > EC2, and some other tools. I have it working on F10... but the API is > readically different then from F9. I have no plans to backport it. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: distro build by pungi has got something wrong with the fontconfig
On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 16:09 +0800, 陈鲍孜 wrote: > > and i have checked the stage2.img. it seems there is no /usr/share/fonts/ > directory. i think it is something wrong with anaconda-runtime, but i don't > know where. It sounds like your package manifest (%packages) isn't including the right set of fonts. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: confused about the relationship between koji and pungi (Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams)
On Sun, 2008-11-30 at 10:50 +0800, 陈鲍孜 wrote: > Thank you. > So, what do they actually work for? > Or in other way, what workflow should we follow when building the distro > with koji and pungi? Koji is used to build the rpms, mash is used to pull the rpms out of koji and create yum repositories out of them. Pungi uses the yum repositories to make installable trees. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: F10 KS file not in latest Pungi.
On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 18:00 -0700, William F. Acker WB2FLW +1 303 722 7209 wrote: > > Maybe it's easier than I thought. I just did a diff on the f9 and > rawhide files on my F9 system. The only differences are the repos and the > comment at the top. I suppose someone should push a new Pungi for > completeness, but I think I'm good to go. pungi won't be shipping configs for releases anymore, just a reference config for Rawhide. the spin-kickstarts package is where the configs used to produce Fedora will be. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: Trying to figure out some umask issues
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 12:32 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > Here's a package from a recent review: > http://www.math.uh.edu/~tibbs/rpms/cave9-0.3-2.bog9.src.rpm > > When build locally, the included file /usr/bin/cave9 has mode 0775. > When built in koji > (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=924911) the file > has mode 0755. > > My local machine has mock-0.9.9-1.fc9.noarch. I am using the caching > stuff, and my configuration files have been modified to point to local > package mirrors and to set basedir to /mock which is a 10G tmpfs with > the same permissions as /var/lib/mock. Those permissions happen to be > 2775; that's probably coincidental but I guess you never know. I think the main point to take away from this is that relying on umask of systems to set the permissions of your files correctly is fragile at best, dangerous at worst. Umask can and does change from host to host so the build output is unreliable. Permissions in package builds should be set explicitly at either the %install phase or the %files phase. This likely needs a big sweeping cleanup action on our existing packages, but catching this on new packages is a start. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: Trying to figure out some umask issues
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 08:14 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > Well, yes, but obviously (755,root,root,755) doesn't work all that > well, because then all files are executable. (-,root,root,755) would > be OK, I guess, but of course that wouldn't have any bearing on the > problem I'm seeing. IIRC you can have multiple defatters that you can use per-file for ultimate control over the permissions/ownership of each individual file. Most packages don't do this, and instead set permissions at the %install stage, either by how they call /usr/bin/install or by settings in makefiles for make install. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: Trying to figure out some umask issues
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 03:08 -0500, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote: > (file permissions, user ownership, group ownership, directory > permissions) That's what I get for answering something after midnight without looking it up in the manual. Thanks! -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: Trying to figure out some umask issues
On Sun, 2008-11-09 at 22:26 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > "(-.root,root,-)" is quite I do believe that sets it to "whatever owner permissions the file has on the filesystem, root owner, root group, whatever group permissions it has on the filesystem" or something close to that effect. In other words, it's forcing ownership, but not permissions. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: automated signing of rpms in koji
On Fri, 2008-10-17 at 18:21 -0500, Paul B Schroeder wrote: > > Looking for a bit of help.. I'm not quite sure how to do the above and > don't see any real doco on doing so either. Basically, how do I get my > packages to be signed with each build with my GPG key in koji? > > I see "import-sig" and "write-signed-rpm", but am not 100% certain how > they work. And am not sure that they provide a way for my rpm builds to > be signed automatically. There is no way to do this within Koji itself. You'd have to do it using some other software that interacts with the API calls you mentioned. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: [PATCH] new pungi command line options
On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 14:08 -0500, Paul B Schroeder wrote: > In my kickstart config, the %include files are all generated in %pre > and don't exist at compose time, thus "--ignore-missing-includes". > And I have no repo lines defined in my ks.cfg either, so the --repo-* > options allow you to specify or add repo info from the command line. > > --repo-baseurl=REPO BASEURL >repository name and base URL to use > --repo-mirrorlist=REPO MIRRORLIST >repository name and mirrorlist URL to use > --ignore-missing-includes >ignore missing %include files in the kickstart > config Rather than throw more command line options at the problems, I wonder if it would make more sense to make the kickstart parsing gracefully handle and warn about missing includes. I also really don't like doing repo declaration via the command line arguments, but I'll think on this one a bit more. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: [PATCH] internal setarch support for s390/s390x
On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 16:10 -0400, Mike McLean wrote: > [PATCH] internal setarch support for s390/s390x Applied. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: Broken dependencies: perl-Test-AutoBuild
On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 17:06 -0400, Mike McLean wrote: > While certain tools might theoretically be able to look up the matching > srpm, check this data, and enforce it in some way for the built rpms, I > don't believe there is any way to signal such restrictions only for a > sub-package. In any case, such use seems a little fragile and sketchy to me. > > I'm not that familiar with Pungi's capabilities. Can it be told to > special-case situations like this with a config? Hrm, I need to look up what mash does again, as mash does notice and not put ExcludeArch packages (even noarch ones) where they don't belong. But you're right, it may be on an srpm level not a subpackage level. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: Broken dependencies: perl-Test-AutoBuild
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 00:49 -0400, Jens Petersen wrote: > How does that stop perl-Test-AutoBuild-darcs.noarch getting into ppc64 > trees? ExcludeArch -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: Fwd: Broken dependencies: perl-Test-AutoBuild
On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 20:25 -0400, Jens Petersen wrote: > > > Any ideas or thoughts on how to get rid of these new daily warning > mails? (Unfortunately porting ghc to ppc64 is a non-trivial amount of > work and not going to happen any time soon unless someone kindly > volunteers to work on it.) > > Is there a white list or something this can be added to? ifarch the things that depend on it. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: A couple of questions about pungi
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 11:48 -0600, Brian Edginton wrote: > Yes, I have. That set's the product and release information as it > traverses through correctly but doesn't effect the name of the iso, > which is built from a concatenation of iso_basename, version and arch > (pungi.py). In config.py iso_basename is defaulted to 'Fedora' but it > seems there is no practical way to set it from a config or cli. It > looks like some older turn of pungi set iso_basename to name if it was > empty but that has gone away now. Hrm, ok. I know I lost some things when we moved away from a config file. I don't think it's all that unreasonable to set an iso basename to that of name, I'll take a look (or review a patch... :) -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: A couple of questions about pungi
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 11:22 -0600, Brian Edginton wrote: > > 1) With the advent of using a kickstart and/or command lines I cannot > find a way to set iso_basename which defaults to "Fedora" Have you used the --name option? That's what defaults to Fedora. > > 2) I cannot see a way of building an iso with only x86_64 and noarch > rpms, I always seem to get the i386 rpms included. Can I do this with > pungi alone and not have to massage the build before I make the iso? Add an --exclude *.i?86 in the repo lines in the kickstart file. -- Jesse Keating RHCE (http://jkeating.livejournal.com) Fedora Project (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JesseKeating) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) identi.ca (http://identi.ca/jkeating) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: What exactly is 'latest'
On Fri, 2008-09-12 at 17:45 +0100, Bryce wrote: > when I look at latest-by-tag I get kernel-2.6.9-42.32.0.0.4.EL instead > of kernel-2.6.18-8.1.6.0.18.el5 > So I'm wondering if the koji code is simply making a character by > character comparison > > ie it's seeing > 2.6.1 vs > 2.6.9 The last tagged == latest. Koji does not go by n-v-r, precisely so that you could use tagging to back down a version or roll back a version. The last tagged build always wins. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: Pungi kickstart packages - stage2 deps vs instaled pkgs
On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 13:21 +1200, Martin Langhoff wrote: > Perhaps this is by design: the "build tools" dependencies > (anaconda-runtime an friends) which end up in stage2 AFAICS need to be > listed (and their dependencies met) in the main packages listing in > the kickstart file. > > Is there a way to control those package listings separately? As a > (trivial) example, we end up with an anaconda-runtime rpm in the iso, > which we are not interested in... This isn't the case with rawhide pungi. The need to have anaconda in the manifest has been removed. It just has to be available in the repos you are composing against. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: Yum Static Repos
On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 18:34 -0400, Mike McLean wrote: > So, this term 'static-repo' is unfortunate. What folks really mean is > 'slowly changing repo at a convenient location.' One way to get such a > thing is to make a cronjob that periodically copies the current active > repo for a tag to a fixed location. I chose the term as in a "static location to the latest repo". -- Jesse Keating RHCE (http://jkeating.livejournal.com) Fedora Project (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JesseKeating) GPG Public Key (http://geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) identi.ca (http://identi.ca/jkeating) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: mock x86_64 running pungi i368
On Mon, 2008-08-04 at 13:31 -0600, Phil Meyer wrote: > > I have tried to be careful to run as specified. > I attempted to go back through the mailing list, but nothing quite > like this jumped out ... The rpm used to create the buildroot is 64bit, the rpm used inside the buildroot is 32bit. You'll need to remove the cached database files from /var/lib/rpm/__db* inside the chroot. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: Pungi and a minimal F9 - anaconda-runtime/buildinstall errors
On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 12:20 +1200, Martin Langhoff wrote: > 70, in _doRunCommand > raise OSError, "Got an error from %s: %s" % (command[0], err) > OSError: Got an error from /usr/lib/anaconda-runtime/buildinstall: > > installed versions of the relevant tools are - Please check the .log file in your output/logs/ directory, so that you can get the actual output from buildinstall. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: Pungi and F7
On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 12:09 +1200, Martin Langhoff wrote: > - What known limitations does the F7 pungi have? Only that you need to have anaconda-runtime in your manifest, which drags in a pile of dependencies. There are a couple of other compose needs, I think the config shipped with F7 has them listed under a commented section. > - Is it known to build a minimal cli distro installer correctly? Provided the right things are in your manifest, yes. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: pungi repo priorities
On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 04:23 +0100, Sergio Monteiro Basto wrote: > Hi, how I set pungi repo priorities ? > > New pungi on fedora 9, give me an error about repo.priorities is a > NoneType I thought I pushed an update for that. Check with either F9 updates or F9 updates testing. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: Supporting EPEL Builds in Koji
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 18:48 -0400, Mike Bonnet wrote: > This was my first thought as well. However, after discussions with > Jesse, Seth, and James I was convinced otherwise. The yum-priorities > plugin seems very unpopular with yum developers (not quite sure why). I > don't think yum-priorities would give us any way to completely block a > package from local and remote repos, and configuring multiple repos in > the mock config would require Koji to retrieve and parse each remote > repodata to determine the origin of a given remote rpm. Also you wouldn't be able to prioritize at the srpm level which is what we want (no unwanted subpackages sneaking in). -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: Tonight's updates appear to have broken Pungi.
On Jun 14, 2008, at 1:52, "William F. Acker WB2FLW +1-303-722-7209" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
Hi all,
After tonight's updates, I do what I always do, pungify and
post. This time, I got the following.
Pungi.Gather:INFO: Adding repo fedora
Pungi.Gather:INFO: URL for repo fedora is
['http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/releases/9/Everything/x86_64/os/']
Warning: Reusing existing destination directory.
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/bin/pungi", line 189, in
main()
File "/usr/bin/pungi", line 81, in main
mygather = pypungi.gather.Gather(config, ksparser)
File "/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pypungi/gather.py", line
131, in __init__
if repo.priority:
AttributeError: F8_RepoData instance has no attribute 'priority'
Warning: Reusing existing destination directory.
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/bin/pungi", line 189, in
main()
File "/usr/bin/pungi", line 111, in main
mypungi.doCreaterepo(comps=False)
File "/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pypungi/pungi.py", line 137,
in doCreaterepo
self._makeMetadata(self.topdir, self.config.get('default',
'cachedir'), compsfile, repoview=True, repoviewtitle=repoviewtitle)
File "/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/pypungi/pungi.py", line 94,
in _makeMetadata
repomatic = createrepo.MetaDataGenerator(conf)
File "/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/createrepo/__init__.py",
line 119, in __init__
self._test_setup_dirs()
File "/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/createrepo/__init__.py",
line 149, in _test_setup_dirs
raise MDError, _('Directory %s must exist') % mydir
createrepo.utils.MDError: Directory /home/wacker/9/9/source/SRPMS
must exi I'm guessing that it's either yum-utils or
pykickstart. Any ideas
Yeah, pykickstart changes. I'll put out a new pungi early next week.
In the meantime, change "priority" to "cost" in the code.
--
Jes
--
Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list
Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Koji 1.3 release
I've revived the 1.3 milestone in the Koji Trac space ( https://fedorahosted.org/koji/milestone/1.3 ) and triaged all the existing Trac tickets and bugzillas against koji. I've added what I thought was appropriate to target for a 1.3 release in the near future (next 3~ weeks?). Please review and make sure what I've put on there is sane and add anything else reasonable to target for the next couple releases. I hope to get all the code committed in the next couple weeks, freeze/branch the source control and do some release testing and finally make a release for rawhide, F8/F9 updates, and perhaps even EPEL5. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: [PATCH] Add anaconda-runtime to the package list for buildinstall
On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 22:54 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > Revisiting this topic; > > I've got this implemented differently right now; I'm pointing > buildinstall to one or more of the enabled repositories configured, as > it's just using yum with a configuration file that can perfectly point > at baseurls and mirrorlists. This does require some modifications to > buildinstall though, and I'm not sure whether the anaconda guys would > even consider it. > > Attached is a the modified buildinstall script taking multiple --repo > parameters (currently only taking baseurls though). Didn't Will Woods submit a patch shortly after I posted this that allowed for passing multiple repos to buildinstall? -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: Unresolvable deps when building Rawhide.
On Tue, 2008-05-06 at 10:07 -0600, William F. Acker WB2FLW +1-303-722-7209 wrote: > > When I do a Pungi run on an x86_64, I get the following. > Pungi.Gather:WARNING: Unresolvable dependency > jakarta-commons-beanutils-javadoc in checkstyle.noarch > Pungi.Gather:INFO: Added jakarta-commons-beanutils.x86_64 for > checkstyle.noarch > Pungi.Gather:WARNING: Unresolvable dependency antlr-javadoc in > checkstyle.noarch > Pungi.Gather:INFO: Added jdom.x86_64 for checkstyle.noarch > Pungi.Gather:WARNING: Unresolvable dependency xml-commons-apis-javadoc > in checkstyle.noarch > Pungi.Gather:WARNING: Unresolvable dependency ant-javadoc in > checkstyle.noarch > > I believe this is related to the last batch of package > exclusions to > save space that appeared in the fedora-9 ks file with the latest > version > of Pungi. Is this condition OK? Might it be possible for someone to > select the wrong package combination and have a failed installation, > or > would this be caught when dependencies are checked > Hrm, that's odd. I could have sworn the code would allow for the deps to be dragged in if they're asked for. You may have uncovered a bug in pungi code... Can you file this in bugzilla or the pungi trac space? -- Jesse Keating RHCE (jkeating.livejournal.com) Fedora Project (fedoraproject.org/wiki/JesseKeating) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: koji clone-tag?
On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 16:30 -0400, Mike McLean wrote: > I'm pretty sure the F8 updates are sufficient to run koji. I've had an > F8 system running koji development code (hub, client, builder, and > kojira) for a while now. > > $ koji latest-pkg --quiet dist-f8-updates mock yum createrepo python-krbV > mock-0.9.7-2.fc8 dist-f8-updates jcwillia > yum-3.2.8-2.fc8 dist-f8-updates skvidal > createrepo-0.4.11-2.fc8 dist-f8-updates lmacken > python-krbV-1.0.13-6.fc8 dist-f8 mikeb > > Well, ok, I'm cheating a little bit. I previously had to make skip-stat > optional in kojid (change committed on the shadow branch), but that > appears to no longer be necessary since createrepo-0.4.11-2.fc8 has the > skip-stat patch. > > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=32381 Gotcha, now that everything is almost in sync, it would be a good time to do another upstream release and push it to F8 as well. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: koji clone-tag?
On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 11:18 -0400, Mike McLean wrote: > Doug Chapman wrote: > > Ok, appears I have an old version of koji which is odd because I did do > > a "yum update koji" but evidently we don't have this version in the f8 > > repos right now. I will grab the latest rawhide koji and try that. > > Odd. the clone-tag command was added on 2007-07-23. Git has several fc8 > tags, but I don't see matching builds on koji.fp.o. I don't know if I've pushed any koji updates for F-8 since the server side of things changed a lot and may not work with current F-8 toolings. Given that the client is tied to the server it makes it rather hard to do client updates. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: fun with CVS branching
On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 22:19 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > 1) Something weird happened, and all the modules entries pw*-z > got deleted from the modules file halfway through. We get to try > and put them back. Um, yay? The branching is done now, any smooth thoughts on how to recover this before I turn CVS commits back on? > > 2) The modules file, *as it stands now*, is nearly 3MB checked out, > and nearly *1.2GB* under RCS. That can't be good. > > The reason for this is to allow for the creation of pseudo-modules > for each 'branch', i.e., so 'cvs co FC-5' generates a: > > FC-5/bash > FC-5/automake > FC-5/autoconf > ... > > tree, where the FC-5/ directory is the 'normal' > /FC-5 > dir. > > (Note that the 'devel' meta-branch is done in an Entirely Different > manner.) > > So, the question would be... is this worth it? Do we want to keep > supporting this? No, get rid of it. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: [PATCH] Add anaconda-runtime to the package list for buildinstall
On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 13:44 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > Or were you thinking something else? I was. buildinstall recently changed how it works. You no longer point it at a directory of packages, you point it at a yum repo. You can also have it output to a different directory. So my plan, which will take some modification to createrepo (Seth is already aware of this and has it planned), is to use pungi to wire up all the repos configured in the kickstart file and generate a "reference" repo. This repo would be "local" to the file system, use a combined comps grouping (for all the repos that you wish to consider for groupdata (another change coming for pykickstart)), but the repodata itself would have hrefs to the packages locations in the other repos. You get local repodata without having to mirror all the packages. Buildinstall would be pointed at that repo, and it would download (insert caching dances here) the packages it needs in order to make install images. Then (well, still not sure of the step orders) pungi would use it's manifest to create the package trees and insert the produced images into the trees. That's the fairly rough overview. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: [PATCH] Add anaconda-runtime to the package list for buildinstall
On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 10:54 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > > Because pungi doesn't pull in *any* "required" packages, I was reluctant > to submit this patch... It seems that once you go down this road you > will want to catch *all* required packages, like we do in Revisor (and > creates a very, very long list[1]). Yep. I'll be fixing this proper after F9 goes out by removing the dependency of having these compose needs in the manifest. It'll allow fully graphical installers for tiny package sets too. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: [patch] Require createrepo >= 0.4.11
On Thu, 2008-04-17 at 12:50 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > I found pungi does not require createrepo >= 0.4.11, although it needs > that; attached is one of the smallest patches, ever ;-) Thanks, I've applied upstream. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: Mock / Koji issues on EL5
On Wed, 2008-04-16 at 23:37 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > "fasttrack" For more fun and confusion, it's actually 'FasTrack' http://www.redhat.com/rhn/rhndetails/fastrack/ -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: Mock / Koji issues on EL5
On Wed, 2008-04-16 at 18:17 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > On a CentOS 5, up-to-date box, I am running mock-0.9.7-1.el5, and > koji-1.1-2.el5. I could not update to koji-1.2.3-1.el5 because it has a > missing dependency on createrepo >= 0.4.11. The version of createrepo you need is available as a "fastrack" rhel 5 update. I'm not sure if CentOS does anything with those, but that version of createrepo will be in RHEL 5.2. You really really need to be running koji 1.2.3 on RHEL/CentOS5 -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: mock 0.9 backport to F7/F8 -- Feb 1
On Thu, 2008-03-13 at 11:11 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > Do any changes, fixes, etc need to be done for EPEL since they are > basically F-3/F-6? We've been using 0.9.5 on the koji builders for a while now, with great success. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: pungi doesn't run
On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 21:05 -0500, Jeremy Katz wrote: > > One way might be to use the support that now exists in buildinstall to > point at a repository. Then you could be running buildinstall against > the repository you're pulling from and then your pungi'd tree would just > have the packages you care about > Yes, that definitely needs some testing. I'm thinking post-f9 though. -- Jesse Keating RHCE (jkeating.livejournal.com) Fedora Project (fedoraproject.org/wiki/JesseKeating) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: pungi doesn't run
On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 18:13 -0600, Allen Rohner wrote: > Thanks for the help. I'm able to get farther now. It doesn't really > make sense to me why the list is the way it is. Is that truly the > minimal set of packages? Why do we need iscsi-initiator-utils and > vncserver to build a working ISO? This process would be significantly > easier if the (true) minimum set of packages was documented somewhere, > or even better, if pungi warned that you are missing packages X,Y,Z > necessary to get a working build. I would offer to make a patch, but I > don't know what the set is. That depends on if you want to install to iscsi, or support vnc installs. Again, because pungi doesn't split out what you need to compose the install media vs what you have as install choices on the media, the media can get a bit bloaty. I just haven't come up with a good way of expressing one vs the other. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: pungi doesn't run
On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 14:11 -0600, Allen Rohner wrote: > %packages > @base > x86info > postgresql-server > python-sqlalchemy > ruby > ruby-irb > rubygem-rails > mod_python > %end > > Running with the rawhide repository gives the exact same error. This is a very small package set, you need at least a kernel, the anaconda packages and a few other things. See the 'compose needs' section on the shipped kickstart file. Right now, pungi doesn't separate the "things we need to compose" from "things we want in the compose" so you need to add those things into the manifest. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: rebuilding from old cvs tags
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:24:59 + Paul Howarth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've used it after I've done a "make tag" whilst forgetting to commit > changes first, so the tag was applied to the wrong version of the spec > file etc. Force tagging is useful for correcting this error. Couldn't that be solved by making 'make tag' abort if there are unchecked in files in the dir, particularly .spec ? -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours? signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: odd build failures under koji/mock
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 11:19:17 +0100 Michael Schwendt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > thanks, that's the key to reproducing it with non-builtins. if it > expands to existing paths, the quotes are not added in the xtrace. > If, however, the quotes exist in the script, that can not be > concluded from watching only the xtrace. You are correct. I had made an assumption based on what I had just gone through with the kernel issue. I chased the wild goose of quoting for a bit until we realized that xtrace just gets it wrong when outputing when a file isn't found. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours? signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: odd build failures under koji/mock
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 20:21:56 -0500 Doug Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The key here being that "missingfile" does not exist, which was the > root of my original issue. Nod, speaking of that original issue, is it still an issue or was the root cause found? -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours? signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: odd build failures under koji/mock
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 19:54:34 -0500 Doug Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > $ sh -x foo.sh > + cp 'missingfile/*' /tmp > cp: cannot stat `missingfile/*': No such file or directory For completeness, please show 'foo.sh' (: -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours? signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: odd build failures under koji/mock
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 11:17:29 +0100 Michael Schwendt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > + mv > > '/var/tmp/openser-1.3.0-8.fc9-root-mockbuild//usr/lib/openser/perl/*' > > /var/tmp/openser-1.3.0-8.fc9-root-mockbuild//usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/ > > mv: cannot stat > > `/var/tmp/openser-1.3.0-8.fc9-root-mockbuild//usr/lib/openser/perl/*': > > No such file or directory error: Bad exit status > > from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.7626 (%install) > > Does the mv really use the single quotes like that? > Then it's clear why the * doesn't expand. Eh, that's just how bash spits things out if you run it with -x. If you look in the rpm script itself it doesn't have single quotes. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours? signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: odd build failures under koji/mock
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:10:16 -0500 Doug Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > any ideas? If you're running RHEL5 on the builders, it sounds like the tux open flag bug that was recently fixed and released as errata. Please be sure you're running the latest offered RHEL5 kernel. 2.6.18-53.1.6.el5 or later is needed. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours? signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: Local packages
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 08:36:23 -0700
Gary Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm trying to run pungi to create a munged/tailored repository,
> using the official versions of Fedora & Updates. Sadly, it
> seems that the original package always seems to override the
> one with my modifications, e.g.
>xorg-x11-server-1.3.0.0-40.fc8.src.rpm
> is chosen, even when both it and
>xorg-x11-server-1.3.0.0-40_AM.fc8.src.rpm
> are present.
>
> Is there a way to set the version so that my package always
> wins? That way, I can use the 100% official repositories as
> the starting point and only have my little mods.
When you modify the package, just add a .1 after the %{?dist}
declaration.
In your case, if you use rpmdev-vercomp you'll see that contrary to
what you'd think, xorg-x11-server-1.3.0.0-40.fc8 is actually rpm newer
than xorg-x11-server-1.3.0.0-40_AM.fc8:
$ rpmdev-vercmp 0:1.3.0.0-40.fc8 0:1.3.0.0-40_AM.fc8
0:1.3.0.0-40.fc8 is newer
But with a simple '.1' at the end of %{?dist} you get a newer package:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripts]$ rpmdev-vercmp 0:1.3.0.0-40.fc8 0:1.3.0.0-40.fc8.1
0:1.3.0.0-40.fc8.1 is newer
--
All my bits are free, are yours?
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--
Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list
Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: Troubles running pungi
On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 12:58:38 -0700 Gary Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This produced the crash/failure as documented above. Why? If this > isn't to be allowed, at least a reasonable message instead of a > traceback would be preferable. I won't disagree that I should have some error checking around the yum stuff, but the files in a yum repository are checksummed. If you edit the file, you have to re-run createrepo against that file to update the repodata. You've created corrupt repodata, and yum is rightfully balking on it. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours? signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: Both a .buildstamp and .buildstamp_1 ?!?
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:21:56 +0100 Joel Andres Granados <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm pretty sure that the script that puts the stuff in tmp is not > pungi but buildinstall, pungi simply calls buildinstall. > Additionally pungi has its own temp, log directory somewhere, thats > not tmp (AFAIR). buildinstall does purport to supporting a TMPDIR setting, but when I've tried to use that in the past with pungi it's lead to broken composes. It's on my list to investigate and hopefully fix after the Alpha is released. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours? signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: New upstream release of Koji (and a refresh of Fedora builders?)
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 20:32:46 -0600 Dennis Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have no issues with that at all. i would prefer we do it so we are > not carrying patches. Id like to see the patches that i submitted > included also. It will help in secondary arch ramp up over the next > couple of weeks https://fedorahosted.org/koji/changeset/6feae640c291ae24de8e855b8564ff786527dcb9 ? Where there others as of yet not committed? -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours? signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
New upstream release of Koji (and a refresh of Fedora builders?)
I'd like to do a new upstream release of koji soon, to take advantage of createrepo improvements and to have a release with some of the bugfixes that I've found since our refresh to RHEL5/new mock. The builders are locally patched for the bugfixes but I'd rather have them in a package. Any objections to doing a release next week and scheduling an evening to roll out upgrades? A small outage will be needed on the hub, and then the builders can have a rolling outage. There are no significant changes that would require much coordination. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours? signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: help with pungi error: no attribute 'F8_Bootloader'
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:48:00 -0500 Doug Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anybody know what this means? This is from pungi on my ia64 rawhide > build. I didn't see anything too odd in the log file before it hit > this error. Since this is all quite experimental I am not sure if > this is something I have set up wrong or possibly I have tripped over > an anacona regression? > > > Pungi.Pungi.INFO: > Running /usr/lib/anaconda-runtime/pkgorder /tmp/test/8.1/ia64/os ia64 > Packages > Pungi.Pungi.ERROR: Got an error > from /usr/lib/anaconda-runtime/pkgorder Pungi.Pungi.ERROR: Traceback > (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib/anaconda-runtime/pkgorder", > line 45, in from yuminstall import YumSorter > File "/usr/lib/anaconda/yuminstall.py", line 42, in > from backend import AnacondaBackend > File "/usr/lib/anaconda/backend.py", line 31, in > import kickstart > File "/usr/lib/anaconda/kickstart.py", line 149, in > class Bootloader(commands.bootloader.F8_Bootloader): > AttributeError: 'module' object has no attribute 'F8_Bootloader' Sounds like you need a newer pykickstart, and possibly a newer anaconda. However the pykickstart from today's rawhide is broken, you'll want the build done in koji after that. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours? signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: output of buildinstall from pungi?
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:44:20 -0500 Doug Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am still hacking away at my ia64 builds. Occasionally pungi will > fail because something went wrong when it runs buildinstall (such as a > package missing). The only way I have found to see what went wrong is > to re-run the buildinstall command manually. > > I don't see it in the pungi man page but is there an option to not > hide this output? Is it being logged someplace? If this > functionality does not exist perhaps I could see about implementing > it (I am by no means a python programmer but no time like the present > to learn). > > Also, I notice it passes --quiet to several other programs it uses. > Might be good to have a debug option to see output from those also > when things are not going well. There is a log file in our destdir/logs/ directory. It's quite verbose as it is. Please let me know if you find anything missing there. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours? signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: [Patch] add BUILD_FLAGS support to make scratch-build
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 11:30:59 +0100 Till Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > do you manage the patches in a way that this will not be forgotten or > do I have to remind you about this every now and then? Looks like Dennis Gilmore applied this patch today. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours? signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
[PATCH] Revert to getfile urls if the task is not successful (closed).
This is needed because unless the task is closed, the log files won't
be in the packages/ tree, and the email will reference 404 urls.
---
builder/kojid |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/builder/kojid b/builder/kojid
index f4b7509..c03af74 100755
--- a/builder/kojid
+++ b/builder/kojid
@@ -2118,7 +2118,10 @@ Build Info: %(weburl)s/buildinfo?buildID=%(build_id)i\r
if filetype == 'rpms':
output += " %s\r\n" %
'/'.join([options.pkgurl, build['name'], build['version'], build['release'],
task['build_arch'], file])
elif filetype == 'logs':
-output += " %s\r\n" %
'/'.join([options.pkgurl, build['name'], build['version'], build['release'],
'data', 'logs', task['build_arch'], file])
+if tasks[task_state] != 'closed':
+output += "
%s/getfile?taskID=%s&name=%s\r\n" % (weburl, task['id'], file)
+else:
+output += " %s\r\n" %
'/'.join([options.pkgurl, build['name'], build['version'], build['release'],
'data', 'logs', task['build_arch'], file])
elif task[filetype] == 'misc':
output += "
%s/getfile?taskID=%s&name=%s\r\n" % (weburl, task['id'], file)
output += "\r\n"
--
1.5.3.8
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
From 51e2d69f9eac235bd5dfa4760aa5c2f3f3eec5ba Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jesse Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 10:46:02 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] Revert to getfile urls if the task is not successful (closed).
This is needed because unless the task is closed, the log files won't
be in the packages/ tree, and the email will reference 404 urls.
---
builder/kojid |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/builder/kojid b/builder/kojid
index f4b7509..c03af74 100755
--- a/builder/kojid
+++ b/builder/kojid
@@ -2118,7 +2118,10 @@ Build Info: %(weburl)s/buildinfo?buildID=%(build_id)i\r
if filetype == 'rpms':
output += " %s\r\n" % '/'.join([options.pkgurl, build['name'], build['version'], build['release'], task['build_arch'], file])
elif filetype == 'logs':
-output += " %s\r\n" % '/'.join([options.pkgurl, build['name'], build['version'], build['release'], 'data', 'logs', task['build_arch'], file])
+if tasks[task_state] != 'closed':
+output += " %s/getfile?taskID=%s&name=%s\r\n" % (weburl, task['id'], file)
+else:
+output += " %s\r\n" % '/'.join([options.pkgurl, build['name'], build['version'], build['release'], 'data', 'logs', task['build_arch'], file])
elif task[filetype] == 'misc':
output += " %s/getfile?taskID=%s&name=%s\r\n" % (weburl, task['id'], file)
output += "\r\n"
--
1.5.3.8
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--
Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list
Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: [Patch] add BUILD_FLAGS support to make scratch-build
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 20:48:53 +0100 Till Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From Makefile.common: The only occurence of KOJI_FLAGS: > BUILD_FLAGS ?= $(shell echo $(KOJI_FLAGS)) Ah right. I use KOJI_FLAGS with things like make build, I haven't tried it with scratch. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours? signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: [Patch] add BUILD_FLAGS support to make scratch-build
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 19:39:18 +0100 Till Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hiyas, > > The scratch build target does not respect the BUILD_FLAGS variable, > that is repected for make build. This patch changes this and makes it > possible to use, e.g.: > make scratch-build BUILD_FLAGS=--nowait That's what KOJI_FLAGS are for. KOJI_FLAGS="--nowait" make scratch-build -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours? signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: [PATCH] Create the dev/full device, some packages use it during make check.
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 15:09:21 -0600 Michael E Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Looks fine to me to push. Pushed. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours? signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: [PATCH] Create the dev/full device, some packages use it during make check.
On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 11:02:40 -0500 Mike Bonnet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Shouldn't that be os.makedev(1, 7)? > > $ ls -la /dev/full > crw-rw-rw- 1 root root 1, 7 2007-12-29 17:34 /dev/full Good catch. I blindly copied from the /dev/null only looking at the permissions. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours? From 99cb911d9a4c5c9f80646347fcd4352f9deafbb0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jesse Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 11:52:54 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] use the right mkdev argument --- py/mock/backend.py |2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/py/mock/backend.py b/py/mock/backend.py index a65267b..135a591 100644 --- a/py/mock/backend.py +++ b/py/mock/backend.py @@ -267,7 +267,7 @@ class Root(object): prevMask = os.umask() devFiles = ( (stat.S_IFCHR | 0666, os.makedev(1, 3), "dev/null"), -(stat.S_IFCHR | 0666, os.makedev(1, 3), "dev/full"), +(stat.S_IFCHR | 0666, os.makedev(1, 7), "dev/full"), (stat.S_IFCHR | 0666, os.makedev(1, 5), "dev/zero"), (stat.S_IFCHR | 0666, os.makedev(1, 8), "dev/random"), (stat.S_IFCHR | 0444, os.makedev(1, 9), "dev/urandom"), -- 1.5.3.7 signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
Re: [PATCH] Create the dev/full device, some packages use it during make check.
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 09:43:59 -0500 Jesse Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There are a few packages which use /dev/full to generate nospace left > or other such return values for the use in make check. We should > create that in mock. Here is a simple patch that adds it. Actually I should say that this is for review I already have this committed in my local clone, I was just looking for approval to push it upstream. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours? signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
[PATCH] Create the dev/full device, some packages use it during make check.
There are a few packages which use /dev/full to generate nospace left or other such return values for the use in make check. We should create that in mock. Here is a simple patch that adds it. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours? From 326eff18721c5e95a2c94556e363d3e8beec1eca Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jesse Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 09:40:41 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] Create the dev/full device, some packages use it during make check. --- py/mock/backend.py |1 + 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/py/mock/backend.py b/py/mock/backend.py index d4d0eb4..a65267b 100644 --- a/py/mock/backend.py +++ b/py/mock/backend.py @@ -267,6 +267,7 @@ class Root(object): prevMask = os.umask() devFiles = ( (stat.S_IFCHR | 0666, os.makedev(1, 3), "dev/null"), +(stat.S_IFCHR | 0666, os.makedev(1, 3), "dev/full"), (stat.S_IFCHR | 0666, os.makedev(1, 5), "dev/zero"), (stat.S_IFCHR | 0666, os.makedev(1, 8), "dev/random"), (stat.S_IFCHR | 0444, os.makedev(1, 9), "dev/urandom"), -- 1.5.3.7 signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
