With e.g.:
repo --name=rawhide --baseurl=http://foo
%packages
%end
You get:
OSError: Got an error from /usr/lib/anaconda-runtime/buildinstall:
and trying out the buildinstall command directly, you see:
Running buildinstall...
No Match for argument anaconda-runtime
Nothing to dow
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 v
Mark McLoughlin wrote:
With e.g.:
repo --name=rawhide --baseurl=http://foo
%packages
%end
You get:
OSError: Got an error from /usr/lib/anaconda-runtime/buildinstall:
and trying out the buildinstall command directly, you see:
Running buildinstall...
No Match for argument anaconda
Jesse Keating wrote:
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
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
We are working on building a beta release of our ia64 F9 bits. I have
been digging through the wiki for general release engineering processes
and found this:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ReleaseEngineering/SOP/FreezingRawhide?highlight=%28ReleaseEngineering/SOP/%29
which shows using the comman
On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 20:54 -0400, Doug Chapman wrote:
> We are working on building a beta release of our ia64 F9 bits. I have
> been digging through the wiki for general release engineering processes
> and found this:
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ReleaseEngineering/SOP/FreezingRawhide?highl
On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 22:06 -0400, Mike Bonnet wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 20:54 -0400, Doug Chapman wrote:
> > We are working on building a beta release of our ia64 F9 bits. I have
> > been digging through the wiki for general release engineering processes
> > and found this:
> >
> > http://
Two things from this mass branching that showed up:
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?
2) The modules file, *as it stands now*, is nearly 3MB checked out,
and nearly *1.2GB* un
> "BN" == Bill Nottingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BN> So, the question would be... is this worth it? Do we want to keep
BN> supporting this?
I can't see how it's all that useful. And given that this is the kind
of weirdness that's going to be difficult to emulate using some other
version
Bill Nottingham wrote:
Two things from this mass branching that showed up:
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?
2) The modules file, *as it stands now*, is nearly 3MB checked o
On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 22:19 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> So, the question would be... is this worth it? Do we want to keep
> supporting this?
Is the fact that you can check out e.g. "FC-5" even *documented*
anywhere? I don't recall having come across it, but then again I am a
skimmer.
--
Igna
On 21 Apr 2008 21:35:01 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > "BN" == Bill Nottingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> BN> So, the question would be... is this worth it? Do we want to keep
> BN> supporting this?
>
> I can't see how it's all that useful. And given that this is the kind
>
13 matches
Mail list logo
